Homepage Garage Wiki Register Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > CAMARO6.com General Forums > 2016+ Camaro: 6th Gen Camaro general forum


AWE Tuning


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-11-2013, 05:53 AM   #491
The_Blur
Moderator
 
The_Blur's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 Harley-Davidson Street Bob
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 14,769
Send a message via AIM to The_Blur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
A common mistake people make is they look at increased fuel economy as "found money". It's not, and it's pretty insignificant in the scheme of things. (And may end up being an actual negative investment).

Let's take the cadillac ATS discussed above as an example. I will round the numbers to make the math easier.

If the 2.0T makes 33MPG, it will use 3030 gallons of fuel to go 100K miles.
If the 3.6 makes 30MPG, it will use 3333 gallons of fuel to go 100K miles.

For all those big economy numbers (an awesome 3 more MPGS) you save 303 gallons over 100,000 miles. That means if gas costs $4.00 a gallon, you saved $1,212 over the 100,000 miles.

My contention is that it costs the consumer MORE than $1212 in the increased price of the car to make those 3MPGs than the consumer actually saves by driving the car.

According to the "build your own" for the Cadillac ATS the base prices are:

2.5 = MSRP Starting at $33,990
2.0T = MSRP Starting at $35,795

As far as I can tell comparing the trim levels, the 2.5 and 2.0T models are equipped the same except for the engine, so we can see that adding a turbo raises the price of an an I4 engine by ($35,795 - $33,990) = $1,805!

I can't directly compare the V6 model to the 2.0T because they obscure the price of the V6 engine by adding a boatload of extra options to the base V6 trim level, but I would guess that the V6 engine is more than $1,212 less than the 2.0T.

So, people pay up front for what they think is a huge savings in fuel economy, when the real world shows that they actually pay more up front for an efficient car over what they would spend over the life of the vehicle that has the less efficent but more affordable engine.

Once you add in the interest the buyer pays on the higher priced "efficient" engine, versus the interest earned by banking that money and paying it over time for slightly more fuel... well the results are even more skewed.

So, all the arguments being made for the I4T Camaro because it saves fuel are pretty much non starters. GM could build a really nice basic V8 Camaro for a really nice low price, and it would be an awesome platform to mod because it would be so inexpensive.

People interested in saving gas could be encouraged to run the figures and see for themselves that paying up front for fuel savings is costing them money. They would then jump at the chance to get a V8 Camaro with no fuel "stigma" clouding their judgement.

It's a win-win!
I actually ran these numbers for my wife when we got her a Sonic. We were trying to decide if she would keep her car long enough to get her money back out of a Volt or some other fuel economy-oriented GM vehicle. She doesn't drive nearly enough to benefit from the gas savings of the Volt, even if she kept it for over 150k miles. What's more frustrating is that a primary cost driver on new cars is the advanced engineering it takes to design something with today's fuel economy standards. Cars keep getting more expensive, and a large part of that is the cost of these new engines with 30+ mpg. I can only imagine what the LS3 would cost if GM didn't have to add all of the expensive emissions equipment necessary to fulfill legal requirements. I wish we could go back to fuel economy being a voluntary thing everyone uses to compete rather than a mandatory thing everybody does just to keep up.
__________________
RDP Motorsport//GEN5DIY//Cultrag Performance//JPSS//Rodgets Chevrolet//
Operation Demon//Buy at Invoice//RACECARWEAR
RESPECT ALL CARS. LOVE YOUR OWN.
warn 145:159 ban
The_Blur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 07:47 AM   #492
FenwickHockey65
General Motors Aficionado
 
FenwickHockey65's Avatar
 
Drives: 2023 GMC Canyon, 2020 Colorado
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 37,371
Send a message via AIM to FenwickHockey65
Small displacement turbocharged engine all depend on how you drive them. If you drive them like you stole them then you won't get any better fuel economy than their NA counterparts. Meanwhile there are a ton of Cruze ECO owners out there doing 45 MPG all day long.
__________________
2023 GMC Canyon Elevation
2020 Chevrolet Colorado W/T Extended Cab (State-issued)
FenwickHockey65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 07:52 AM   #493
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 19 WRX
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 6,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
What we basically disagree on most from a technical point of view is that with two engines that have the same power output, there won't be much if any difference efficiency wise from a NA engine and a "smaller" displacement turbo engine.

However, many here think a smaller turbo engine can make the same power as a N/A engine while using less fuel. Perhaps it could add more to the discussion if you explained scientifically why you think that is the case. Maybe I'll see the light and learn something, and maybe I'll rebut you. (And don't cite EPA ratings, because those are not an explanation of why).
My understanding of forced induction is that it needs to be calibrated a little richer than NA when under boost, so at the same power output as a larger NA engine it will use more fuel when they're both making that level of power.

