Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Bigwormgraphix
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

Camaro V6 LLT Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons Bolt-Ons | Intakes | Exhaust

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-11-2008, 09:50 AM   #1
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
MPG Whats The Deal?

I read, i think on chevy.com, that the V6 is going to get 27MPG, with the automatic. Thats pretty damn good. Thats about the best HP to MPG ratio I've seen. Is the stick going to get less? How much less? My RX-8 gets shitty milage, I was thinking about getting a loaded Mazda 6 with the small motor. This camaro costs the same, gets 2 MPG less and has 300 HP instead of 170. Tough choice eh? :-D

I do wonder how this car will handle compared to my RX-8. The weight is about the same, but the RX-8 is probably a little better balanced. I'll miss my back doors but not as much as i'd miss rear wheel drive if I got some other car! Hell i'd probably still buy this thing even if it came with the turbo charged 4cyl out of a Solstice :-) But hey I drive a 1.3L vehicle so wahcagoonado
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 10:02 AM   #2
andyrew
 
andyrew's Avatar
 
Drives: Audi A4 STG3, Porsche 914 v8
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Modesto, ca
Posts: 126
Well you cant compare an inefficient rotory motor to your standard 4 cycle engine...

Rotory's are known to have terrible MPG...

2MPG is not something I even fret about, I drive maybe 10k a year, so if I have to spend an extra couple hundred bucks to have a really nice car with a good amount of HP then Im happy...

My Audi a4 1.8 Turbo (with AWD) gets 30mpg, and thats nice and all but I use the 300+hp every day (its modified) and thats what puts the smile on my face, not my gas bill.
andyrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 10:47 AM   #3
Silverghost
 
Silverghost's Avatar
 
Drives: Z28
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
I Is the stick going to get less? How much less?
Sticks typically get better gas mileage then automatics
__________________
Speed Kills - Drive a Ford and live forever!

www.rivercityperformance.com
Silverghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 11:59 AM   #4
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverghost View Post
Sticks typically get better gas mileage then automatics
These days that seems to be the opposite. I guess its all the advanced technology in the automatics these days, plus 6 speed automatics are getting more and more common. But most automatics in sports cars tend to get 1 or 2 MPG better than the stick. I'm still getting the stick of course, otherwise I might as well go buy some toyota
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 12:04 PM   #5
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 l008com View Post
I read, i think on chevy.com, that the V6 is going to get 27MPG, with the automatic. Thats pretty damn good. Thats about the best HP to MPG ratio I've seen. Is the stick going to get less? How much less? My RX-8 gets shitty milage, I was thinking about getting a loaded Mazda 6 with the small motor. This camaro costs the same, gets 2 MPG less and has 300 HP instead of 170. Tough choice eh? :-D

I do wonder how this car will handle compared to my RX-8. The weight is about the same, but the RX-8 is probably a little better balanced. I'll miss my back doors but not as much as i'd miss rear wheel drive if I got some other car! Hell i'd probably still buy this thing even if it came with the turbo charged 4cyl out of a Solstice :-) But hey I drive a 1.3L vehicle so wahcagoonado
The V6 is actually suspected to get an EPA rating of 26 MPG, but you may actually end up closer to GM's estimate.

To be honest, your RX-8 will probably have better handling. One of the last MT magazines had an article in it with a race driver saying the RX-8 was the best handling car he had driven... ever. Thats compared with ferraris and such.

And to the MPG. It is likely the stick will get better MPG, but as of late, most automatics are just about on par with the manuals. Figure the auto will get 25 EPA for highway. Hope it helps bro.
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 12:07 PM   #6
TheClassicCarKid

 
TheClassicCarKid's Avatar
 
Drives: V45
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,272
The RX-8 has a great engine, 238 horsepower from a 1.3 is amazing, but yes, fuel consumption isn't great.
I think the Camaro is easily better than the Mazda 6, and even if the manual doesn't get 27mpg, it'll be close, like 26.

But seriously, get the Camaro. 300 horsepower and 26-27mpg is awesome.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1320junkie View Post
All of the stang guys in one thread..wow..lol
.
TheClassicCarKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 12:14 PM   #7
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
I'm more psyched about a cheap rear wheel drive stick with good mileage. The HP is a bonus.
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 12:19 PM   #8
The_Blur
Moderator, USN
 
The_Blur's Avatar
 
Drives: 11VR2SSA6
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NAS Pensacola
Posts: 13,788
Send a message via AIM to The_Blur
GM is intentionally aiming low for fuel estimates. It would not be good publicity for any new car to have lower than the manufacturer's estimates as that would violate a potential customer's ability to trust the company. Remember that numbers have dropped over the last couple of years due to a new formula. If the driver isn't mashing the pedal on the V6 manual or automatic, it is not unreasonable for the Camaro to make around 30 mpg.
The_Blur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 12:58 PM   #9
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
I'm more psyched about a cheap rear wheel drive stick with good mileage. The HP is a bonus.
And decently sized, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
GM is intentionally aiming low for fuel estimates. It would not be good publicity for any new car to have lower than the manufacturer's estimates as that would violate a potential customer's ability to trust the company.
Most consumers don't expect to achieve or beat the EPA ratings, though eventually they will get used to the newer system that produces "more realistic" ratings and then they will expect it. However, the manufacturer has no control over how the test is done; all they can do is either design it to do well in the test, or ignore the test and design it only to do well IRL.

