Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
SMGSS
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > General Camaro Forums > 2016 Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro forum, news, rumors, discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-17-2013, 09:31 AM   #1
Z51Stingray
Disabled Veteran
 
Z51Stingray's Avatar
 
Drives: '14 Z51 Stingray, '13 Malibu 2LT
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Undisclosed Bunker Somewhere in Iowa
Posts: 459
MPG for 6th Gen?

Have there been any numbers for mileage expectations for the 6th Gen?

I don't understand why we can make a microchip so small it can fit on the head of a pin, but we can't make V8 400+ hp engines that get can 40+ mpg's.

I'd love to see a world where muscle cars and pick-ups get great power AND mileage.
Z51Stingray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 11:00 AM   #2
toehead93


 
Drives: 2014 2SS/1LE
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: wpb fl
Posts: 2,656
We are getting closer. The next gen will be lighter and the engine more efficient plus 7speed transmissions so MPG will go up but HP and MPG are trade offs. Cant really have both unless you go hybrid or electric.
__________________
Used Racing Brake 2 Peice Rotors for sale:
http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344754

Summit White 2014 2SS 1LE
Recaros, NPP exhaust, Nav
2010 2SS A6 - sold.
toehead93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 03:25 PM   #3
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,786
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by RallySportRand View Post
Have there been any numbers for mileage expectations for the 6th Gen?

I don't understand why we can make a microchip so small it can fit on the head of a pin, but we can't make V8 400+ hp engines that get can 40+ mpg's.

I'd love to see a world where muscle cars and pick-ups get great power AND mileage.
Because those microchips aren't supercomputers in terms of performance.

We can make 4 cylinder engines with the same power levels that 15 years ago would have been 25-28mpg...and are now getting 40-45...In terms of mpgs...the current Camaro SS would have been rated somewhere like 27, 28mpg hwy in 2007, before they changed the rules.

It's rumored that the new Corvette will be rated at or very close to 30mpg hwy with it's 450+ hp LT1 engine...If that is true, and a 6th-gen Camaro uses the same engine...I'm predicting a 28mpg V8 Camaro....


But outside of all the guessing....we got nuthin'.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 03:46 PM   #4
The_Blur
Moderator, USN
 
The_Blur's Avatar
 
Drives: 6.2L of AWESOME! 2011 L99 2SS
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NAS Pensacola
Posts: 14,102
Send a message via AIM to The_Blur
Quote:
Originally Posted by toehead93 View Post
We are getting closer. The next gen will be lighter and the engine more efficient plus 7speed transmissions so MPG will go up but HP and MPG are trade offs. Cant really have both unless you go hybrid or electric.
The next engine is more powerful and more efficient. It's just good engineering.
The_Blur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2013, 03:55 AM   #5
2012-1822


 
2012-1822's Avatar
 
Drives: Black ZL1
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: City of Champions, Alabama
Posts: 3,734
Rules on measuring don't matter to me, fact is right now most of my driving is city and I consistently get 10 mpg in a stock ZL1.

I read somewhere, a while ago, that 2019 should bring a 400hp 30 mile to the gallon base Corvette. If that estimate has been moved up to this stingray its gonna be hard for me to think about another Camaro as a daily driver and go with the Vette.

But who really knows what the future holds?

PS, love my ZL1, not giving it up, don't drive that many miles a week anyway.
2012-1822 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2013, 05:08 AM   #6
janny
 
janny's Avatar
 
Drives: Chevrolet Aveo
Join Date: May 2013
Location: United states
Posts: 5
You know what is the problem with us we need perfection in all matters we need power, speed and good mileage at the same time is it possible now? I am not saying about the future but if you need good milage so we have to reduce the power am I right or not?
__________________
janny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 08:40 PM   #7
Bhobbs


 
Bhobbs's Avatar
 
Drives: 1998 Camaro Z28, 1970 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 2,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by RallySportRand View Post
Have there been any numbers for mileage expectations for the 6th Gen?

I don't understand why we can make a microchip so small it can fit on the head of a pin, but we can't make V8 400+ hp engines that get can 40+ mpg's.

