Chevrolet Camaro V6 to get slight fuel economy boost...

[KMPrenger]

I saw this posted in MTs WOT section...

http://wot.motortrend.com/2011-chevr...comment-139321

So if they are indeed to offer a version with slightly lower final drive ratio (the claim is 2.92) then in my opinion they could go ahead and offer us a "performance" version with a 3.55 final drive ratio.

Yes I know we all want 3.73s but I don't see that happening. The current drive ratio is probably the best balance of both words (efficiency and performance) but now with this new efficiency package only offering 1 MPG difference, is there really a need for the 3.27s anymore? What say you guys? Should Chevy forgo them and offer the 2.92 and a 3.55 performance version? I like that idea.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

It would be great to see an economy and a performance (track pack) version. However, I think this may be a strategic thing on GM's part in advance of the new CAFE standards. If is simply a response to the V6 Mustang, then they definitely missed half of the equation.

[Shu71]

KMP,

I think if GM isn't going to offer the 3.55 or similar as an option you can order, then GMPP should offer it with the corrected speedo calibration. But I don't think GM considers the V6 as their performance piece at this time and thus no such offerings. I am surprised that the 2.92's didn't do more for MPG than that but maybe the automatic has something to do with it. I haven't searched but is there a big difference in real world mpg's on the manual versus the automatic?

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by Shu71

KMP,

I think if GM isn't going to offer the 3.55 or similar as an option you can order, then GMPP should offer it with the corrected speedo calibration. But I don't think GM considers the V6 as their performance piece at this time and thus no such offerings. I am surprised that the 2.92's didn't do more for MPG than that but maybe the automatic has something to do with it. I haven't searched but is there a big difference in real world mpg's on the manual versus the automatic?

I like that idea as well!

I'm not sure what the difference is, but I'd think if driven with efficiency in mind that the manual would only be 1 or 2 MPG off of the automatic, but (at least in the automatic's case) it has been shown that the car can get the advertised MPG in real world driving.

[VR Baron]

Looking at the ratio differences only the 3.55's might only cost us 1 mpg.As far as a 2.92 ratio, I would never buy one.Would be to damn slow, especially of the line or in traffic, and not for 1 mpg gain.

[jagan323]

agreed

[KMPrenger]

Would be sweet if they did offer something like 3.73s though as an option for the auto, and then hopefully it would be compatible with our cars all of us older autos could upgrade! lol *dreaming*

[eflynnbot]

Other than upping the ratio what other things should they do if they were to have a dedicated V6 Sport (performance) version? What would that ideal package look like?

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by eflynnbot

Other than upping the ratio what other things should they do if they were to have a dedicated V6 Sport (performance) version? What would that ideal package look like?

Ideal to me would be the gears (duh), slightly lower / sportier springs or maybe just better quality bushings/sways, and maybe even the brembo brakes. I'm thinking this could be a $1,000 to 1,500 option...around there somewhere. Anything else would be icing on the cake, but I think thats all you'd need.

[GretchenGotGrowl]

Gotta agree. Ideal performance option for the V6 A6 would trailing arm/diff. bushings and the gears. Don't think we will get 3.73s, but that would be perfect. Don't think we can expect much more than that.