Quote:
Originally Posted by Taintedveins
But are they really looking at performance cost in the next gen when you get to the Turbo? I mean if we have a v6 putting out 340 and a v8 putting out 350 with a small price difference between the 6 and the 4 gm could just be pushing the 4 to balance out the line. I mean if the 4 can get 40 highway on a stock tune with the v6 pulling 33 (highest I have achieved with stock tune and no mods) again and the 8 pulling 26(again highest I have seen) then it would make sense. 40+33+28= 101 average that and the it would be around 34 instead of the current 28.  |
V8 will be closer to 450. A roughly 300 hp turbo-4 will not achieve anywhere near 40. The current 270hp 2.0T is rated 31 mpg in the ATS. The V6 in the Camaro is rated 29-30 mpg, and would be better than that if it were in the smaller ATS platform. So I don't really see the benefit in CAFE. And since the V6 runs on regular, and the turbo likely not, I really don't see the benefit to the buyer.
And in terms of CAFE, the averaging is not that simple. They take the average of all the cars they sell. So if one engine is rated at 20 and one is rated at 30, the average is weighted based on the sales of each model, not just the availability of the model. In other words, if GM offers a lower performance, high economy version, but no one buys it, it doesn't help their CAFE average much. So what they will likely do is artificially raise the price of the V6 and V8 to "encourage" more people to buy the lower performance model.
Also, the averaging of the mileage ratings is not linear. For the average to be a linear function, what is being averaged must be taken over the units in the denominator (gallons), not the numerator (miles). For example, driving two cars the same distance, one getting 30 mpg, the other 20 mpg, the average is 24 mpg, not 25. To make the average linear at 25 mpg, the two cars have to get their respective economies over the same number of gallons, not the same number of miles.