Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Roto-Fab
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Camaro V6 LLT Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-05-2009, 11:04 AM   #15
MrIcky

 
MrIcky's Avatar
 
Drives: Dodge Ram Megacab & Cobalt SS
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boise
Posts: 1,536
I don't know about the imperial gallons thing.

As far as cruising down the road and looking at the instant mileage on the DIC, ya people are probably hitting 32 in a V6. If you go straight from a gas station on the onramp to the freeway and hit cruise with no congestion- ya maybe.

Pretty optimistic expectation for overall daily driving though.
MrIcky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 03:53 PM   #16
TooCool5


 
TooCool5's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 1LS 3.6 LLT V6 325 HP
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LS
Posts: 4,242
29 is the revised EPA testing that recently came out to simulate real worl. You should be able to tweak out better than that if you don't lead foot it.
__________________
2010 Camaro Auto, Inferno Orange, Titanium Interior, Gearhead Wheels AIRAID CAI
TooCool5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 03:56 PM   #17
UCF w00t
Geek
 
UCF w00t's Avatar
 
Drives: IOM 2010 Camaro 2SS
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orlando
Posts: 4,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by white light View Post
if thats true then take a look at this link:

"
"
Quote:
Originally Posted by trudawg660 View Post
the window sticker for the camaro shows the mpg for the cobalt for some reason. thats why its so high
Correct. In the URL there's a PVC code. Changing that will give you different values. Here's the correct values... http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showth...790#post461790
UCF w00t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 12:43 AM   #18
mike@newera
 
mike@newera's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Camaro SS
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi View Post
Yeah, and im pretty sure the Number 1 guy said he was gettin at least 30 on some of his trips. Sounds good to me.
Of course you can get better MPG than advertised, in many different highway driving conditions, but ratings are based on averages generally. Upslope, downslope, tail wind, ethanol, and even temperature, humidity and barometric pressure can also effect the net result on each vehicle.
mike@newera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 07:06 AM   #19
Hemlawk
AwesomeBillDawesonville
 
Hemlawk's Avatar
 
Drives: CGM 2SS/RS =)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 2,067
Does rim size factor? Maybe the LS gets better mpg? Higher octane?
__________________

Order placed on 1/13/11 - Purchased 2/22/11 2SS/RS CGM
Hemlawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 07:47 AM   #20
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooCool5 View Post
29 is the revised EPA testing that recently came out to simulate real worl. You should be able to tweak out better than that if you don't lead foot it.
It's not hard to beat the new EPA ratings at all. They've really lowered the bar. I bet in the Camaro you can just keep the RPM low, enjoy the torque, and beat the EPA.
__________________
Removing weight has surprisingly little effect on fuel economy
Engine break-in procedure | Gear ratios
2002 GMC Sierra 4x4 5.3 (190,000 miles and going strong)
1980 Buick Lesabre family heirloom with 36,000 miles
2008 Volkswagen Rabbit 2 door I5-2.5 5spd DD lease
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23 View Post
she really underestimates the damage i would do to her reproductive organs
http://allOffTopic.com is the place for all the naughty stuff you can't get away with on this forum...
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 06:57 PM   #21
Adam
You Said Member
 
Drives: 2010 SIM 2LT Auto RS
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Why is this required?
Posts: 326
I tested this extensively, and unless I was going downhill, I didn't go above 28. This is with automatic, AC off.

edit: and not counting acceleration at the beginning.
Adam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 07:01 PM   #22
GMtothecore
"That Guy"
 
GMtothecore's Avatar
 
Drives: Camaro SS...........what else?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: OOOOOOOklahoma where the wind comes sweepin' down the plains.
Posts: 2,360
There's a thread on here where someone received their car "canadian" and it's window sticker for a V-6 showed 35mpg highway....theirs is rated a little differently.
__________________
GMtothecore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 07:44 PM   #23
bob2the2nd
 
Drives: CGM 2LT RS
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: newark, de
Posts: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by theholycow View Post
It's not hard to beat the new EPA ratings at all. They've really lowered the bar. I bet in the Camaro you can just keep the RPM low, enjoy the torque, and beat the EPA.
exactly thats one of the nice things about the new EPA standards, they actually made the tests so the real world fuel economy is the same as the tests
__________________
2LT CGM auto/sunroof/RS

1100: 11-29-08
6000: 6-29-09
cracked windshield: 7-1-09
1000 miles 7-4-09
windshield replaced: 7-9-09
2000 miles 7-10-09 (yep 2000 miles in 11 days)
3000 miles 7-16-09
4000 miles 7-30-09
bob2the2nd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2009, 03:17 PM   #24
MrIcky

 
MrIcky's Avatar
 
Drives: Dodge Ram Megacab & Cobalt SS
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boise
Posts: 1,536
I thought they raised the bar? i.e. epa ratings were made lower where they used to be really optimistic.
MrIcky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2009, 03:21 PM   #25
The_Blur
Moderator
 
The_Blur's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 Harley-Davidson Street Bob
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 14,769
Send a message via AIM to The_Blur
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrIcky View Post
I thought they raised the bar? i.e. epa ratings were made lower where they used to be really optimistic.
They also don't test based on ideal driving conditions. Basically, the test is unfair, and that makes it highly probable that people are reporting higher fuel estimates.
__________________
RDP Motorsport//GEN5DIY//Cultrag Performance//JPSS//Rodgets Chevrolet//
Operation Demon//Buy at Invoice//RACECARWEAR
RESPECT ALL CARS. LOVE YOUR OWN.
warn 145:159 ban
The_Blur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2009, 03:35 PM   #26
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrIcky View Post
I thought they raised the bar? i.e. epa ratings were made lower where they used to be really optimistic.
Yes, the ratings were made lower so they're easier to achieve by real drivers in real traffic. I said they lowered the bar, meaning the difficulty level for drivers to get the same results. You are probably thinking they raised the bar meaning the effort they put into simulating real usage.

If you look at a window sticker from 2007 and look up the same car on fueleconomy.gov now, you'll see that the car is expected to get fewer MPG by the new math.

2007 Impala 3.5L V6 auto:
Old test - 21 city, 31 highway
New test - 18 city, 28 highway

For cars that were rated before the new test procedure was put in place, they calculate what it would be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
They also don't test based on ideal driving conditions. Basically, the test is unfair, and that makes it highly probable that people are reporting higher fuel estimates.
The new test is based on normal common conditions. It's done in a lab on a dyno, but with procedures to simulate the way people actually use the car. They test with the air conditioner on, at and over 70mph, etc.
__________________
Removing weight has surprisingly little effect on fuel economy
Engine break-in procedure | Gear ratios
2002 GMC Sierra 4x4 5.3 (190,000 miles and going strong)
1980 Buick Lesabre family heirloom with 36,000 miles
2008 Volkswagen Rabbit 2 door I5-2.5 5spd DD lease
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23 View Post
she really underestimates the damage i would do to her reproductive organs
http://allOffTopic.com is the place for all the naughty stuff you can't get away with on this forum...
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New CAFE Standards: 42 MPG Cars, 26 MPG Trucks by 2016 DMX General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 168 05-22-2009 11:07 AM
Chevy Equinox: EPA 32 mpg!!! Mr. Wyndham General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 2 05-06-2009 04:01 PM
Official V6 MPG confirmed at 29 MPG hwy! fastball Camaro V6 LLT Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 83 03-23-2009 07:45 AM
Let me get this straight....LS3 vs. L99 MPG JMAN311 Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 28 03-18-2009 05:27 PM
Ready or not: 36 MPG by 2015 mandate from Feds Scotsman 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 76 03-07-2009 03:19 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.