Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
autoguy
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Members Area > General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion

General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion Come chat about other cars.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-16-2009, 11:51 PM   #1
comiskeybum
Banned
 
Drives: 2010 Chevy Equinox LS
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Bend, Indiana
Posts: 800
V-6 mustang EPA Gas Mileage

THE EPA is way off on the v-6 stang highway mileage. According to the EPA i should be getting 24-25mpg but i am here to tell you that i consistently get 27-28 highway.

Yes i am a hard driver. I drive my stang the way it should be driven......

anyone else drive a v-6 stang and get same numbers i do?

mine is a 2007
comiskeybum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 12:20 AM   #2
storm79
 
storm79's Avatar
 
Drives: 2007 GMC Sierra
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Middle of nowhere
Posts: 284
isnt yours a gt...cuz the foglights and the rims....

well im sure u know urs is a v6 but im jw cuz thats exactly what the gt's look like
__________________
storm79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 12:27 AM   #3
nester7929
Rice Harvester
 
nester7929's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Waco, Texas
Posts: 1,394
EPA underrates because they are trying to sucker you into buying a more fuel efficient vehicle. My GT gets 4-5 above the EPA rating, although I have headers and exhaust so it's probably closer to 2-3 above EPA rating for stock GTs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm79 View Post
isnt yours a gt...cuz the foglights and the rims....

well im sure u know urs is a v6 but im jw cuz thats exactly what the gt's look like
Nah, he's got the package that puts the smaller lights in the grill. The GT's fogs are the same size as the other headlights.
nester7929 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 12:44 AM   #4
09'Z28
The "Mad Hamster"
 
09'Z28's Avatar
 
Drives: '71 Camaro, '90 mx5, '71 2002
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Placerville, CA
Posts: 1,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by nester7929 View Post
EPA underrates because they are trying to sucker you into buying a more fuel efficient vehicle.
and they overrate the "good vehicles" AKA: POS Prius
__________________
09'Z28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 01:26 AM   #5
Jason@JacFab
Mad Scientist

 
Jason@JacFab's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 1LT Camaro; 72 Chevelle
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Point, OR
Posts: 3,922
Send a message via AIM to Jason@JacFab Send a message via MSN to Jason@JacFab
Cool maybe that means the v6 will really get like 34mpg hwy with the right drivers? My 04 GTO a4 is rated at 20 mph hwy, and I get 24 consistently on hwy trips cruising 75-80
__________________

Specializing in attractive "no drill" front license plate brackets for the 2010+ Camaro Check out our new website! www.jacfab.com
2010 Camaro 1SS RJT w/ SIM Stripes; M6. 12.535 @ 112.33mph SOLD!
2014 Camaro 1LT RRM; A6.JacFab No-Drill front license plate bracket... More to come...
Jason@JacFab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 02:13 AM   #6
TaylorRyanSS
COTW: 12/13/10
 
TaylorRyanSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 1969 Camaro, 2012 370Z
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 7,920
i have a 2005 v6 stang but I have no clue what kind of gas milage I get lol
__________________

"Are you one of those boys who prefer cars to women? - I'm one of those boys that appreciates a fine body, regardless of the make."
1969 CAMARO JOURNAL: http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341239 | FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/taylor.ryan.apt | GRAPHIC DESIGN: www.aptdesigns.net
TaylorRyanSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 10:05 AM   #7
CamaroSpike23
Mr. Nitpicky
 
CamaroSpike23's Avatar
 
Drives: anything I can get my hands on
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: anywhere and everywhere
Posts: 22,860
Send a message via Yahoo to CamaroSpike23
WGAS? lol
__________________
Never race anything you can't afford to light on fire and push off a cliff
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowtieGuy View Post
Nobody makes CamaroSpike happy. You just disgust him a little less than other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogwinters View Post
Read that link that Spike posted, it'll tell you everything you need to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WheelmanSS View Post
Post count is truly an accurate measure of how cool someone is on the Internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Norris View Post
I piss excellence
and fart awesomeness
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowtieGuy View Post
Nobody makes CamaroSpike happy. You just disgust him a little less than other people.
"You can think I'm wrong, but that's no reason to quit thinking.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overflow View Post
But not all people were born awesome like you, Spike.
CamaroSpike23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 12:02 PM   #8
CoolestCamaro873
The Road's A Bad Joke...
 