That said, there is a major reason why they would design it to do well on tests: CAFE. That makes it very important for the car to test well.

Quote:
If the driver isn't mashing the pedal on the V6 manual or automatic, it is not unreasonable for the Camaro to make around 30 mpg.
IRL, the manual will be easy to get above 30 mpg in varied conditions. The automatic, assuming it's got a nice tall highway gear, will still not do as well IRL for city driving but may do better on the highway.
__________________
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 11-11-2008, 01:29 PM   #10
MB2010CC
Back in Black
 
MB2010CC's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Black 2LT/RS Camaro
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
I read, i think on chevy.com, that the V6 is going to get 27MPG, with the automatic. Thats pretty damn good. Thats about the best HP to MPG ratio I've seen. Is the stick going to get less? How much less? My RX-8 gets shitty milage, I was thinking about getting a loaded Mazda 6 with the small motor. This camaro costs the same, gets 2 MPG less and has 300 HP instead of 170. Tough choice eh? :-D

I do wonder how this car will handle compared to my RX-8. The weight is about the same, but the RX-8 is probably a little better balanced. I'll miss my back doors but not as much as i'd miss rear wheel drive if I got some other car! Hell i'd probably still buy this thing even if it came with the turbo charged 4cyl out of a Solstice :-) But hey I drive a 1.3L vehicle so wahcagoonado

NO....
__________________
Currently Drives: Purple 1996 Chevrolet Beretta. Nicknamed The Purple People Eater NOT ANYMORE!!!(Which is exactly why I am getting a 2010 Chevy Camaro )
MB2010CC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 02:11 PM   #11
SS4EVER
Camaro Convert...
 
Drives: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, Mi
Posts: 595
If you go from the RX8 to the V6 Camaro, the V6 Camaro definitely isn't going to feel as nimble as your RX8. For my next car I was considering a RX8, 2LT Camaro w RS, & a 07-08 350Z.

The RX8 has nearly perfect 50/50 weight distribution, and it's a very well balanced vehicle. Unfortunately Mazda really screwed themselves when they came out with the Renesis rotary and dropped the twin turbo concept that they had with the 13B. So yeah, unfortunately with a N/A rotary you experience, crappy gas mileage and crappy low end torque...

The V6 Camaro on the other hand, may feel more powerful. But it's a heavier and a bigger car vs the RX8. But hey 300hp & 276ft lbs of torque with RWD, in a SEXY looking 5th gen Camaro isn't bad. It's just not going to perform as well on the twisties as the RX8 will. But in a straight line the V6 Camaro will be slightly quicker, and you'll get better MPG's...

The 350Z, offers great road handling, decent MPG's, and performance that will rival a current gen Mustang GT. But it's only a two seater vs the 2+2 setup of the RX8 and Camaro. But I just threw in the 350Z because it's sorta competition to the RX8 and Camaro. (Plus I'm hoping I'll be owning one after winter... )

But between the RX8 and V6 Camaro, the V6 Camaro wont' disappoint however just as a warning it's going to feel bigger and heavier vs the RX8...
__________________
4 life!
Currently Driving: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
SS4EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 02:23 PM   #12
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
According to the specs i found, the camaro will be 3700lbs and the rx8 is about 3800lbs. fyi
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 02:45 PM   #13
SS4EVER
Camaro Convert...
 
Drives: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Metro Detroit, Mi
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
According to the specs i found, the camaro will be 3700lbs and the rx8 is about 3800lbs. fyi
Holy crap the RX8 is 3800lbs? Did not know that, I thought it was like 3400-3600lbs.... Hmm that interesting.

Well then the V6 Camaro probably won't feel heavier then...

I don't think you'll be disappointed with the V6 Camaro though if you're looking for a well rounded fun driving car...
__________________
4 life!
Currently Driving: 2006 Cobalt SS Supercharged

Last edited by SS4EVER; 11-11-2008 at 02:58 PM.
SS4EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 03:58 PM   #14
joepitt
 
joepitt's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 LT2 Camaro, 2008 Enclave
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 463
I think for lots of folks, including me, it boils down to IT'S A CAMARO and is inspired by the 1969 model. It isn't always a rational decision.
__________________
It's HERE! 2013 2LT/RS, Auto, Red Crystal, Tan Interior, polished aluminum wheels, Nav.
Past highlights: 2010 pre-order Camaro 2LT,1969 Chevy Malibu, 1972 Plymouth 'Cuda, 1972 Pontiac GTO, 1979 Turbo Buick Century.
'See the USA in your Chevrolet...'
Dinah Shore, 1952: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGZvQoPxhNs
joepitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 05:02 PM   #15
TheClassicCarKid

 
TheClassicCarKid's Avatar
 
Drives: V45
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by joepitt View Post
I think for lots of folks, including me, it boils down to IT'S A CAMARO and is inspired by the 1969 model. It isn't always a rational decision.
THANK YOU. Fuel efficiency is NOT the top priority of this car. If it were, it wouldn't have 304 horsepower. It's a sports car people.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1320junkie View Post
All of the stang guys in one thread..wow..lol
.
TheClassicCarKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2008, 09:19 PM   #16
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 TheClassicCarKid View Post
THANK YOU. Fuel efficiency is NOT the top priority of this car. If it were, it wouldn't have 304 horsepower. It's a sports car people.
Top priority? No!

