Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Trunk Monkey Parts
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-08-2008, 09:49 PM   #1
VenomZ302
Live to Win, Dare to Fail
 
VenomZ302's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Aqua Blue RS/SS M6
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,824
Trying to decide, so I've got a question about Active Fuel Management

So I'd like an SS, but I'd also like a manual. However, I was wondering about what the boost from AFM would actually be? Does anyone have any experience with what kind of increase you might see? Especially on a sportier car?

Thanks in advance.
VenomZ302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 09:56 PM   #2
BeermanSS
 
BeermanSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2005 Cobalt SS/SC
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wilson, NY
Posts: 214
No experience, my stepbrother had a Tahoe rental the first year it came out, AFM that is, and the only time we could get it to activate was coasting downhill. HA HA. In a much lighter vehicle and built on a much more powerful engine, I'm sure that would be a lot different. I think they only say like a 3-5% gain though while activated. Not sure, anyone feel free to correct me.
BeermanSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 09:57 PM   #3
camaropete
I love crepes
 
camaropete's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro SS RS
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 4,571
Send a message via AIM to camaropete Send a message via Yahoo to camaropete
Look at it this way, if you go with the stick you get 20+ more HP. AND gas is down to less than $2 in many areas.
camaropete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 09:59 PM   #4
BeermanSS
 
BeermanSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2005 Cobalt SS/SC
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wilson, NY
Posts: 214
and it will stay that way till holidays, and then, till summer driving season next year when it'll hit $5 a gallon. Dont forget it nearly hit 5 this year.
BeermanSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 10:00 PM   #5
BeermanSS
 
BeermanSS's Avatar
 
Drives: 2005 Cobalt SS/SC
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wilson, NY
Posts: 214
The two cars will be so close in MPG's its worthless to make that a factor.
BeermanSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 11:52 PM   #6
blackZbandit
 
blackZbandit's Avatar
 
Drives: BLACK ON BLACK 2012 CAMARO SS
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: LOS ANGELES, CA
Posts: 743
There is no increase in fuel efficiency in the auto with AFM, both the AT and the MT are expected to acheive 23-24 MPG hwy and about 17-18 city. You do (supposedly) get an extra 22 horses with the manual, but with the optimized shift points on the auto they're both acheiving 0-60 times of approximately 4.6 seconds... so will you ever feel the extra 22 horses? Probably not. So really the decision just boils down to whether an Auto or Manual trans will work better for you. Me, I live in L.A. which = TRAFFIC so I will be getting an auto. Maybe you've got more open roads and lighter traffic in Charleston so the manual may work out better for you.
__________________
BLACK CAR + FLAT BLACK STRIPES + BLACK WHEELS = BLK PW3R!!

****Thanks to Silver Streak for the pic I used to make this sig****
blackZbandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2008, 11:57 PM   #7
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeermanSS View Post
The two cars will be so close in MPG's its worthless to make that a factor.
...gotta hide from that

From further up... counting on gas staying around 2 bucks is extremely shortsighted. OPEC will cut production again, and we will all see gas prices shoot back up.

And this, that they will be so close, is also inaccurate. If all you do is drive from a downtown apartment to the office.. maybe. Because itl only kick on on the highway. But for people like me, that get about half of their miles or more on the highway... that will be significant. Throw on the cruise control and feel the glorious sip of only 4 cylinders. (I say sip only in comparison with the funneling gulp of all 8) But still...
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 12:03 AM   #8
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackZbandit View Post
There is no increase in fuel efficiency in the auto with AFM, both the AT and the MT are expected to acheive 23-24 MPG hwy and about 17-18 city. You do (supposedly) get an extra 22 horses with the manual, but with the optimized shift points on the auto they're both acheiving 0-60 times of approximately 4.6 seconds... so will you ever feel the extra 22 horses? Probably not. So really the decision just boils down to whether an Auto or Manual trans will work better for you. Me, I live in L.A. which = TRAFFIC so I will be getting an auto. Maybe you've got more open roads and lighter traffic in Charleston so the manual may work out better for you.
Before i could even respond to the first load of horse... crap, i get more of it. Lets just think practically for a moment. Do you think GM would spend considerable money developing a new engine and adding technologies if it werent even going to do anything.... Noooo. Then lets consider what this technology they spent money developing does... IT SHUTS DOWN HALF THE ENGINE ON THE HIGHWAY. Tell me please... how would 4 and 8 cylinders burn the same amount of fuel?
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 12:23 AM   #9
TAG UR IT
www.Camaro5store.com
 
TAG UR IT's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 ZL1 #705
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SA, Texas
Posts: 26,579
autos always eat more gas than manuals.

prime example. turtle and i both drove our 2002 SS's up to Indy in Sept.

