2016 Camaro

mndsm wrote: Y'all are some picky mothers. Rwd? Check. Turbo? Check. Manual? Check. Base model? Check! They may not be aiming the turbo motor at the enthusiasts, but goddammit, this is the car people keep asking for.

Not me. I want 14-15" wheels and 1000kg. I also don't believe manual transmissions and turbos mix - turbos love automatics and if you have a manual trans, why do you need a turbo?

I can't stress enough how much better (less intrusive) turbo cars drive when the engine is attached to a transmission that has a torque converter that allows the engine to instantly come up to its boost-onset range, and allows you to drive without lifting off the throttle for upshifts.

I do like that the V6 isn't stuck with a 'penalty box' options list, just to push the so-called "eco" option.

Knurled wrote: if you have a manual trans, why do you need a turbo?

because whaaaaaaaa pshhhhhhh, whaaaaaaaaa pshhhhhhhh, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa pshhhhhhhhhh.

So throw the boost away when you let off the throttle... got it

Yeah I am a big member of the "no recirc valves" camp. Let the turbo giggle.

I wonder if the engine will be popular enough for HPTuners to work with the PCM and add features like antilag, which should be downright trivial to accomplish with drive by wire and direct injection. Time the fuel injection to happen during the exhaust stroke instead of during the compression stroke, open the throttle a bunch, bang bang. Then it's okay to have a manual trans with a turbo

I think it looks great! It looks like a modern sports coupe, which can't be said about the '16 Mustang (and just looks better in general). It also looks better than some renderings, IMO. I wonder if they're going to increase the price of the V8 version since they're offering 3 engines. The key is if it handles better than the new Mustang, especially since the Mustang has the new IRS (finally).

Looks a lot like the new Mustang to me with Camaro rear fenders. I'm glad to see that it is lighter, but if I was in the market for a new car I don't think I'd go look at these.

In reply to Knurled: I autocrossed a '12 Golf R and it's ok; It wouldn't have been better with an auto (IMO) and I also autocrossed an '08 335d. The 335d NEEDED a manual trans.

I know, I know, turbodiesel, but still.

IME the only thing a 335d needs is a trip to the shred-o-matic, for to be turned into little granules of failure.

But then I hate diesels with a passion. They have no redeeming qualities as a passenger car engine.

So what I like- the movement to a compact car platform. That's where this all started back in '64 when a cool coupe body was put on a small falcon. That is a good thing.

I know the Turbo motor is heavily influenced by the want to sell the car in Europe (we all don't live in a vacuum, afterall). That, too, is a good thing.

For those who dismiss a car for it's base engine, I constantly wonder why. Unless you think that the original I6 mustang 3 speed was some kind of magical car.

This car is clearly a good thing for car people.

Knurled, this motor is already tried trued and tested. A tune, intake, and downpipe is good for 380hp everything else stock. It has a lot more headroom than the ecoboost 2.3L from what I can tell (550hp on stock injectors and high pressure pump).

I am positively excited for this, and since it is a Camaro, the aftermarket will be mind blowing right off the hop AND inexpensive.

For comparison, the genesis 2.0T DI motor runs out of fuel at 370chp.

If I were to buy a new one, I couldn't afford a V8. I don't know if I could do a 4cyl in a Camaro, yes, I'm a cylinder snob. Having driven the current generation Camaro with a V6 manual combination, I found it had adequate power to have some fun. And it made good noises with a louder exhaust. I'll take that and 200lbs less weight. But I'm not going to be buying a new one.

I heard rumors this one was going to be styled after the 70.5 body style. Looks mildly generic to me, but I love the engine choices.

HiTempguy wrote: Knurled, this motor is already tried trued and tested. A tune, intake, and downpipe is good for 380hp everything else stock. It has a lot more headroom than the ecoboost 2.3L from what I can tell (550hp on stock injectors and high pressure pump). I am positively excited for this, and since it is a Camaro, the aftermarket will be mind blowing right off the hop AND inexpensive. For comparison, the genesis 2.0T DI motor runs out of fuel at 370chp.

That's just great. What's the response like? That is the important question. That is why I tout automatics for turbos, they don't care about response because you can just tweak them so you're never in an unresponsive part of the turbo map. I've seen a 500rpm difference in stall speed make a 5psi difference in "right now" boost.

It makes 225 torques almost immediately (1500rpm), and then ramps up to 295 torques at 3000rpm. That's better than a lot of older small block chevies!

