Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
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 11-14-2008, 01:50 PM   #26
surfevo
 
Drives: 2005 Rx8
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: CALI
Posts: 15
I008com you are reading the weight on the RX8 wrong. It weighs only 3064 with the 6 speed. The 3800 is the MAX or Gross weight. Meaning the maximum load for the car is about 800lbs of people/stuff. The RX8 has a better power to weight ratio then the V6 Camaro. 3064lb/238hp vs 3700lb/304hp, also the RX8 has a better balance. You will notice the 700lb weight difference between the two cars. I just wanted to let you know.
surfevo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 01:55 PM   #27
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
I see. But doesn't the camaro still have a better power to weight ratio based on your numbers?

0.07767 HP per pound RX8
vs
0.08216 HP per pound Camaro

?
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2008, 03:29 PM   #28
Geno
 
Drives: 2010 Hyundai Genesis 3.8 GT
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 172
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
My expearience. GM cars can get better mileage than the EPA or window sticker.
My '06 Monte Carlo w/3.9 V6 is rated at 27 highway. I can get over 30 anyday on the highway. My best is 32 for US 30 and I 75 not using the AC and 30.5 with AC. This is running 65-70+ using cruise. Heavy traffic will cut into this big time.
Geno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 05:28 PM   #29
Visual_Perfection
 
Visual_Perfection's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 Bonneville SLE
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Naples, FL
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geno View Post
My expearience. GM cars can get better mileage than the EPA or window sticker.
My '06 Monte Carlo w/3.9 V6 is rated at 27 highway. I can get over 30 anyday on the highway. My best is 32 for US 30 and I 75 not using the AC and 30.5 with AC. This is running 65-70+ using cruise. Heavy traffic will cut into this big time.
Agreed.

I have always been able to acheive better mileage in all my cars (All GM too ) then they were rated at.

Of course I also get worse than what they rate them at when I drive like I stole it.

Just a few examples of some of the vehicles I have owned:

my '99 LS1 Trans Am 6speed was rated at like 26mpg hwy.. I was able to get 29mpg consitently with it and 32mpg on a few trips even.

My '96 LT1 Z28 6 speed was rated at like 26 I beleive too.. and even with 3.73's vs. the stock 3.42's I STILL was able to get 28-29mpg hwy.

My 96 Grand Am SE with the 3100 v6 I had for a winter car.. could get 33-35mpg hwy all day long!

My 2006 Trailblazer rated at 21mpg hwy I beleive.. was able to get 25mpg when it was stock (now with larger A/T tires and aftermarket wheels I get 22-23mpg hwy, which is still higher than the factory rating.)

Point is, if you look at the estimates on the window sticker it has the big number in bold, but in fine print below it, it states a range you can expect to get.. ussually 3-4mpg below and above the actual rating. If you drive like your out for a sunday drive you can definately get better mileage, if you drive like a racecar driver, expect much worse

So I predict the V6 camaro will definately be capable of 29-31mpg on highway trips if you are driving good for sure.
Visual_Perfection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2008, 05:36 PM   #30
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 2,699
With the new EPA fuel economy calculations that went into effect for 2008, you have to drive very fast (and pretty bad) to get less than the big numbers on the sticker.
__________________
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 11-22-2008, 02:23 PM   #31
Geno
 
Drives: 2010 Hyundai Genesis 3.8 GT
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 172
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
My 3.9 is rated at 27 highway and I can get 30.5 to 32 on interstate at 70 to 75 mph. I am hopefull my 2LT auto will do the same. My 3.9 is the first year 242hp.
Geno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2008, 02:48 PM   #32
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geno View Post
My 3.9 is rated at 27 highway and I can get 30.5 to 32 on interstate at 70 to 75 mph. I am hopefull my 2LT auto will do the same. My 3.9 is the first year 242hp.
The fourth generation Camaro was almost certainly aerodynamically superior to the fifth gen. The better technology will at least partially make up for that. Still, I think that driving the same you'll get worse MPG.