But good lord. When gas is the biggest cost on a car, and costing more than the food your eating, then its worth starting a thread over. If the Mustang didnt look so gay, and got 35 mpg, id buy it. It wont, and the Camaro still looks way better, so i dont have to worry. but you get the point. Its not a moot point. Just realize we love our muscle too, only with a side plate of practicality.
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!

Last edited by SemperFi; 11-12-2008 at 06:55 AM.
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 07:52 AM   #17
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi View Post
Its not a moot point. Just realize we love our muscle too, only with a side plate of practicality.
WTF are you talking about...there's no room for moderation or reason, this car is ONLY about raw pavement-destroying power, aggressive styling, and nothing else. Nobody buying the Camaro cares about practicality, cost, efficiency, reliability, comfort, or features...

/sarcasm

Seriously, if you are only in it for the looks and/or power, you're probably better served by a classic muscle car, not a brand new one. The whole point of having this new one is that we can have things like better fuel economy, practicality, and comfort.
__________________
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 11-12-2008, 07:54 AM   #18
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
If I was in it for the power, I'd buy buying a used corvette not a new camaro :-)
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 09:50 AM   #19
Rodrunner
Senior Member
 
Rodrunner's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 SS/RS, '06 350Z
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: So. Maryland
Posts: 2,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by theholycow View Post
WTF are you talking about...there's no room for moderation or reason, this car is ONLY about raw pavement-destroying power, aggressive styling, and nothing else. Nobody buying the Camaro cares about practicality, cost, efficiency, reliability, comfort, or features...

/sarcasm

Seriously, if you are only in it for the looks and/or power, you're probably better served by a classic muscle car, not a brand new one. The whole point of having this new one is that we can have things like better fuel economy, practicality, and comfort.

Funny, but I find myself more inclined to agree with your sarcastic statement than the serious one. That's what it's all about for me!!

And as far as weight (SS), GM says:
3860 - stick
3913 - auto

2SS/RS Black/Black w-Cyber Gray stripes/Auto ordered-10/18/08
Rodrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 09:54 AM   #20
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
So looks like it will weight the same as my 8.
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 10:38 AM   #21
Rodrunner
Senior Member
 
Rodrunner's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 SS/RS, '06 350Z
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: So. Maryland
Posts: 2,333
3800 sounds awfully heavy for the RX

2SS/RS Black/Black w-Cyber Gray stripes/Auto ordered-10/18/08
Rodrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 10:40 AM   #22
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
I agree it sounds high, but thats what the website says, 3,818 lbs
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/disp...ehicleCode=RX8
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2008, 09:44 AM   #23
Justcallme61
 
Drives: 2000 honda accord v6
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrunner View Post
And as far as weight (SS), GM says:
3860 - stick
3913 - auto
V8.
Justcallme61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2008, 10:32 AM   #24
TheClassicCarKid

 
TheClassicCarKid's Avatar
 
Drives: V45
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi View Post
Top priority? No!

But good lord. When gas is the biggest cost on a car, and costing more than the food your eating, then its worth starting a thread over. If the Mustang didnt look so gay, and got 35 mpg, id buy it. It wont, and the Camaro still looks way better, so i dont have to worry. but you get the point. Its not a moot point. Just realize we love our muscle too, only with a side plate of practicality.

I guess gas is more of a problem where you are.
I think that 26 mpg is GREAT for what the car is. It's going to cut what I spend on gas in half.
Maybe they'll make a 4-cylinder that gets 30+ someday

I understand what you mean, if we could have high horsepower and great fuel efficiency it would be great, but compromises have to be made with cars like the Camaro/mustang/challenger
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1320junkie View Post
All of the stang guys in one thread..wow..lol
.
TheClassicCarKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2008, 10:38 AM   #25
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
The turbo 4 cylinder GM makes gets 270 HP. . .
Granted Camaro people would find a turbo 4 as offensive as the RX-8 people but until we're burning hydrogen, turbo 4's might be the way to go
l008com 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
Why the Camaro is Doomed!! TFord 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 140 01-16-2010 08:07 PM
Help Me Pick An Economy Car Marosolid Off-topic Discussions 75 07-11-2009 06:41 AM
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
What's your deal breaker? LSxcellent 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 103 06-23-2008 11:26 PM
35 MPG Standard Will Kill the Muscle Car? Uh-Huh. Sure. Mr. Wyndham General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 6 01-09-2008 02:29 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 PM.


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