I'd love to see a world where muscle cars and pick-ups get great power AND mileage.
Because you can't change physics. The majority of energy produced by the combustion of gasoline in the engine is lost as heat and a little more is lost through friction of the drive train.
Bhobbs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 10:49 PM   #8
NASTY99Z28
 
Drives: 99z28 with bolt-ons and a mwc fab 9
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 540
It will be really sad if the new vette isn't rated over 30 mpg's since 4th gens get
27-29 and c5/c6 vettes can get over 30 already. I know reall world numbed vary compared to rated numbers but it should be better since the engine will make a lot more torque. The only thing that kills me is evn with the new 7speed the final gear isn't any better then the current c6. They need to do like ford did with the gt500 and give it a really deep final gear.
__________________
He is like the jedi night of gayness. If hitler and henry ford had a special needs child together it would probably be the pill.
NASTY99Z28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2013, 11:30 PM   #9
FenwickHockey65
General Motors Aficionado
 
FenwickHockey65's Avatar
 
Drives: 2003 GMC Envoy SLE/2000 Ford Ranger
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,324
Send a message via AIM to FenwickHockey65
Quote:
Originally Posted by RallySportRand View Post
Have there been any numbers for mileage expectations for the 6th Gen?

I don't understand why we can make a microchip so small it can fit on the head of a pin, but we can't make V8 400+ hp engines that get can 40+ mpg's.

I'd love to see a world where muscle cars and pick-ups get great power AND mileage.
Physics.
__________________
FenwickHockey65's GM Thread!

My Cars: 2003 GMC Envoy SLE, 2000 Ford Ranger XLT (State-issued)
Extended Family: 2013 GMC Terrain SLE, 1998 GMC Sonoma SLS Extended Cab

FenwickHockey65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2013, 06:33 AM   #10
Wizard1183

 
Wizard1183's Avatar
 
Drives: ABM SS2/RS M6
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lafayette,LA
Posts: 1,257
Send a message via Yahoo to Wizard1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by toehead93 View Post
We are getting closer. The next gen will be lighter and the engine more efficient plus 7speed transmissions so MPG will go up but HP and MPG are trade offs. Cant really have both unless you go hybrid or electric.
Wonder if the manual tranny will have 7 as well?
__________________


Life is short, drive it like you stole it!
Wizard1183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2013, 09:15 AM   #11
LIVEVIL
 
LIVEVIL's Avatar
 
Drives: Camaro
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 83
Quote:
but we can't make V8 400+ hp engines that get can 40+ mpg's
We can make those, it's all about the package as a whole. You can have the most fuel efficient engine in the world, if you stick it in a 4000lb beast it's not going to get good mileage. That's where the laws of physics come in.

Put that same V8 in a 2500lb aerodinamic car and you'll get significantly better mileage.

So it's not that we can't build the engine capable of that, it's that everything else around it needs to be up to par. And when there are ever increasing safety regulations and everyone wants big wheels/brakes and lots of technology in the car it's going to be tough to keep the weight down.

The reason microchips can be so inexpensive is because the raw materials are very small (think about how much a processor weighs). But when you need 3000lbs of carbon fiber to make a light car well that much material is going to cost a lot.
LIVEVIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2013, 10:05 AM   #12
Mikes SS

 
Mikes SS's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 CGM 2SS/RS 6M
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 892
Well if it is any indication about the Cadillac ATS and the 6th gen Camaro, the ATS is rated @ 19/28 with the 3.6...which is funny, because the current V6 camaro gets better MPG than that and it is heavier!!
Mikes SS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 04:29 PM   #13
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,786
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikes SS View Post
Well if it is any indication about the Cadillac ATS and the 6th gen Camaro, the ATS is rated @ 19/28 with the 3.6...which is funny, because the current V6 camaro gets better MPG than that and it is heavier!!
I think that's because the ATS is geared and wears tires for performance in the 3.6L trim...the Camaro, in contrast, is geared for and shod in fuel economy tires.

With a similar treatment...I wonder if the ATS 3.6 wouldn't get 31-32mpg...
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 06:57 PM   #14
sspolo
 
sspolo's Avatar
 
Drives: None at the moment :'(
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 429
There was a post here on Camaro5 about an aftermarket plug in hybrid engine (or something similar) that could be plugged into any car. It wasn't finalized and I don't remember how it worked, but it was said to increase the MPG by about 10 MPG.