According to http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6767 the V6 version has a Cd of .36 and the V8 version has .35. That's pretty nasty, lots of SUVs have better Cd (but larger frontal area). Apparently the hybrid Tahoe has .349:


The 5th gen Camaro's high drag coefficient is probably mainly the result of that huge parachute of a grille in the front. It looks great, but the 2000 model with no grille at all scored .32 (the same as my VW Rabbit).


Actually, by looking at it I'd guess that particular Camaro is closer to .30, but who knows...

Then again, according to that same thread, .34 for a C6 ZO6...how the hell is a Z06 less sleek than my VW?


For reference, my ugly goofy looking pregnant rollerskate VW with .32 Cd:
__________________
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 12-04-2008, 07:52 PM   #33
Oracle
 
Drives: Ford Focus
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Az
Posts: 71
a regulat c6 has a lower CD than your VW. the reason a Z06 doesnt is because they put things on it like a chin spoiler. this increases down force to make the Z06 a better track car, but consiquently increases drag.
Oracle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 11:17 AM   #34
Flighttester
 
Drives: 2008 Audi A4 3.2 MT S Line
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
I agree it sounds high, but thats what the website says, 3,818 lbs
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/disp...ehicleCode=RX8
That's Gross (loaded) weight, not empty weight.

The RX-8 curb weight is about 3,100 pounds.
Flighttester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 12:32 PM   #35
TheClassicCarKid

 
TheClassicCarKid's Avatar
 
Drives: V45
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfevo View Post
I008com you are reading the weight on the RX8 wrong. It weighs only 3064 with the 6 speed. The 3800 is the MAX or Gross weight. Meaning the maximum load for the car is about 800lbs of people/stuff. The RX8 has a better power to weight ratio then the V6 Camaro. 3064lb/238hp vs 3700lb/304hp, also the RX8 has a better balance. You will notice the 700lb weight difference between the two cars. I just wanted to let you know.
Yes it has better power to weight
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1320junkie View Post
All of the stang guys in one thread..wow..lol
.
TheClassicCarKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 12:40 PM   #36
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 25,787
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
It doesn't have a better power to weight, though. Don't know how I missed this before.

Camaro V6: .08 hp/lb
RX8: .07 hp/lb

The Camaro is a little better. Also, doesn't the RX8 use a rotary engine? Two TOTALLY different animals.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.
SIGN UP for 2014 Camaro5 HPDE @ Gingerman Raceway!
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 12:59 PM   #37
TheClassicCarKid

 
TheClassicCarKid's Avatar
 
Drives: V45
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
It doesn't have a better power to weight, though. Don't know how I missed this before.

Camaro V6: .08 hp/lb
RX8: .07 hp/lb

The Camaro is a little better. Also, doesn't the RX8 use a rotary engine? Two TOTALLY different animals.
Yeah it has a 1.3 Wankel.
Getting 238 horsepower from a 1.3 is freakin' insane
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1320junkie View Post
All of the stang guys in one thread..wow..lol
.
TheClassicCarKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 01:11 PM   #38
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
It is a very different kind of engine. It has no low end torque whatsoever, all the power is in the high RPMs. But it's super solid at the high RPMs, it doesn't feel like a motor that youre about to blow up, you can hit 9000 rpms in the thing and it just GOES
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 03:58 PM   #39
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,658
I have a feeling that if you keep your foot out of the V6 and just cruize, lean burn mode will carry you a lot higher than the EPA ratings.

I'm somewhat worried that the EPA will drive the car too fast when they test it for lean burn mode to kick in.
- Xanthos

P.S. - and downforce is basically deliberate drag - thats why the Z06 is as high as it is.

