2017 camaro vs 2011 cruze?

[Hersbird]

You know that 3.6 May do really well. With the better gearing combined with direct injection, cylinder deactivation, VVT,and auto start/stop. It's the new LGX 3.6 as of 2016.

I get 1441 rpm at 65 mph with the 8 speed and the 3.6

[Hersbird]

I take back everything I said. Get the Cruise diesel. I see the manual version pulled 77.7 mpg in the old style highway EPA test. That is most like how a hypermiler would drive but not even as good as possible. As a comparison the best Camaro is the 2.0 auto at 43.8 mpg, and the best gas Cruise is the 1.4 auto at 59.2 mpg. The other car to get 77.7 is the Prius Eco. The Ioniq Blue beats them all with a 79.1 mpg.

[ProDigit]

Swapping the transmission of the 3.6 liter with the 2.0 liter seems a good start!
(or swapping the 3.6 engine with a 2,0).
First gear will still be ok.
Most of the time, if you can start in 2nd gear with stock gears, there will be no problem.

A VW beetle, with only 45HP and 4 gears, is a lot harder to start from a dead stop.

It's got plenty of torque down low, and the car is very light. should be possible to do...

You'd think that this is a popular swap, since most people want faster acceleration (which the 2.0 transmission would offer).

[pete c]

Stop pretending it makes financial sense to get rid of the cruze.

It doesn't, assuming it is a reliable car.

You want the Camaro because it is fun and looks cool. I rented one in Vegas in december. I was thoroughly impressed. The 3.6 V-6 with the 8 speed auto with paddle shifers is an awesome drivetrain. My wife has a '12 V-6 6 speed 'stang. That new Camaro has it all over the Mustang. Smoother, makes its power at lower revs and that Camaro was the best handling car I ever drove, by a pretty wide margin.

I have one complaint.

You are sitting in a cave.

The door sills are about neck high. And I have a very long torso, with short legs. Someone with a short torso would need a damn periscope to drive that thing.

If you want to cruise the vegas strip, windows down, arm hanging out the window, looking cool, this is not the car for you. You will dislocate your shoulder.

If you want to stay up in the canyons, chasing guys on their sport bikes, this is the car.

After 2 days in the Camaro we decided that we were doing more of the former than the latter and we drove it back to the airport and traded it for a 4cylinder ecoboost ragtop Mustang. Much better at cruising the strip, much worse at canyon carving.

If I was in the market for one of these and lived in a warm climate, I'd get a ragtop V-6 Camaro. I haven't driven their 6 speed manual, so I would likely go with it, but that 8 speed paddle shifter was pretty damn sweet.

As for mileage, I am sure the Camaro has the ability to make good numbers. The trouble is, the entire time you are driving it, it is whispering in your ear "screw mileage, let's play!!!". I was on vacation and was all about playing.

[ennored]

Originally Posted by pete c

Stop pretending it makes financial sense to get rid of the cruze.

Like the couple I saw on one of the home renovation shows who were getting rid of their bed frame so they could buy one made from recycled materials.


I've also spent a good amount of time in V6 and V8 Camaros. I don't have the miles that I do in the LTG though. In rough numbers I'd say the V6 is a 5 MPG hit, and the V8 10, compared to the LTG on the highway.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Even though it's not impossible at all to take some good mileage figures from that 4-cyl Camaro, nobody can deny that it has some design features that make it inherently less efficient than the Cruze. A heavier platform, with a heavier driveline which also adds more friction, and bigger, heavier tyres which are also likely to increase rolling resistence. But anyway, that's still cool-looking.

[pete c]

I haven't driven the turbo 4 camaro, so I can not speak from experience, but after driving that V-6, I can't imagine going with the 4. The 4 may get an extra mpg or two, but I doubt it. The 4 likely does have a taste for high octane. The V-6 is happy on 87. It really is a world class engine. The mustang 3.7 V-6 is a decent enough engine, but the chevy puts it to shame. Smoother, with more linear power delivery. As much as the chevy LS is an awesome engine despite its prehistoric valvetrain, I would like to see chevy tack a few more pots onto the 3.6. It would be an amazing engine.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by pete c

I haven't driven the turbo 4 camaro, so I can not speak from experience, but after driving that V-6, I can't imagine going with the 4. The 4 may get an extra mpg or two, but I doubt it. The 4 likely does have a taste for high octane. The V-6 is happy on 87. It really is a world class engine. The mustang 3.7 V-6 is a decent enough engine, but the chevy puts it to shame. Smoother, with more linear power delivery. As much as the chevy LS is an awesome engine despite its prehistoric valvetrain, I would like to see chevy tack a few more pots onto the 3.6. It would be an amazing engine.

Actually they do have a twin trubo version the LF3, just not in the Camaro. That would definitely steal sales from the V8 model as would the 3.5 Raptor engine put in a Mustang. Probably why they don't do it.

[ProDigit]

The Camaro is about the same weight as a Cruze, both about 3300LBS.

I know when I have an itch for something, all I have to do, is be patient. In a few years, I'll have more $$$, and be able to buy something, that won't depreciate as much.

Btw, I'm 6'4", so I don't think the doors would be in my way.
I thought heir seats go up/down?

[ksa8907]

I agree 100% with pete c. I test drove a 2010 camaro with the v6 and 6 speed manual because i thought thats what i wanted. You can't see **** out of it. I didn't even feel comfortable parking it when i got back to the lot. It was quite fun though, plenty of power.