Was reading a review of the 2016 4-cyl Camaro:

"I'll leave you with a closing tidbit courtesy of Chevrolet: The four-cylinder Camaro is just as quick to 60 MPH as the 1970 Chevelle SS454, which was one of GM's most potent muscle cars. And the Camaro does it with half the number of cylinders, each of which is about half the size of the Chevelle's."

Know modern day horsepower is up and engines are so different now, but still made me do this

 

Apparently there is a replacement for displacement.

 

Yeah but it still sounds like four hamsters running in a wheel

 

umn, dont know if it realy is a 4 banger. My new Tahoe is a 2016 4 cyl.... but its a 380hp v-8.

 

It's a D.O.D, motor same as my 5.3 Silverado

Pat

 

Wonder what the weight difference is. Don't they say for every 100 lbs you take off you gain 1/10 sec. In the 1/4 mile.
Railguy

 

I bet the Camaro is 200 lbs lighter. Still, crazy performance from a four.

What's interesting about the Camaro is that Chevrolet considers the four the base motor, while Ford's four is the first step up from the six.

 

3395 to 3685 lbs for the 2016 camaro. Maybe 2-300 less?

 

I find that hard to believe. I would think that the engine would weigh 100 -200 pounds lighter."Chevelle has a full frame.
Railguy

 

I googled it, it has to be true.

 

[QUOTE=oldspackrat;903667]I googled it, it has to be true. [/QUOT

I believe it. A lot of the new cars are heavier then their old versions because there is so much "stuff" In them to make them more comfortable, efficient and safer. I'd still rather have the old muscle though.

 

I bet the

F70 x 14/B Bias Belted Ply White Lettered Blackwall on the Chevelle did something to hamper it's scoot to 60 when compared to the Goodyear Eagle Sport All-Season tires in size 245/50R18 on that Camaro.

 

[QUOTE=RROLDSX;903709]Could be just seems to me a unibody would be way lighter . Also if it was quicker in the 1/4 they would have said that . I think the big block would pull ahead in the 1/4. I think the 4 cylinder with trans would weigh less than a big block.
railguy

 

Yeah kinda depressing when the reality sets in that the Wife's Outback could probably smoke the W30.

Haha. Oh well.

My CTS-V spoiled it all anyway......

Guess it's OK, my passion for the old cars was never really about how fast they were anyway. Good thing.

 

Yes, the new Camaro has a turbo 2.0 liter four cylinder. Yes, it is quicker than a BBC Chevelle. There are three fundamental differences between the two.

1) Significantly improved engine technology that increases HP/liter. This includes cylinder head design (4 valve DOHC), fuel and spark management, internal friction reduction, etc.

2) Significantly improved gearing. The Chevelle likely had a Muncie with a 2.20:1 first gear and 3.42 or 3.73 final drive. The new Camaro has a 4.40:1 first gear and a 3.27 final drive. That's 8.2:1 effective first gear ratio vs. 14.4:1. Almost twice as steep gearing off the line and with six speeds the driveline is matched to the power curve of the engine.

3) Significantly improved traction. I'm guessing the Chevelle numbers were based on period magazine tests with skinny OEM bias ply tires. There's also the solid axle vs. IRS difference, not to mention weight distribution.

Now, if you could apply all this modern technology to a big block, you'd have, oh. a new Viper ACR.

 

I don't doubt that it's faster. I find the weight difference hard to believe . If I was going to spend the money on a new Camaro If I couldn't get get a V8 I'd pass. Might as well get something half the size that would beat it.
railguy

 

Don't confuse "faster" with "quicker". The article claims the 2.0T Camaro is QUICKER 0-60. Given the gearing and tires. I certainly believe that. There is no mention of how fast either one goes (though I suspect the Camaro also has a higher top speed, given the OD trans and superior aerodynamics).

 

Here are the new Camaro specs per displacement:http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/...14-camaro.html

Pat

 

They are impressive performance numbers for each powerplant, however if I was buying a Camaro for myself, I would want the V8. I want the exhaust note and the torque that only a V8 delivers.

 

And the new Camaro/4 gets 30mpg or better highway.

Lets face it. Todays comparable cars are heavier, quicker, and faster than the muscle cars of old. 30+years ago when I bought my first "used" muscle car, I did it because it was the quickest car (back in the day) and cost very little to own.

Its only nostalgia now that keeps muscle cars alive.

 

However, there is no substitute for the older cars, their place in history, their stories, their sound, and their simplicity. I'll take something that you don't see everyday over something I can go to a dealer and find a dozen of times the amount of dealers in the city...

 

Ive never seen the MPG on the sticker be close to what it really was.If it says 30 then probably 25 on a good day.
When I said faster I meant Quicker .
railguy

 

Clearly new cars can leave classic musclecars in the dust. I just don't want one. Between the antiseptic driving experience and electronic nannyism, there's no way I'd ever own one.

 

Go big inch displacement or go home! No replacement for .....and the sound is truly music. Not so with anything less that 8 jugs n slugs.

 

Amen brother!