Trying to decide, so I've got a question about Active Fuel Management

[SemperFi]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

^ I don't see that anyone is bashing the AFM. All anyone is saying is that it has to overcome the lower gas mileage found in auto tranny's. For the most part eryone is applauding it's capabilities.

Maybe our standards should be higher, but, any auto that gets the same mpg as a manual in the same car is good right?

Hmm. All i know is about 3 people said that there either wasnt a difference, or it is negligable. I just dont understand the logic behind that reasoning. Umm.. a new engine that shuts downs cylinders on highway driving, purpose built to achieve better gas mileage... and people say "ahhh... itl get the same mileage." How?????

Anyway. Worst-case, it doesnt get you any better mileage, you will still have put some money behind the development of further advances, advances that will keep our auto industry alive, and more money in your pocket in the long run

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by SemperFi

Hmm. All i know is about 3 people said that there either wasnt a difference, or it is negligable. I just dont understand the logic behind that reasoning. Umm.. a new engine that shuts downs cylinders on highway driving, purpose built to achieve better gas mileage... and people say "ahhh... itl get the same mileage." How?????

They're saying that the auto with AFM gets the same mileage as the manual without. The auto with AFM gets significantly better mileage than it would if it didn't have AFM.

An example of a modern GM V8 automatic getting less fuel economy than when equipped with manual:
EPA ratings for 2006 Pontiac GTO:
Manual: 15/18/23
Auto: 14/16/19

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

autos always eat more gas than manuals.

prime example. turtle and i both drove our 2002 SS's up to Indy in Sept.

His is an auto and mine is a manual.

I got 26mpg's average and he got 22mpg's average. We both drove together and we had pretty much identical driving habits.

WAIT!!! They are both LS1's!!! sorry....

Again, I might not be able to explain it as well as some of the other gearheads can, but I will say this. The auto eats more gas than a manual. Same thing for the LS3 vs. L99. L99 without AFM would not get the same mpg's....it would be lower.

To be very fair -- the auto 4thgen is a 4-speed and the manual 4thgen is a 6speed. Same issue with the GTO. Hardly apples to apples. And the new 6-speed autos are much more than simply two more gears...

I agree with SemperFi's point that with AFM on the highway (mostly), you'll see more gains than GM tells us we will. I'm not saying crazy-high 50mpg or anything like that. But there is a real, and good chance than an automatic SS Camaro would have reported better mpg than the manual SS on that trip of yours, TAG.

[TheClassicCarKid]

Originally Posted by BeermanSS

and it will stay that way till holidays, and then, till summer driving season next year when it'll hit $5 a gallon. Dont forget it nearly hit 5 this year.

There won't be enough demand to drive it that high. We'll all be so poor we won't pay it.

[blackZbandit]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

autos always eat more gas than manuals.

prime example. turtle and i both drove our 2002 SS's up to Indy in Sept.

His is an auto and mine is a manual.

I got 26mpg's average and he got 22mpg's average. We both drove together and we had pretty much identical driving habits.

WAIT!!! They are both LS1's!!! sorry....

Again, I might not be able to explain it as well as some of the other gearheads can, but I will say this. The auto eats more gas than a manual. Same thing for the LS3 vs. L99. L99 without AFM would not get the same mpg's....it would be lower.

Both the LS3 and L99 are going to get the same miles per gallon. And, the only REAL test that will prove this is when they are running around on the streets and we are able to perform our own tests.

Thank you TAG...

Originally Posted by SemperFi

Im sure you know a good bit about cars. but i have to go against you here. New cars (within the last 3 years) have autos that get just as good, or better MPG than manuals.

When im not as tired ill come and give some examples, but i really think all of you bashin the AFM are just upset that it might actually be smarter not to drive a stick camaro. Sorrry...

No one, particularly myself who you accused of posting "horse... crap", are bashing AFM because we prefer sticks... like I said, I live in L.A. and never have and never will drive a stick as long as I do. AFM is an amazing technology as most cars on the road today are auto's, but as TAG stated most AT's are not as feul efficient as MT's. AFM was never meant to be an advancement over MT's, just an advancement over AT's w/ low fuel economy. It is a technological breakthrough that GM was able to get such great MPG's on the auto because in these times most people (who mostly drive AT's) don't want a 17mg highway car no matter how many horses it has.

[blackZbandit]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I agree with SemperFi's point that with AFM on the highway (mostly), you'll see more gains than GM tells us we will. I'm not saying crazy-high 50mpg or anything like that. But there is a real, and good chance than an automatic SS Camaro would have reported better mpg than the manual SS on that trip of yours, TAG.

I think that with the fuel crisis we've just gotten over and are probably heading back into that the last thing GM wants to be conservative about is fuel economy. I agree that in the real world you may see better mileage with the L99, but if GM were confident in that theory I'm sure they would have reported it already... especially given that the AT is a $1000 option and the General would love to give you every reason they can to buy it.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by blackZbandit

I think that with the fuel crisis we've just gotten over and are probably heading back into that the last thing GM wants to be conservative about is fuel economy. I agree that in the real world you may see better mileage with the L99, but if GM were confident in that theory I'm sure they would have reported it already... especially given that the AT is a $1000 option and the General would love to give you every reason they can to buy it.

