MPG for 6th Gen?
 

Have there been any numbers for mileage expectations for the 6th Gen?

I don't understand why we can make a microchip so small it can fit on the head of a pin, but we can't make V8 400+ hp engines that get can 40+ mpg's. :iono:

I'd love to see a world where muscle cars and pick-ups get great power AND mileage.

We are getting closer. The next gen will be lighter and the engine more efficient plus 7speed transmissions so MPG will go up but HP and MPG are trade offs. Cant really have both unless you go hybrid or electric.

Because those microchips aren't supercomputers in terms of performance. ;)

We can make 4 cylinder engines with the same power levels that 15 years ago would have been 25-28mpg...and are now getting 40-45...In terms of mpgs...the current Camaro SS would have been rated somewhere like 27, 28mpg hwy in 2007, before they changed the rules.

It's rumored that the new Corvette will be rated at or very close to 30mpg hwy with it's 450+ hp LT1 engine...If that is true, and a 6th-gen Camaro uses the same engine...I'm predicting a 28mpg V8 Camaro....


But outside of all the guessing....we got nuthin'. :laugh:

The next engine is more powerful and more efficient. It's just good engineering.

Rules on measuring don't matter to me, fact is right now most of my driving is city and I consistently get 10 mpg in a stock ZL1.

I read somewhere, a while ago, that 2019 should bring a 400hp 30 mile to the gallon base Corvette. If that estimate has been moved up to this stingray its gonna be hard for me to think about another Camaro as a daily driver and go with the Vette.

But who really knows what the future holds?

PS, love my ZL1, not giving it up, don't drive that many miles a week anyway.

You know what is the problem with us we need perfection in all matters we need power, speed and good mileage at the same time is it possible now? I am not saying about the future but if you need good milage so we have to reduce the power am I right or not?

Because you can't change physics. The majority of energy produced by the combustion of gasoline in the engine is lost as heat and a little more is lost through friction of the drive train.

It will be really sad if the new vette isn't rated over 30 mpg's since 4th gens get
27-29 and c5/c6 vettes can get over 30 already. I know reall world numbed vary compared to rated numbers but it should be better since the engine will make a lot more torque. The only thing that kills me is evn with the new 7speed the final gear isn't any better then the current c6. They need to do like ford did with the gt500 and give it a really deep final gear.

Physics.

Wonder if the manual tranny will have 7 as well?

We can make those, it's all about the package as a whole. You can have the most fuel efficient engine in the world, if you stick it in a 4000lb beast it's not going to get good mileage. That's where the laws of physics come in.

Put that same V8 in a 2500lb aerodinamic car and you'll get significantly better mileage.

So it's not that we can't build the engine capable of that, it's that everything else around it needs to be up to par. And when there are ever increasing safety regulations and everyone wants big wheels/brakes and lots of technology in the car it's going to be tough to keep the weight down.

The reason microchips can be so inexpensive is because the raw materials are very small (think about how much a processor weighs). But when you need 3000lbs of carbon fiber to make a light car well that much material is going to cost a lot.

Well if it is any indication about the Cadillac ATS and the 6th gen Camaro, the ATS is rated @ 19/28 with the 3.6...which is funny, because the current V6 camaro gets better MPG than that and it is heavier!!

I think that's because the ATS is geared and wears tires for performance in the 3.6L trim...the Camaro, in contrast, is geared for and shod in fuel economy tires.

With a similar treatment...I wonder if the ATS 3.6 wouldn't get 31-32mpg...

There was a post here on Camaro5 about an aftermarket plug in hybrid engine (or something similar) that could be plugged into any car. It wasn't finalized and I don't remember how it worked, but it was said to increase the MPG by about 10 MPG.

Many people that commented on that thread were being negative towards it, but I personally think that it would be great. Imagine getting 25+ MPG in the city on a 426 horsepower beast without loosing any performance whatsoever (minus the added on weight of course).

Aftermarket hybrid engine that plugs into any car? I think you'd have more luck with gasoline pills...at least those are cheaper.

Power, fuel economy, affordability. You can choose two.

Actually, the final drive ratio is the same between the two if my memory is correct (3.27) so I too am a bit surprised the ATS does not have a small MPG advantage. Only the 2LS Camaro has highway MPG rating of 30 because it has a 2.92 final drive ratio. Other V6 Camaros are rated at 28 MPG.

I wonder if there is something else affecting mileage for the ATS, or if the weight loss really doesn't help mileage much?

