3.5 ecoboost is a killer engine. I'm thinking of getting one in an exploder, not sure if the extra power and awd that I really don't need are worth the extra cost and 6 mpg less. Even the 2.3 ecoboost is a monster, I read that ford had to drop some horsepower to make the EPA happy. It's an easy 400hp alldAy everyday engine.

I have the 3.5 Ecoboost in my wife's Flex. It's definitely fast with 360hp. It doesn't get great mileage though. She averages about 16.5mpg, which is V8 territory.

If you can get a small V8, like the 5.0, I'd recommend that over the 3.5EB

Wow that's lower than I thought it would get. I don't need it to be fast, I'm building a supercharged 5.4 mustang for that.

As the proud owner of a 1969, 425 hp convertible I am appalled that Chevy is putting a 4 cylinder, turbo or not in a Camaro.

For Christs sake man, IT'S A MUSCLE CAR

I have the 3.5 Ecoboost in my wife's Flex. It's definitely fast with 360hp. It doesn't get great mileage though. She averages about 16.5mpg, which is V8 territory.

If you can get a small V8, like the 5.0, I'd recommend that over the 3.5EB

2-liter turbo four-cylinder with 275 hp and 295 lb-ft

1) Agreed that a proper muscle car should have a proper V8 in it.

That said...

2) The amount of power they're squeezing out of small displacement factory engines these days is pretty astonishing. Imagine showing those numbers to an automotive enthusiast 30 years ago in the dark days of the 80's.

That turbo 4 has the same power as the grand national did, that was the whoa shit car back then. The 80's really sucked.

1. 1975 Corvette Base
In 1974 it was still possible to get a Corvette with a big block, 270-hp, "LS4" 454-cubic-inch V8. And even the base 350-cubic-inch (5.7-liter) small-block V8 was still gross rated at 250 hp. But when the 1975 Corvette came along, the big block was gone and the base "ZQ3" 350 had lost a half point of compression and gained a catalytic converter, which dropped its output to a paltry 165 hp.

That's right. Most 1975 Corvettes had engines that made only 165 hp. That's 32 less than the base 2.5-liter four in a 2013 Malibu sedan

3. 1980 Corvette 305
In general, 1980 was a lousy year. Inflation was rampant, the economy was in the doldrums and the Corvette was awful. But in California it was doubly awful, as Chevrolet that year gave up trying to certify the Corvette's 350-cubic-inch V8 for that state's more stringent emissions requirements. So if you wanted a new Corvette that year in Los Angeles or San Francisco or Sacramento, you had to settle for one with a 305-cubic-inch V8 and a three-speed automatic transmission. That's right: a lousy, lazy 180-hp, 5.0-liter lump of small-block agony. It couldn't pull out a dangling baby tooth.

The rest of the country wasn't getting anything special in '80 either. After all, the base "L48" 350 was only rated at 190 hp and opting for the "L82" high-performance version only netted 230 hp. It was a year that sucked.

These 200-300 horsepower numbers are fun to throw around. Even amusing when they approach mid to high 3's.

Then you look at the AMG Mercedes line up for, well, pretty much the last 10 years. IMO, this is your modern day muscle car. Rear wheel drive. Mix of sedan and coupe. Not necessarily sports cars, just plain beasts.

Wow that's lower than I thought it would get. I don't need it to be fast, I'm building a supercharged 5.4 mustang for that.

HP numbers are for advertising.

Look at the torque. They are getting high numbers with small displacement engines that they wind the shit out of it, and turbos with nothing on the low side… That car will have turbo lag like you wouldn't believe unless it's up around 4000 RPM, just wait