P.P.S. - Every time I see the title of this thread I think "oh great, another person complaining about the mpg numbers."
__________________
Xanthos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 05:43 PM   #40
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by XanthosV6
I'm somewhat worried that the EPA will drive the car too fast when they test it for lean burn mode to kick in.
Whether or not driving conditions/style are appropriate for lean burn depends on how the car is programmed -- if they've designed and programmed it for the EPA test schedule, you can bet it will be in lean burn a lot. If they've ignored the test and concentrated on real-world results, it could get underrated.

It's kinda like students taking tests...you can have a student whose teachers teach to the test so he learns how to take the test, who gets great scores and is worthless in the workplace, and you can have a failing student who learned how to actually get stuff done and produces real results.

Pasted from http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml (and edited for formatting / display appropriate to this forum, as well as adding emphasis).
Quote:
Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a laboratory using a standardized test procedure specified by federal law. Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 10-15 percent of them through their own tests at the National Vehicles and Fuel Emissions Laboratory.

In the laboratory, the vehicle's drive wheels are placed on a machine called a dynamometer that simulates the driving environment—much like an exercise bike simulates cycling. The energy required to move the rollers can be adjusted to account for wind resistance and the vehicle's weight.

On the dynamometer, a professional driver runs the vehicle through a standardized driving routine, or schedule, which simulates “typical” trips in the city or on the highway.
Video: http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/FE_test_p...on_dyno_hi.WMV

Each schedule specifies the speed the vehicle must travel during each second in the test. The driver watches a computerized display that shows his driving statistics compared to the specified schedule.
Video: http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/FE_test_p...chedule_hi.WMV

A hose is connected to the tailpipe to collect the engine exhaust. The carbon in the exhaust is measured to calculate the amount of fuel burned during the test. This is more accurate than using a fuel gauge.
__________________
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 01-12-2009, 06:52 PM   #41
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by theholycow View Post
Whether or not driving conditions/style are appropriate for lean burn depends on how the car is programmed -- if they've designed and programmed it for the EPA test schedule, you can bet it will be in lean burn a lot. If they've ignored the test and concentrated on real-world results, it could get underrated.

It's kinda like students taking tests...you can have a student whose teachers teach to the test so he learns how to take the test, who gets great scores and is worthless in the workplace, and you can have a failing student who learned how to actually get stuff done and produces real results.

Pasted from http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml (and edited for formatting / display appropriate to this forum, as well as adding emphasis).
I would hope they would concentrate on real world results, but they might lose sales if the numbers are too low. Like I said - I just hope everything goes right when the EPA tests it.
- Xanthos
__________________
Xanthos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 07:18 PM   #42
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by XanthosV6 View Post
I just hope everything goes right when the EPA tests it.
...if the EPA tests it at all. The EPA might just accept GM's tests, which still have to be done at specified speeds anyway.
__________________
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 01-12-2009, 07:21 PM   #43
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
omg DIE THREAD DIE!!!
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 07:26 PM   #44
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
omg DIE THREAD DIE!!!
?
- Xanthos
__________________
Xanthos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 07:32 PM   #45
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
This thread was dead, then recently it came back to life but people just keep repeating the same stuff that was already said when the thread was new.... is all....
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 07:33 PM   #46
Xanthos
Almost-Original Postwhore
 
Xanthos's Avatar
 
Drives: Stick
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 12,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by l008com View Post
This thread was dead, then recently it came back to life but people just keep repeating the same stuff that was already said when the thread was new.... is all....
So? That's half the fun!
- Xanthos
__________________
Xanthos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 07:38 PM   #47
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
Meh
I'm in the "enough talk, enough research, lemme drive already!" mode...
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 08:02 PM   #48
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 2,699
I think some people are offended by fuel economy discussions.
__________________
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 01-12-2009, 08:06 PM   #49
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 573
This was my thread remember? I'm not offended by the topic, I'm offended by threads that get stuck in repeat loops
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 08:15 PM   #50
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 2,699
That comment was caused by but not directed at you, l008com. I was thinking of people on automotive forums who actually seem offended when someone mentions fuel economy, as if you had insulted their mother.
__________________
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
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 05:05 AM.


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