MPG for the Z28

[Nine Ball]

My auto trans '09 CTS-V averages 16.4 mpg. Mostly highway, but with very spirited acceleration. Camaro weighs less, I expect it will do slightly better. Maybe 18 mpg avg for auto, 20 mpg manual.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by bolteon593

the esp on my gt500 is loads better then the hydraulic system on the 5th gen currently.

has a much better on center feel, as well as greater responsiveness.

hopefully the z gets a similar system.

I had another car with that system and I hardly ever felt a cross wind, the road crown, and loved the steering feel. I'm sure you're 100% correct

Originally Posted by Nine Ball

My auto trans '09 CTS-V averages 16.4 mpg. Mostly highway, but with very spirited acceleration. Camaro weighs less, I expect it will do slightly better. Maybe 18 mpg avg for auto, 20 mpg manual.

My 4Runner only gets about 16 MPG so I wouldn't care at all, LOL! I don't care anyways

[SGOS252382]

My L99 A6 Camaro SS gets around 15 mpg average. That's it. I drive pretty spirited with a lot of stops and starts (no highway).

I would expect about 12-13 mpg out of a Z28 in similar conditions.

[truth411]

Originally Posted by OPP

Somebody please explain. How come adding a SC to the SS improves the fuel economy and how come the CTS-V which makes the same HP as an SS with a SC (~550 hp) only gives 11MPG?

Gearing and the wheel/tire Diameter and Wieght.

[garfin]

Originally Posted by OldJedi

Elie, thanks so much for the information, it is very valuable. You helped make up my mind between the auto and the stick. It wil definitely be the M6 for me. Between the lower GG tax and the 3.73 gears plus dual disk clutch, it sounds like the way to go at least for my needs. If the CTS-Vs with 3.73 gears are getting in the 15/20 range for city/hwy, that will be good enough. The GT 500 must have just missed the GG tax limit, maybe sometime in the next year Chevy can get 1 or 2 more mpg from the Z28 and avoid the GG tax also. Being from South Florida though i will not be able to take advantage of the really cold air that you get in Canada. By the time a Canadian blizzard gets down here it has already warmed up to 72 degrees. Thanks again, great information.

LOL! You might not get the benefit of our colder weather, but at least you don't have to turn yourself into a pretzel if circumstances dictate that you do need to drive it in the winter! :(

But... there is a lot of back and forth on the 2nd Gen CTS-V board with regard to auto vs. manual...

It seems that the major factors to consider are that:
1) the A6 cars generally tend to be 2-3 tenths quicker in the 0-60 and 1/4 mi. times, although they seem to dyno 20-25 RWHP less than the MN6 cars (440-460 for the auto vs 465-485 for the manual as an indicative range).
Not 100% sure exactly why the autos are quicker, but I'm guessing that it's a combination of computer shifting, there being just so many more autos out there than manual Vs, so the odds of getting better times are increased. I'm also not sure as to just how many drivers of the very few manual Vs out there, are actually able to extract maximum performance from their cars. As well, the manual Vs seem to be harder to launch properly (although I don't find this to be the case). This is in conjunction with the simply amazing gearing the A6 cars have in 1st! A 4.02 1st gear ratio coupled with a 3.23 rear end is pretty crazy! (a lot more oomph than the 2.66 1st gear with the 3.73 rear end on the manual cars). All the A6 cars are turning 60' times in the 1.8 range (give or take) on the stock PS2s

2) The A6 cars seem to be the choice for those who drive in heavier traffic on a regular basis, or use it as a DD.

3) The A6 cars have a higher gas guzzler tax

4) Many people complain that the A6 cars have lazy shifts and do not respond quickly to manual inputs. However, this is easily remedied via a tranny tune (but then there are the associated "voiding of the warranty" issues).

5) Virtually everyone with a manual loves it and says they are a blast in terms of having more fun as a result of having better control of the car. They wouldn't trade the manual for the auto - even if it is a couple of ticks slower...
If you track your car on a road course, the manual is defiitely the way to go, even if Heinricy set the record on the 'Ring in an auto (he says would have rather driven a manual). And again, the manual car is not a chore to drive at all - it has a very light clutch and is a complete no-brainer to drive smoothly. (even my wife admits this!)

6) MN6 cars have a higher top end (but I've never heard of anyone complaining that 175 mph isn't fast enough)

So I'm thinkin' any Z/28 is gonna have to be considered a kissin' cousin to the CTS-V, with the V having a bit more "weight" (if you'll pardon the pun) on luxury features, refinement, comfort and quiet, with the Z opting for more of a hardcore, in-your-face focus on performance, with all the sensory/visceral inputs that are involved with that approach.