His is an auto and mine is a manual.

I got 26mpg's average and he got 22mpg's average. We both drove together and we had pretty much identical driving habits.

WAIT!!! They are both LS1's!!! sorry....

Again, I might not be able to explain it as well as some of the other gearheads can, but I will say this. The auto eats more gas than a manual. Same thing for the LS3 vs. L99. L99 without AFM would not get the same mpg's....it would be lower.

Both the LS3 and L99 are going to get the same miles per gallon. And, the only REAL test that will prove this is when they are running around on the streets and we are able to perform our own tests.
TAG UR IT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 12:30 AM   #10
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
Im sure you know a good bit about cars. but i have to go against you here. New cars (within the last 3 years) have autos that get just as good, or better MPG than manuals.

When im not as tired ill come and give some examples, but i really think all of you bashin the AFM are just upset that it might actually be smarter not to drive a stick camaro. Sorrry...
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 07:29 AM   #11
GTAHVIT
Blessed
 
GTAHVIT's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Sonic RS MT
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Saint Augustine FL
Posts: 28,495
^ I don't see that anyone is bashing the AFM. All anyone is saying is that it has to overcome the lower gas mileage found in auto tranny's. For the most part eryone is applauding it's capabilities.

Maybe our standards should be higher, but, any auto that gets the same mpg as a manual in the same car is good right?
GTAHVIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 08:07 AM   #12
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi View Post
how would 4 and 8 cylinders burn the same amount of fuel?
It's bound to be close; the same amount of energy is required to move the car, and engine friction doesn't go down much -- it's still only got one crankshaft, and those pistons are still moving. The valves are shut off, so those pistons aren't pumping any air (instead, the air in those cylinders acts as a spring, releasing almost as much energy as is stored in it during each stroke), and the active pistons have to make all the power. The 4 active pistons still have to make as much power as the 8 pistons would make.

This saves fuel because the engine is operating slightly closer to its optimum BSFC range, among other reasons. However, the difference isn't very much, and the real world results seem to be about a 5 to 10% difference at best -- about enough to make up for the common difference between automatic and manual under EPA testing.

A driver who is willing to shift early and shift often can almost certainly get better MPG from the manual than the AFM-equipped auto, though if the paddle shifters are obedient then the auto with AFM might come out ahead.
__________________
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 11-09-2008, 08:22 AM   #13
VenomZ302
Live to Win, Dare to Fail
 
VenomZ302's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Aqua Blue RS/SS M6
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,824
Thanks for the information. I really just wish they could (or just would?) put a switch somewhere on the console/steering wheel/wherever that determines how many of the cylinders are operating. But oh well. Maybe that would be bad for the engine or something.

Didn't know that it would really only kick in on the highway. That probably means that I'd rarely ever use AFM. Looks like I'll have to research it a bit more, and hey, I won't be getting the Camaro for about a year, so I've got some time to decide.
VenomZ302 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 08:45 AM   #14
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 1,804
I would love a switch, and to have it available with the manual transmission. I bet I'd get 35mpg easily.

In the Camaro it will almost certainly operate much more than it does in a full size truck. The Camaro has a much better power-to-drag ratio, so AFM might kick in for almost any steady cruise.
__________________
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

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
Can you S/C an active fuel mgt engine? Fast1 Forced Induction - V8 40 10-23-2008 08:06 PM
Camaro ls3 news...true or false? Dark Knight Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 74 06-05-2008 05:29 PM
Active Fuel Management and Camaro The80sman Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons 5 01-23-2008 11:49 AM
Active Fuel Management? MJA03 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 41 01-09-2008 02:25 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.