superchargers/turbochargers & mpg - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums

The BIRDman · 03-30-2009, 07:19 PM

exactly how much do superchargers/turbochargers affect mpg?
in relevance to a camaro ss that is.

*CamaroSpike23* · 03-30-2009, 07:57 PM

depends on the charger and setup

fierodeletre · 03-31-2009, 04:05 AM

Typically, traditionally, a turbo setup better allows you to keep some of your mpgs as you can 'nurse' the engine to not make as much boost. That being said, there's still the facts of exhaust restriction and (hopefully) larger or higher flow injectors, so... The other factor to consider in both SC and TC is that the engine will make more power at a lower RPM, meaning that you won't need to down shift as much, which helps mileage a bit. wither way, if you're looking at mpgs, FI might not be your thing.

O2BQIK · 03-31-2009, 08:08 PM

In my '98 Camaro SS with twin turbos, I got around 15 to 18 mpg on a tank, depending on how much highway time and how much I got my foot into it. If I cruised on the highway with a tail-wind for the entire tank of gas I could hit 21 mpg. That was with upgraded (30 lb/hr) fuel injectors. The gearing on the 4th gens was not much different from the 2010 and the motor is similar, so I'd guess that would be a reasonable expectation for a turbo setup on a 2010, but there are a lot of variables.

And as stated above, if reduced fuel mileage would be a concern for you, you probably should not be looking at forced induction. I can guarantee you that the initial cost will not be the last money you spend on it. Some part will break, it will need retuning, something. Forced induction = $$

*DGthe3* · 04-01-2009, 01:02 PM

I've heard that forced induction tends to help a little bit (under low to moderate boost levels) but encourages more 'spirited' driving so real world economy almost always goes down

*radz28* · 04-01-2009, 01:05 PM

TheBIRDman - Please check your Private Messages.

03-30-2009, 07:19 PM	#1
The BIRDman Master ****sman Drives: 1991 silverado Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: houston Posts: 55	superchargers/turbochargers & mpg exactly how much do superchargers/turbochargers affect mpg? in relevance to a camaro ss that is.

03-31-2009, 08:08 PM	#4
O2BQIK Drives: 1991 Camaro RS Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Dallas area Posts: 596	In my '98 Camaro SS with twin turbos, I got around 15 to 18 mpg on a tank, depending on how much highway time and how much I got my foot into it. If I cruised on the highway with a tail-wind for the entire tank of gas I could hit 21 mpg. That was with upgraded (30 lb/hr) fuel injectors. The gearing on the 4th gens was not much different from the 2010 and the motor is similar, so I'd guess that would be a reasonable expectation for a turbo setup on a 2010, but there are a lot of variables. And as stated above, if reduced fuel mileage would be a concern for you, you probably should not be looking at forced induction. I can guarantee you that the initial cost will not be the last money you spend on it. Some part will break, it will need retuning, something. Forced induction = $$ __________________ 2010 Camaro SS in black/beige: Sold. \| '91 Camaro RS: Still the dream car! '98 Camaro SS: Incon twin turbo. Sold \| '99 Camaro SS: Heads/cam/bolt-ons. Sold.

04-01-2009, 01:02 PM	#5
DGthe3 Moderator.ca Drives: 05 Grand Am GT Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Niagara, Canada Posts: 25,372	I've heard that forced induction tends to help a little bit (under low to moderate boost levels) but encourages more 'spirited' driving so real world economy almost always goes down __________________ Note, if I've gotten any facts wrong in the above, just ignore any points I made with them __________________ Originally Posted by FbodFather My sister's dentist's brother's cousin's housekeeper's dog-breeder's nephew sells coffee filters to the company that provides coffee to General Motors...... ........and HE WOULD KNOW!!!! __________________ Camaro Fest sub-forum

04-01-2009, 01:05 PM	#6
radz28 Petro-sexual Drives: Ultra-Grin Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Crazy Coast Posts: 15,198 View My Garage	TheBIRDman - Please check your Private Messages. __________________ '20 ZL1 Black "Fury" A10, PDR, Exposed CF Extractor Magnuson Magnum DI TVS2650R // RFBG // Soler 103 // TooHighPSI Port Injection // THPSI Billet Lid // FF // Katech Drop-In // PLM Heat Exchanger // ZLE Cradle bushings // BMR Chassis-Suspension Stuff // aFe Bars // Diode Dynamics LEDs // ACS Composites Guards // CF Dash // Aeroforce // tint // other stuffs

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Official V6 MPG confirmed at 29 MPG hwy!	fastball	Camaro V6 LLT Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons	83	03-23-2009 07:45 AM
Let me get this straight....LS3 vs. L99 MPG	JMAN311	Camaro V8 LS3 / L99 Engine, Exhaust, and Bolt-Ons	28	03-18-2009 05:27 PM
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
Florida Senator Calls for 50 MPG Mandate In Exchange for bailout	DMX	General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion	44	11-19-2008 09:31 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

03-31-2009, 04:05 AM	#3
fierodeletre Drives: 02 WS6 TA, 88 Fiero Formula Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Utard Posts: 296	Typically, traditionally, a turbo setup better allows you to keep some of your mpgs as you can 'nurse' the engine to not make as much boost. That being said, there's still the facts of exhaust restriction and (hopefully) larger or higher flow injectors, so... The other factor to consider in both SC and TC is that the engine will make more power at a lower RPM, meaning that you won't need to down shift as much, which helps mileage a bit. wither way, if you're looking at mpgs, FI might not be your thing.