Many people that commented on that thread were being negative towards it, but I personally think that it would be great. Imagine getting 25+ MPG in the city on a 426 horsepower beast without loosing any performance whatsoever (minus the added on weight of course).
sspolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 09:56 PM   #15
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspolo View Post
There was a post here on Camaro5 about an aftermarket plug in hybrid engine (or something similar) that could be plugged into any car. It wasn't finalized and I don't remember how it worked, but it was said to increase the MPG by about 10 MPG.

Many people that commented on that thread were being negative towards it, but I personally think that it would be great. Imagine getting 25+ MPG in the city on a 426 horsepower beast without loosing any performance whatsoever (minus the added on weight of course).
Aftermarket hybrid engine that plugs into any car? I think you'd have more luck with gasoline pills...at least those are cheaper.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2013, 10:00 PM   #16
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by janny View Post
You know what is the problem with us we need perfection in all matters we need power, speed and good mileage at the same time is it possible now? I am not saying about the future but if you need good milage so we have to reduce the power am I right or not?
Power, fuel economy, affordability. You can choose two.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2013, 09:33 AM   #17
KMPrenger


 
KMPrenger's Avatar
 
Drives: '10 ABM LT/RS, 06 Chevy Colorado
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jefferson City, Missouri
Posts: 9,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
I think that's because the ATS is geared and wears tires for performance in the 3.6L trim...the Camaro, in contrast, is geared for and shod in fuel economy tires.

With a similar treatment...I wonder if the ATS 3.6 wouldn't get 31-32mpg...
Actually, the final drive ratio is the same between the two if my memory is correct (3.27) so I too am a bit surprised the ATS does not have a small MPG advantage. Only the 2LS Camaro has highway MPG rating of 30 because it has a 2.92 final drive ratio. Other V6 Camaros are rated at 28 MPG.

I wonder if there is something else affecting mileage for the ATS, or if the weight loss really doesn't help mileage much?
__________________
Custom Magnaflow Exhaust, Vararam intake, MACE Ported Manifold, RX Ported TB, "Black Ice" manifold insulator, Elite Catch Can, ZL1 repro wheels, ZL1 Springs, DRL Harness, Front GM GFX, Heritage grill, Street Scene lower grill, NLP Spoiler, ZL1 rockers and much more!
KMPrenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2013, 07:39 PM   #18
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Alero, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMPrenger View Post
Actually, the final drive ratio is the same between the two if my memory is correct (3.27) so I too am a bit surprised the ATS does not have a small MPG advantage. Only the 2LS Camaro has highway MPG rating of 30 because it has a 2.92 final drive ratio. Other V6 Camaros are rated at 28 MPG.

I wonder if there is something else affecting mileage for the ATS, or if the weight loss really doesn't help mileage much?
Keep in mind that just because a car loses mileage compared to another on the EPA test doesn't mean there is actually a difference in the real world. The EPA tests are inaccurate, and since car makers are more often trusted to run the test themselves (see Hyundai/Kia), they are almost not even useful for comparative purposes.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2013, 08:20 PM   #19
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 10,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Keep in mind that just because a car loses mileage compared to another on the EPA test doesn't mean there is actually a difference in the real world. The EPA tests are inaccurate, and since car makers are more often trusted to run the test themselves (see Hyundai/Kia), they are almost not even useful for comparative purposes.
I agree that the mileage numbers used to satisfy the CAFE or EPA or whatever is getting more and more disconnected from what customers really see.

Especially for the V-8s, more and more gimmicky features...AFM, 1st to 4th, etc., are used to get high mileage numbers to satisfy the gov....and can be easily by-passed or unused by the driver...

The next gen LT-1 engines will have AFM in both manual transmission and automatic transmission cars. The Vette's will have a default driving mode that doesn't include AFM being active, you'll have to choose it.

If the government actually matches what drivers get for mpg, and eliminates the gimmicks that the factory can use to get a high rating, I think the party will really be over...lol...