Now, the big turbo monster 550hp and 450tq makes peak torque at 4500rpm, but it also is making that same 300 torques at 3000rpm. Direct injection and twin scroll turbos rock!

Meh, my 13B makes 1500 torques at idle.

Boring

mndsm wrote: Y'all are some picky mothers. Rwd? Check. Turbo? Check. Manual? Check. Base model? Check! They may not be aiming the turbo motor at the enthusiasts, but goddammit, this is the car people keep asking for. And its gonna be cheapish, probably available by the truckload (rental car special!) And as hitempguy kindly pointed out, will make v8 chewing levels of power for comparatively little green. And probably get 30mpg. Why y'all gotta hate? This thing is the first camaro to be excited about since they brought it back.

because seeing where you are going is important...or maybe they let Stevie Wonder design it. Would explain the lack of outward visibility and the front.

I keep seeing people say a little smaller...where? They admit the exterior changes are body only. The interior was cramped for as large as it is/was. The trunk was a great size but the opening was a joke. (See Dr. Who shrunk Tardis episode. Very good representation) Powertrain is where the Camaro has always had a flicker of brilliance. RWD turbo manual is great. But even with the bazillion HP turbo kit someone mentioned, the engine goes out of warranty, will have the life span of a Gen 2 Viper water pump and lag that you will have to measure with human evolution.

The Mustang is fat, this thing is morbidly obese. Chop weight, keep the layout. At 3000 with a base manual turbo this would be an interesting proposition that I would fully get behind. I would just install a periscope and park it so I wouldn't have to see the front of the car.

The nice thing is the new Miata shows that it can be done, at a reasonable price point, and even without GM volume for costs.

As it is, GM did a tertiary flyby on what everyone was talking about, not actually understanding what everyone was wanting. Camaro buyers will buy it, with one or two converts. The Mustang with the IRS will win a greater percentage of new buyers because of global appeal. Other than that, pony cars as usual.

Listening boys? We like the cars but stop putting competent dynamic bits on the U.S.S. Nimitz and trying to pass it as a sports car.

patgizz wrote:

Knurled wrote: if you have a manual trans, why do you need a turbo?

because whaaaaaaaa pshhhhhhh, whaaaaaaaaa pshhhhhhhh, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa pshhhhhhhhhh.

To be a Evo/WRX squidy with a domestic badge, thats why

So much hate! They are 100lbs heavier than a 4th gen, and just comparing interiors alone id give up 100lbs...im excited to see them on the streets and maybe in 20 years I can pull the turbo 4s that are all over junkyards and put it in my miata.

chiodos wrote: So much hate! They are 100lbs heavier than a 4th gen, and just comparing interiors alone id give up 100lbs...

Say what? My 4th Gen Camaro weighed 3400Lbs. This pig is 3750-4200 depending on engine and trim.

moparman76_69 wrote: Looks better than the 2016 Mustang.

We call that damning with faint praise. But I agree, that seems pretty accurate.

But then again, not being a gangster or a pimp, I like side windows big enough to see out of. Especially if there is a huge C post! And being able to look out the rear view mirror for John Law isn't a bad idea for a GRM driver either.

In reply to Javelin:

That was the quoted weight of the outgoing model. A simple google search of "2016 camaro curb weight" reveals a blip from autoweek that says the car will weigh 3500-3700lbs.

Flight Service wrote: But even with the bazillion HP turbo kit someone mentioned, the engine goes out of warranty

No it doesn't. Do you not know or understand how warranties work? And the LTG doesn't have any problems as far as I know.

Also, the Miata is not a reasonable price point for what you get IMO, its $26kUS before tax, $31kcdn. And the new DI motor have practically ZERO ways to ever add power, what you get is what you get.

I'm expecting a base Camaro to start around $23kUS. A ecoboost mushtang is $25kUS, but it is not a "base" model. $28kcdn for teh ecoboost. And the new mustang is so girly looking, I'd rather have a new Miata over it.

In reply to HiTempguy:

Whoa, never thought id hear someone say a mustang is too girly, rather have a miata.

chiodos wrote: In reply to Javelin: That was the quoted weight of the outgoing model. A simple google search of "2016 camaro curb weight" reveals a blip from autoweek that says the car will weigh 3500-3700lbs.

A quick Google showed the '66 Mustang at 2,445 pounds. I couldn't handily find a listed weight for the early Camaros. However I think any company with the technology staff of GM or Ford should still be able to produce a decent pony car weighing under 3,000 pounds!