CoolestCamaro873's Avatar
 
Drives: '12 Camaro SS
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by nester7929 View Post
Nah, he's got the package that puts the smaller lights in the grill. The GT's fogs are the same size as the other headlights.


It's called the Pony Package!
__________________
CoolestCamaro873 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 12:20 PM   #9
Camaro_Corvette
36.833283,-76.021958
 
Camaro_Corvette's Avatar
 
Drives: Team 1LE
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by comiskeybum View Post
THE EPA is way off on the v-6 stang highway mileage. According to the EPA i should be getting 24-25mpg but i am here to tell you that i consistently get 27-28 highway.

Yes i am a hard driver. I drive my stang the way it should be driven......

anyone else drive a v-6 stang and get same numbers i do?

mine is a 2007
It is not uncommon for the EPA numbers to be a little lower than what they actually get. I don't know why this is but it is. I expect the V6 camaro to break 30
__________________
I hate parking threads...
Camaro_Corvette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 06:15 PM   #10
comiskeybum
Banned
 
Drives: 2010 Chevy Equinox LS
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Bend, Indiana
Posts: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by storm79 View Post
isnt yours a gt...cuz the foglights and the rims....

well im sure u know urs is a v6 but im jw cuz thats exactly what the gt's look like
Yeah i have the pony package. in my opinion the base v6 mustang looks horrible with just the blakc grill. you need some chrome and fogs to make it look better.

pony package also gives you ABS and better suspension.
comiskeybum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 06:24 PM   #11
bob2the2nd
 
Drives: CGM 2LT RS
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: newark, de
Posts: 542
not everything is a conspiracy people. The reason why EPA estimate (especially now) under estimate cars is because they changed the way cars are tested. No longer are cars tested at 55 MPH on cruise control to see what sort of mileage they get. Instead they are tested at highway speeds with speeding up and slowing down to different speeds (which uses more gas than cruise control). this means that all estimates are going to be a little lower than the actual economy you get when you just set cruise control (or have a steady foot) and go.
bob2the2nd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 06:56 PM   #12
kylepo
 
kylepo's Avatar
 
Drives: 2002 firehawk.....missing 02CE
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Midland MI/salamanca NY
Posts: 360
so then the camaro gets better than is rated on epa too face it ford boys your rustangs cant touch the camaro
kylepo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 08:38 PM   #13
Beamer
N00B
 
Beamer's Avatar
 
Drives: 07 Cobalt SS/SC-Toy | 97Cavalier-DD
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Indian Trail, NC(outside Charlotte)
Posts: 140
Send a message via Yahoo to Beamer
yea, epa is just a rough idea, people either get much better or just alittle worse. My SS/SC gets way better mileage in stop and go/semi city and highway. Coming back from NY I saw 39mpg around 68mph, increased to 80 for most of the trip and saw 36mpg. Driving semi easy in town I can get to 35 and keep it there. Normally though in mixed driving I get 28-31mpg depending on if I go into the boost and really let the engine rev.

But those are nice #'s for much heavier car than mine, I'd be real happy with that if I had a stang.
__________________
Beamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 10:56 PM   #14
comiskeybum
Banned
 
Drives: 2010 Chevy Equinox LS
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Bend, Indiana
Posts: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylepo View Post
so then the camaro gets better than is rated on epa too face it ford boys your rustangs cant touch the camaro

ok why we gotta go trying to start crap. do you not know that mustang and camaro go in cycles. for the next couple years camaro is the best.

but when mustang has a v-6 at 355hp and a v-8 at 440hp it will be best for a couple years. and so on and so fourth.

this argument is never won........so why have it.

lets just say that all 3........challenger, camaro, mustang are fantastic cars and if i had the money i would have one of each.
comiskeybum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 10:57 PM   #15
comiskeybum
Banned
 
