CAMARO6

CAMARO6 (http://www.camaro6.com/forums/index.php)
-   2016 Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro forum, news, rumors, discussions (http://www.camaro6.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=155)
-   -   MPG for 6th Gen? (http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283297)

Z51Stingray 03-17-2013 09:31 AM

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.

toehead93 03-17-2013 11:00 AM

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.

Mr. Wyndham 03-17-2013 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RallySportRand (Post 6296195)
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.

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_Blur 03-17-2013 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toehead93 (Post 6296439)
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.

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

2012-1822 04-28-2013 03:55 AM

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.

janny 05-18-2013 05:08 AM

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?

Bhobbs 05-20-2013 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RallySportRand (Post 6296195)
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.

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.

NASTY99Z28 05-20-2013 10:49 PM

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.

FenwickHockey65 05-20-2013 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RallySportRand (Post 6296195)
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.

Physics.

Wizard1183 05-21-2013 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toehead93 (Post 6296439)
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.

Wonder if the manual tranny will have 7 as well?

LIVEVIL 05-21-2013 09:15 AM

Quote:

but we can't make V8 400+ hp engines that get can 40+ mpg's
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.

Mikes SS 05-21-2013 10:05 AM

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!!

Mr. Wyndham 05-22-2013 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikes SS (Post 6569920)
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...

sspolo 05-22-2013 06:57 PM

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).

fielderLS3 05-22-2013 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sspolo (Post 6576765)
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.

fielderLS3 05-22-2013 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janny (Post 6558270)
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?

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

KMPrenger 05-23-2013 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham (Post 6576236)
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...

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?

fielderLS3 05-23-2013 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMPrenger (Post 6579025)
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.

90503 05-23-2013 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fielderLS3 (Post 6581479)
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...

CooG 05-23-2013 09:07 PM

3

sspolo 05-23-2013 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fielderLS3 (Post 6577589)
Aftermarket hybrid engine that plugs into any car? I think you'd have more luck with gasoline pills...at least those are cheaper.

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

FL1CK 05-25-2013 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wizard1183 (Post 6569423)
Wonder if the manual tranny will have 7 as well?

Already does, 1-6 and reverse :D

wakespeak 05-31-2013 02:51 PM

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.

Wizard1183 05-31-2013 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FL1CK (Post 6587274)
Already does, 1-6 and reverse :D

Lol smartass. You know what I meant. :D

knowitman 05-31-2013 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakespeak (Post 6612856)
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.

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.