Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com - View Single Post

O2BQIK · 03-31-2009, 08:08 PM

In my '98 Camaro SS with twin turbos, I got around 15 to 18 mpg on a tank, depending on how much highway time and how much I got my foot into it. If I cruised on the highway with a tail-wind for the entire tank of gas I could hit 21 mpg. That was with upgraded (30 lb/hr) fuel injectors. The gearing on the 4th gens was not much different from the 2010 and the motor is similar, so I'd guess that would be a reasonable expectation for a turbo setup on a 2010, but there are a lot of variables.

And as stated above, if reduced fuel mileage would be a concern for you, you probably should not be looking at forced induction. I can guarantee you that the initial cost will not be the last money you spend on it. Some part will break, it will need retuning, something. Forced induction = $$

03-31-2009, 08:08 PM	#4
O2BQIK Drives: 1991 Camaro RS Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Dallas area Posts: 596	In my '98 Camaro SS with twin turbos, I got around 15 to 18 mpg on a tank, depending on how much highway time and how much I got my foot into it. If I cruised on the highway with a tail-wind for the entire tank of gas I could hit 21 mpg. That was with upgraded (30 lb/hr) fuel injectors. The gearing on the 4th gens was not much different from the 2010 and the motor is similar, so I'd guess that would be a reasonable expectation for a turbo setup on a 2010, but there are a lot of variables. And as stated above, if reduced fuel mileage would be a concern for you, you probably should not be looking at forced induction. I can guarantee you that the initial cost will not be the last money you spend on it. Some part will break, it will need retuning, something. Forced induction = $$ __________________ 2010 Camaro SS in black/beige: Sold. \| '91 Camaro RS: Still the dream car! '98 Camaro SS: Incon twin turbo. Sold \| '99 Camaro SS: Heads/cam/bolt-ons. Sold.