Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
TireRack
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 11-12-2008, 08:54 AM   #18
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 619
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, 10:50 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, 10:54 AM   #20
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 619
So looks like it will weight the same as my 8.
__________________
l008com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 11:38 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, 11:40 AM   #22
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 619
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, 10:44 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, 11:32 AM   #24
TheClassicCarKid

 
TheClassicCarKid's Avatar
 
Drives: V45
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,270
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, 11:38 AM   #25
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 619
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
Old 11-14-2008, 02:50 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, 02:55 PM   #27
l008com
 
l008com's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 1LT Crystal Red/Beige Manual
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stoneham, MA
Posts: 619
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, 04:29 PM   #28
Geno
 
Drives: 2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe GT
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 257
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, 06:28 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, 06:36 PM   #30
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 1,808
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, 03:23 PM   #31
Geno
 
Drives: 2013 Hyundai Genesis Coupe GT
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 257
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, 03:48 PM   #32
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 1,808
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, 08:52 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, 12:17 PM   #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
 
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 09:07 PM
Help Me Pick An Economy Car Marosolid Off-topic Discussions 75 07-11-2009 07:41 AM
Ready or not: 36 MPG by 2015 mandate from Feds Scotsman 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 76 03-07-2009 04:19 PM
What's your deal breaker? LSxcellent 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 103 06-24-2008 12:26 AM
35 MPG Standard Will Kill the Muscle Car? Uh-Huh. Sure. Mr. Wyndham General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 6 01-09-2008 03:29 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.


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