Last edited by 90503; 05-25-2013 at 10:05 AM.
90503 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2013, 09:07 PM   #20
CooG
Never ******
 
CooG's Avatar
 
Drives: '11 Camaro SS/RS Convertible - RED
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 952
3
CooG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2013, 10:54 PM   #21
sspolo
 
sspolo's Avatar
 
Drives: None at the moment :'(
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Aftermarket hybrid engine that plugs into any car? I think you'd have more luck with gasoline pills...at least those are cheaper.
haha yea. The site was somewhat sketchy. It would be nice if it were true though!
sspolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2013, 09:33 AM   #22
FL1CK
Switchin' n Twitchin'
 
FL1CK's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA (Eastlake)
Posts: 3,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard1183 View Post
Wonder if the manual tranny will have 7 as well?
Already does, 1-6 and reverse
__________________
I am not childish, you're just being a poopy head!
FL1CK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2013, 02:51 PM   #23
wakespeak
 
Drives: 2013 2SS LS3/NPP
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 582
We're stuck with 14.7:1 fuel/air mixture. Big engines suck in more air which in turn needs more fuel. So displacement works against you. Therefore to get the best fuel economy you need smaller displacement. Turbo/blower engine would be one method, AFM the other. Either would need to be supplemented with reduced weight and better aerodynamics.

In either case, in part throttle it would run on reduced displacement, getting your 30 mpg. The turbo/blower effectively increases displacement by forcing in more air, so your 3.5 liter can be a 6 liter with boost. AFM of course just reduces/add cylinders.

I think GM should raise the price of Camaros (or at least the V8 models) to limit their numbers and play the CAFE averaging game that way. This would keep the cars at higher margins/quality/performance. Create a different fuel economy oriented car for the buyers that are about fuel economy eg Cruze SS, 130R etc.

BMW eventually went the turbo route. I hate AFM myself, so I would rather have a turbo v-6 or pay a gas guzzler tax when buying the v-8.
wakespeak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2013, 03:06 PM   #24
Wizard1183

 
Wizard1183's Avatar
 
Drives: ABM SS2/RS M6
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lafayette,LA
Posts: 1,257
Send a message via Yahoo to Wizard1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by FL1CK View Post
Already does, 1-6 and reverse
Lol smartass. You know what I meant.
__________________


Life is short, drive it like you stole it!
Wizard1183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2013, 06:35 PM   #25
knowitman
Camaro fan since birth
 
knowitman's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 ZL1
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Possum Trot, KY
Posts: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakespeak View Post
We're stuck with 14.7:1 fuel/air mixture. Big engines suck in more air which in turn needs more fuel. So displacement works against you. Therefore to get the best fuel economy you need smaller displacement. Turbo/blower engine would be one method, AFM the other. Either would need to be supplemented with reduced weight and better aerodynamics.

In either case, in part throttle it would run on reduced displacement, getting your 30 mpg. The turbo/blower effectively increases displacement by forcing in more air, so your 3.5 liter can be a 6 liter with boost. AFM of course just reduces/add cylinders.

I think GM should raise the price of Camaros (or at least the V8 models) to limit their numbers and play the CAFE averaging game that way. This would keep the cars at higher margins/quality/performance. Create a different fuel economy oriented car for the buyers that are about fuel economy eg Cruze SS, 130R etc.

BMW eventually went the turbo route. I hate AFM myself, so I would rather have a turbo v-6 or pay a gas guzzler tax when buying the v-8.
Adding a turbo doesn't always increase fuel economy. The new GM Turbo V6 has near identical power and torque as the LS3 and gets the same gas mileage. The friction in an engine is a big determinant on fuel economy. A smaller engine might have to work harder, aka higher RPMs or throttle, than a larger engine to maintain a certain speed. In that case the increase in fuel economy might not be as noticeable because both engines could very well be using the same mass of air. The larger engine would require less throttle, and while it will "suck" in a larger volume of air for every stroke that volume of air will be at a lower pressure due to a greater pressure drop at the throttle and could be very similar in mass to that of a smaller motor using more throttle or spinning more RPMs. Also, when designing a car around turbos, the compression ratio must usually be lowered for reliability and longevity. This decreases the efficiency of the engine while it is not under load.

When the car goes into AFM mode, it may only be putting fuel into 4 cylinders, but it still has the friction of 8. Therefore, the other 4 have to work a bit harder, aka more throttle, which equals more air entering the 4 working cylinders. The only gain is you don't have as many combustion losses out of 4 cylinders vs 8 cylinders. That is why the gain in MPG seems minimal.

BMW went the turbo route mostly because it is a European based company. Most countries in Europe tax a car based on engine displacement. It's not a very fair system because nothing is an apples to apples comparison.
__________________
#3642
knowitman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 camaro forum, 2015 camaro forums, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news, 6th generation camaro rumors, 6th generation chevy camaro, camaro 6th gen, camaro 6th generation

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.