No, no...I'm not saying they're being conservative about it. Traditionally, real-world results aren't kind to automatic transmissions...but AFM isn't utilized 100% in EPA testing -- because it's them who rate the cars, not GM (if you have time, go check out the EPA's testing procedures, and then read up on how AFM operates.) That's what I meant...there's untapped potential in real-world driving.

[SemperFi]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

No, no...I'm not saying they're being conservative about it. Traditionally, real-world results aren't kind to automatic transmissions...but AFM isn't utilized 100% in EPA testing -- because it's them who rate the cars, not GM (if you have time, go check out the EPA's testing procedures, and then read up on how AFM operates.) That's what I meant...there's untapped potential in real-world driving.

Very strong points, and good truths by all. ^

However i think you will soon see cars with autos that get better gas mileage than manuals. because those computers will manage it like a... computer. And finally computers in cars will be up to the task.

I do suppose this thread has just about been fully explored.

[blackZbandit]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

No, no...I'm not saying they're being conservative about it. Traditionally, real-world results aren't kind to automatic transmissions...but AFM isn't utilized 100% in EPA testing -- because it's them who rate the cars, not GM (if you have time, go check out the EPA's testing procedures, and then read up on how AFM operates.) That's what I meant...there's untapped potential in real-world driving.

Well it sounds like we both agree then!! I think in the real world AFM will overperform also, just not by a signifcant amount.

Originally Posted by SemperFi

Very strong points, and good truths by all. ^

However i think you will soon see cars with autos that get better gas mileage than manuals. because those computers will manage it like a... computer. And finally computers in cars will be up to the task.

I do suppose this thread has just about been fully explored.

I agree with that also, only problem with the Camaro's (or any performance vehicle's) case is that MPG's is on the opposite end of a see-saw with a very heavy performance expectation on the other. Sure you can tune the ecu on a Camry to be biased towards MPG's instead of power, but on the Camaro that's not gonna fly. As we know the shift points on the L99/AT have been optimized to match the LS3/MT's 0-60 time. If they wanted they probably could've squeezed out better fuel economy and sacrificed acceleration, and maybe could've done the opposite. But as far as I know in the real world 400+ HP and 25 MPG CITY/30 MPG HWY do not coexist.

[BowtieGuy]

Originally Posted by blackZbandit

But as far as I know in the real world 400+ HP and 25 MPG CITY/30 MPG HWY do not coexist.

Then you clearly haven't seen the Prius GT concept.

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by blackZbandit

There is no increase in fuel efficiency in the auto with AFM, both the AT and the MT are expected to acheive 23-24 MPG hwy and about 17-18 city. You do (supposedly) get an extra 22 horses with the manual, but with the optimized shift points on the auto they're both acheiving 0-60 times of approximately 4.6 seconds... so will you ever feel the extra 22 horses? Probably not. So really the decision just boils down to whether an Auto or Manual trans will work better for you. Me, I live in L.A. which = TRAFFIC so I will be getting an auto. Maybe you've got more open roads and lighter traffic in Charleston so the manual may work out better for you.

Where did you hear or read that both L99 and Ls3 will be able to achieve 4.6 sec 0-60 in the new Camaro SS?

[BeermanSS]

Wow, yeah I missed some discussion here it looks like. Guess I don't have to respond cause it seems most of you guys made my points already. Auto with AFM better MPG than Auto w/o and should level the gap between Auto and Manual MPG's. Not magically become a 40mpg 4 cylinder.

[CamaroSpike23]

Originally Posted by camaropete

Look at it this way, if you go with the stick you get 20+ more HP. AND gas is down to less than $2 in many areas.

$2.00 for how long? and do you think you are going to feel that 20 hp?

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

autos always eat more gas than manuals.

prime example. turtle and i both drove our 2002 SS's up to Indy in Sept.

His is an auto and mine is a manual.

I got 26mpg's average and he got 22mpg's average. We both drove together and we had pretty much identical driving habits.

WAIT!!! They are both LS1's!!! sorry....

Again, I might not be able to explain it as well as some of the other gearheads can, but I will say this. The auto eats more gas than a manual. Same thing for the LS3 vs. L99. L99 without AFM would not get the same mpg's....it would be lower.

Both the LS3 and L99 are going to get the same miles per gallon. And, the only REAL test that will prove this is when they are running around on the streets and we are able to perform our own tests.

as dragon already said, 6 speed manual vs 4 speed auto.... not quite the same, also what rear gears did each of you have? lol apples to apples my ass.

Originally Posted by BeermanSS

Wow, yeah I missed some discussion here it looks like. Guess I don't have to respond cause it seems most of you guys made my points already. Auto with AFM better MPG than Auto w/o and should level the gap between Auto and Manual MPG's. Not magically become a 40mpg 4 cylinder.

well, it might get 40mpg in 4 cyl mode... but you have to average it out. so with the added valvetrain weight (which isnt much, and this is completely hypothetical) during normal operation, you get a lower mpg in v-8 mode and higher in v-4 mode which averages out...




seriously now... the A6 with AFM should be a little better than the m6, tho the "estimated" numbers arent always what will be seen. there are a lot of people with 4th gens that got 3-4mpg higher than the estimated mpg.

[BeermanSS]

Yeah but my point is that afm combined with a 6spd auto will close the gap, not make the auto get 30mpgs while the manual gets 24. And thats no bs.