Drives: 2010 Chevy Equinox LS
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Bend, Indiana
Posts: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beamer View Post
yea, epa is just a rough idea, people either get
But those are nice #'s for much heavier car than mine, I'd be real happy with that if I had a stang.
its that reason and month payment that i got the v-6 pony pkg in the first place. this is my every day driver
comiskeybum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 11:37 PM   #16
kylepo
 
kylepo's Avatar
 
Drives: 2002 firehawk.....missing 02CE
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Midland MI/salamanca NY
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by comiskeybum View Post
ok why we gotta go trying to start crap. do you not know that mustang and camaro go in cycles. for the next couple years camaro is the best.

but when mustang has a v-6 at 355hp and a v-8 at 440hp it will be best for a couple years. and so on and so fourth.

this argument is never won........so why have it.

lets just say that all 3........challenger, camaro, mustang are fantastic cars and if i had the money i would have one of each.
cycle? the camaro left in 2002 on top and the mustang has yet to beat that model for performance numbers and now the camaro is much better with the 5th gen. And lol yes I did have go and start shit.
kylepo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 11:40 PM   #17
GatorBlue371

 
GatorBlue371's Avatar
 
Drives: vrooooom vrooooom
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,398
you drive your V-6 mustang like its meant to be driven...


... so does that mean you drive like a sorority girl?






__________________
"With a light touch on the brakes, run the revs up a bit. Slip off the brake and bury the throttle. There's a light chirp as tires scratch for bite. Then comes a sub-5.0-second sled ride to 60 mph. A tick over 13.0 sec. and you're through the quarter-mile. It's a rush, of course, but not overly dramatic. Try the same thing with this pair's predecessors of 1970 or so and you'll find yourself in a bit of a wrestling match. Ain't progress wonderful? Maybe yes, and maybe sometimes it's fun to wrestle."
GatorBlue371 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 01:11 AM   #18
nester7929
Rice Harvester
 
nester7929's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Waco, Texas
Posts: 1,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylepo View Post
cycle? the camaro left in 2002 on top and the mustang has yet to beat that model for performance numbers
The 2003 SVT Cobra had 390-hp, compared to the 350 or so of the 2002 SS. The SS ran a quarter mile of 13.6, and the Cobra ran it in 12.4 and had a 0-60 of 4.5.

Hell, the 2003 SVT Cobra STILL has the best performance numbers out of the big three. Although the 2010 GT500 might have a shot.
nester7929 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 01:13 AM   #19
ucla1ove3

 
ucla1ove3's Avatar
 
Drives: soon to be 2010 CAMARO :]
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: houston, tx
Posts: 1,287
we just be playin man haha. we are all giddy right now cause of production starting....
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowtieGuy View Post
If Toyota takes control of the Corvette, I swear on all that is holy that I will buy a one way ticket to Japan and suicide bomb the Toyota headquarters.
ucla1ove3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 01:26 AM   #20
kylepo
 
kylepo's Avatar
 
Drives: 2002 firehawk.....missing 02CE
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Midland MI/salamanca NY
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by nester7929 View Post
The 2003 SVT Cobra had 390-hp, compared to the 350 or so of the 2002 SS. The SS ran a quarter mile of 13.6, and the Cobra ran it in 12.4 and had a 0-60 of 4.5.

Hell, the 2003 SVT Cobra STILL has the best performance numbers out of the big three. Although the 2010 GT500 might have a shot.
SVT cobra=limited production not built the whole model run. OK how bout this match up 02 SS VS 05 GT????? What do you have to say about that.
kylepo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 01:31 AM   #21
kylepo
 
kylepo's Avatar
 
Drives: 2002 firehawk.....missing 02CE
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Midland MI/salamanca NY
Posts: 360
and because you brought it up, the SVT cobra. Why dont you go check out some of the GMMG cars they are some nice rides. And as the the cobra being top dog. STILL I think you will be seeing numbers coming from the mags for the SS that are very very close to the SVT. Not to mention you are comparing a NA to a FI lets throw a blower or turbo on the SS and see what happens. lol
kylepo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 02:42 AM   #22
nester7929
Rice Harvester
 
nester7929's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Waco, Texas
Posts: 1,394
The reason I mentioned the '03 Cobra was because you said no one else has beat the performance numbers of the '02 SS and that isn't true. Whether it's NA or FI is irrelevant, the point is the Cobra put out better numbers.