The really good news is that the LSA is relatively inexpensive to mod with bolt-ons/pulley swaps etc. and responds extremely well to this basic stuff, as well as to more serious mods. Those who might want to do a bit of advance budgeting for these mods, might want to check this thread out on the CTS-V board...
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums...list-cost.html

So I'm just happy that in the 2nd Gen V, there is now a choice, so that people with different priorities can choose according to their needs...
It seems that there have been pics of automatic Z/28 test cars posted, so I'd like to think that it's reasonable that GM would offer that same choice to Camaro buyers... so y'all gotta put on your thinkin' caps and figure it all out...

Originally Posted by radz28

Out of curiosity - what RPMs are you turning at around 70 MPH? What - ~2000? I don't recall the height of your tires, but with a 26-inch tall tire, similar ratios in a F-body T56 were around 1900 or something, wasn't it? it's been a while since my LT1, but I think I remember about 1750 with 3.42s on 26" tires

A bit higher... the OEM rears (285/35/19) have a 26.9" diameter. At 72-73 MPH, the tach on the V is showing 2200-2250 RPM. If I recall, your numbers are pretty close for a stock 6MN F-body. My 98 SS had 4.10s and the V runs almost identically to that setup. If I recall, 6th gear in the SS was 0.50, so it's pretty much a wash with the V's 3.73s and 0.63 6th gear.

Best regards,

Elie

[OldJedi]

Thank again Elie, you have a ton of great information.

[boxmonkeyracing]

currently get about 6 mpg in my 87 k5 blazer. . .lol anything is an improvement.

[OPP]

By modding the hell out of it I mean "close to hell". "Hell" would be adding a SC. Sin't get me wrong, I like the idea of a SC but again, I need a daily driver. Mods would be CAI, exhaust, tune. I don't think that would affect the MPG negatively.

If I had the money for 2 cars for myself I would get a Z-28 for the weekends.

[DarkneSS]

MPG shouldn't even be on your list when thinking about buying this car.

[alrox]

Originally Posted by DarkneSS

MPG shouldn't even be on your list when thinking about buying this car.

Excluding the CTS-V, all of Chevrolet's performance vehicles get excellent gas mileage.

The upcoming Z28's main competitor, the GT500, has improved it's fuel economy due to consumer demand to avoid a gas guzzler tax.

MPG is a major factor in a new car purchase, even a high performance model.

[wildpaws]

Originally Posted by boxmonkeyracing

currently get about 6 mpg in my 87 k5 blazer. . .lol anything is an improvement.

Back in the day my '69 Z/28 got 4-6mpg in town depending on how much you kept your foot in it, about 12mpg on the highway with a 3.73 rear gear. It sounds like the LSA type engine doesn't do all that bad in comparison.
Clyde

[boxmonkeyracing]

Originally Posted by OPP

By modding the hell out of it I mean "close to hell". "Hell" would be adding a SC. Sin't get me wrong, I like the idea of a SC but again, I need a daily driver. Mods would be CAI, exhaust, tune. I don't think that would affect the MPG negatively.

If I had the money for 2 cars for myself I would get a Z-28 for the weekends.

well it will negatively affect a cars mpg. example is my old 4th gen 28 mpg highway stock. after LT headers, magnaflow catback, lid, ls6 intake, and tune I barely saw 23mpg on the highway. just cause it has a GG charge doesn't man you can't live with it for a DD.

Originally Posted by wildpaws

Back in the day my '69 Z/28 got 4-6mpg in town depending on how much you kept your foot in it, about 12mpg on the highway with a 3.73 rear gear. It sounds like the LSA type engine doesn't do all that bad in comparison.
Clyde

lol. mine is combined rural highway with little city driving. currently 22 miles one way to work. 30 gal tank I use 1/4 for 1 round trip. and seeing how I haven't actually been able to get the exact mileage out of the tank. and knowing it's 7.5 gal per 1/4. I round down for the sake of optimism. I get 6.28 mpg with mostly highway. I need a motorcycle.

[lewylew]

Originally Posted by DarkneSS

MPG shouldn't even be on your list when thinking about buying this car.

+1
Who cares about fuel economy? if you can afford the car you can afford the gas!

[radz28]

Let me just say that though I don't really care about economy for this car, I do have a problem with just wasting gas, per se. It's one thing to get this kind of MPG for almost 600 horsepower, but it's another to get half of that power at near the same mileage. For this kind of car - fine.