Keep in mind that just because a car loses mileage compared to another on the EPA test doesn't mean there is actually a difference in the real world. The EPA tests are inaccurate, and since car makers are more often trusted to run the test themselves (see Hyundai/Kia), they are almost not even useful for comparative purposes.

I agree that the mileage numbers used to satisfy the CAFE or EPA or whatever is getting more and more disconnected from what customers really see.

Especially for the V-8s, more and more gimmicky features...AFM, 1st to 4th, etc., are used to get high mileage numbers to satisfy the gov....and can be easily by-passed or unused by the driver...

The next gen LT-1 engines will have AFM in both manual transmission and automatic transmission cars. The Vette's will have a default driving mode that doesn't include AFM being active, you'll have to choose it.

If the government actually matches what drivers get for mpg, and eliminates the gimmicks that the factory can use to get a high rating, I think the party will really be over...lol...

3

haha yea. The site was somewhat sketchy. It would be nice if it were true though!

Already does, 1-6 and reverse :D

We're stuck with 14.7:1 fuel/air mixture. Big engines suck in more air which in turn needs more fuel. So displacement works against you. Therefore to get the best fuel economy you need smaller displacement. Turbo/blower engine would be one method, AFM the other. Either would need to be supplemented with reduced weight and better aerodynamics.

In either case, in part throttle it would run on reduced displacement, getting your 30 mpg. The turbo/blower effectively increases displacement by forcing in more air, so your 3.5 liter can be a 6 liter with boost. AFM of course just reduces/add cylinders.

I think GM should raise the price of Camaros (or at least the V8 models) to limit their numbers and play the CAFE averaging game that way. This would keep the cars at higher margins/quality/performance. Create a different fuel economy oriented car for the buyers that are about fuel economy eg Cruze SS, 130R etc.

BMW eventually went the turbo route. I hate AFM myself, so I would rather have a turbo v-6 or pay a gas guzzler tax when buying the v-8.

Lol smartass. You know what I meant. :D

Adding a turbo doesn't always increase fuel economy. The new GM Turbo V6 has near identical power and torque as the LS3 and gets the same gas mileage. The friction in an engine is a big determinant on fuel economy. A smaller engine might have to work harder, aka higher RPMs or throttle, than a larger engine to maintain a certain speed. In that case the increase in fuel economy might not be as noticeable because both engines could very well be using the same mass of air. The larger engine would require less throttle, and while it will "suck" in a larger volume of air for every stroke that volume of air will be at a lower pressure due to a greater pressure drop at the throttle and could be very similar in mass to that of a smaller motor using more throttle or spinning more RPMs. Also, when designing a car around turbos, the compression ratio must usually be lowered for reliability and longevity. This decreases the efficiency of the engine while it is not under load.

When the car goes into AFM mode, it may only be putting fuel into 4 cylinders, but it still has the friction of 8. Therefore, the other 4 have to work a bit harder, aka more throttle, which equals more air entering the 4 working cylinders. The only gain is you don't have as many combustion losses out of 4 cylinders vs 8 cylinders. That is why the gain in MPG seems minimal.

BMW went the turbo route mostly because it is a European based company. Most countries in Europe tax a car based on engine displacement. It's not a very fair system because nothing is an apples to apples comparison.

Very interesting, makes perfect sense - thanks for explaining.

Edit: I find it interesting that my 4-cyl 1993 Toyota pickup was rated 28MPG highway and the best mileage pickup said company makes in 2013 is rated 25MPG highway. 20 years of improvements in technology, and they have DEcreased 3MPG! Perhaps they measure it differently now. But still ... come on!

This is why I rebuilt the head at 316,000 miles rather than buy a new truck.

Also 20 more years of govt saftey regulations that require the trucks to be heavier and 20 years of consumers demanding more and more stuff in their trucks.

The new one is much bigger and heavier than the old one.

There was a major change in how FE was measured a few years ago starting with the 2008 Models with the intent of making the sticker number more in line with the real world.

The new test accounts for higher speed, harder acceleraton and cold temps.

So your older vehicle was rated using a different more forgiving test than the new model.

Thermodynamics.

Michael

Good morning all,

New proud owner of a 2013 2SS 1LE. The first thing I noticed it's how fast it burns gas compared to my old Nissan Maxima. It's a downside but nothing beats the sound of the engine and the big smile in my face.

I agree we should have more efficient engines but How about reducing the gas prices instead? what is happening right now is criminal if you ask me. We can go back to $1 gallon if we really want to fix the problem.

Step 1) Invent cheap space travel
Step 2) http://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-earth.html
Step 3) Gas now costs 10 cents a gallon.