And I would hope a naturally-aspirated 5.7 liter would put out higher numbers than a naturally-aspirated 4.6 liter. Just kind of common sense. Ford's older, larger volume NA engines put out around the same power as Chevy's LS1 as well.

I'm not a Ford fanboy (or a fanboy of any company, really), but numbers don't really lie.


"SVT cobra=limited production not built the whole model run. OK how bout this match up 02 SS VS 05 GT????? What do you have to say about that."


You're comparing a mid-level Mustang with the top-end Camaro. How about the '02 SS and '02 Cobra instead? That'd be a fair comparison (The SS would probably take it by a hair). In terms of the 2005+ Mustang GT, it falls somewhere between the '02 Z28 and SS. Newer cars aren't necessarily faster (thanks to weight gain from government mandates), they just have more safety features.
nester7929 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 04:18 AM   #23
TaylorRyanSS
COTW: 12/13/10
 
TaylorRyanSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 1969 Camaro, 2012 370Z
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 7,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by comiskeybum View Post
Yeah i have the pony package. in my opinion the base v6 mustang looks horrible with just the blakc grill. you need some chrome and fogs to make it look better.

pony package also gives you ABS and better suspension.

really? I think the fogs are kinda ugly... even the ones on the GT and I got mine when the new body style first came out so it wasn't an option. As for the chrome... less chrome = less gangsta hahahaha
__________________

"Are you one of those boys who prefer cars to women? - I'm one of those boys that appreciates a fine body, regardless of the make."
1969 CAMARO JOURNAL: http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341239 | FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/taylor.ryan.apt | GRAPHIC DESIGN: www.aptdesigns.net
TaylorRyanSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 07:15 AM   #24
kylepo
 
kylepo's Avatar
 
Drives: 2002 firehawk.....missing 02CE
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Midland MI/salamanca NY
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by nester7929 View Post
The reason I mentioned the '03 Cobra was because you said no one else has beat the performance numbers of the '02 SS and that isn't true. Whether it's NA or FI is irrelevant, the point is the Cobra put out better numbers.

And I would hope a naturally-aspirated 5.7 liter would put out higher numbers than a naturally-aspirated 4.6 liter. Just kind of common sense. Ford's older, larger volume NA engines put out around the same power as Chevy's LS1 as well.

I'm not a Ford fanboy (or a fanboy of any company, really), but numbers don't really lie.


"SVT cobra=limited production not built the whole model run. OK how bout this match up 02 SS VS 05 GT????? What do you have to say about that."


You're comparing a mid-level Mustang with the top-end Camaro. How about the '02 SS and '02 Cobra instead? That'd be a fair comparison (The SS would probably take it by a hair). In terms of the 2005+ Mustang GT, it falls somewhere between the '02 Z28 and SS. Newer cars aren't necessarily faster (thanks to weight gain from government mandates), they just have more safety features.
for 2005 wasnt the GT the best mustang money could buy?
kylepo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 07:44 AM   #25
MLL67RSSS

 
MLL67RSSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 67 Indy Pace Car
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 1,219
As mentioned they totally redid the way the EPA does the mileage testing. The reason was BEFORE people would never get what the EPA stickers said on the windows and they just COULD NOT understand the fact that those numbers were there so you could compare different cars and know that "X" car will get a couple more MPG's than "Y" car. They took those numbers as gospel and were upset when "It said I'd get 25 MPG and I only get 23, stupid EPA what a scam!" So they now do the testing loop differently to get more "real world" numbers and are more conservative with those numbers because a lot of people were/are just stupid.
MLL67RSSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mustang Fanatics SCARED and dissapointed with 2010 stang! Must read! 91t/a General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 273 01-03-2009 12:27 AM
35 MPG CAFE std. almost law Scotsman General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 35 12-21-2007 12:00 PM
Mustang preparing for its rivals MerF General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 132 08-22-2007 09:19 AM
Tougher EPA '08 mileage estimates are issued KILLER74Z28 General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 0 12-12-2006 07:30 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 PM.


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