It's because under conditions where you aren't into boost that the smaller FI engine drops back into essentially NA mode that you make any fuel economy gains. So it makes sense to let the turbo engine stay out of boost during the emissions and mpg certification as much as possible.

Whether that happens in any random driver's daily driving is a different matter, though I'd guess that you (as a mfr) wouldn't want the boost to be too far out of reach during normal driving lest the car get exactly the reputation that the V8 side is viewing 4 cylinders in general with (a bog-slow low-compression NA 4). An enthusiast will tend to keep the engine at an rpm where boost will be available very quickly, while a non-enthusiast will tolerate longer periods of no boost and sluggish acceleration. Then again, when a 4 cylinder turbo is fitted with a manual transmission, even a non-enthusiast will tend to keep the transmission in each lower gear longer when driving in traffic.

I'm not going to chase down the data to argue overall cost of ownership other than to note (again?) that with an I4-T you have a simpler block casting, single exhaust with fewer catalytic converters and mufflers, and one less head with its valvetrain and associated controls. The financial advantage might still favor the V6-NA over the turbo-4, but it won't be by as much as the cost advantage that the V8-NA enjoys over the V6-TT, where the V6 here still has the V block casting, a more extensive intake, the same amount of exhaust plumbing, and the same number of heads, etc.


Norm

Last edited by Norm Peterson; 03-11-2013 at 08:56 AM.
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 08:41 AM   #494
GretchenGotGrowl


 
GretchenGotGrowl's Avatar
 
Drives: 11 F150 EB/13 Sonic RS/15 Z06
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 7,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65 View Post
Small displacement turbocharged engine all depend on how you drive them. If you drive them like you stole them then you won't get any better fuel economy than their NA counterparts. Meanwhile there are a ton of Cruze ECO owners out there doing 45 MPG all day long.
Yeah, I got better MPG than the sticker said on my Cruze and I'm getting better MPG on my EcoBoost F-150 than the sticker claimed. You just have to learn to keep out of boost when you don't need it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
My understanding of forced induction is that it needs to be calibrated a little richer than NA when under boost, so at the same power output as a larger NA engine it will use more fuel when they're both making that level of power.

It's because under conditions where you aren't into boost that the smaller FI engine drops back into essentially NA mode that you make any fuel economy gains. So it makes sense to let the turbo engine stay out of boost during the emissions and mpg certification as much as possible.

Whether that happens in any random driver's daily driving is a different matter, though I'd guess that you (as a mfr) wouldn't want the boost to be too far out of reach during normal driving lest the car get exactly the reputation that the V8 side views 4 cylinders in general with (a bog-slow low-compression NA 4). An enthusiast will tend to keep the engine at an rpm where boost will be available very quickly, while a non-enthusiast will tolerate longer periods of no boost and sluggish acceleration. Then again, when a 4 cylinder turbo is fitted with a manual transmission, even a non-enthusiast will tend to keep the transmission in each lower gear longer when driving in traffic.

I'm not going to chase down the data to argue overall cost of ownership other than to note (again?) that with an I4-T you have a simpler block casting, single exhaust with fewer catalytic converters and mufflers, and one less head with its valvetrain and associated controls. The financial advantage might still favor the V6-NA over the turbo-4, but it won't be by as much as the V8-NA enjoys over the V6-TT, where the V6 here still has the V block casting, a more extensive intake, the same amount of exhaust plumbing, and the same number of heads, etc.


Norm
The bolded part is true, but with direct injection the difference is minimal. Add to that that DI is more effecient to start with, you do really realize some pretty good fuel economy with it. The problem is GM always tunes cars to be too rich to begin with. I understand why they do that on the FI cars--they can run on 87 octane without detonation, but I never understood why they do it on the NA cars.
__________________
New Ride -- 2015 Z06 2LZ (stock) -- Journal
Old Ride -- 2012 Camaro 2LT/RS (647 RWHP & 726 RWTQ) -- Build Thread
GretchenGotGrowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 08:57 AM   #495
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 19 WRX
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 6,990
I think it's got something to do with catalytic converter durability.

Ford does the same thing, and aftermarket tunes are somewhat leaner.


On edit, I think we ought to assume DI for all of these engines.


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 10:21 AM   #496
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 ZL1 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 31,876
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyg36 View Post
He did say it explicitly. The V6 would be just as efficient as the V8, but it would be more expensive to produce, so they went with the 8.
That's fair - I didn't remember seeing that...but I haven't been following the Vette as closely as I follow the Camaro...
__________________
"Keep the faith." - Fbodfather
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 11:34 AM   #497
90503


 
90503's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,403
Am enjoying all you boys' expertise..."Real world" mileage I'd say is a non-issue...I don't think anybody really expects to get what is advertised...The "rated" mileage on the window sticker is what will rule the day, and determine what is offered for sale...

...Also, I'm just not seeing where a V-6 would fit into all this...I think Norm said earlier that the total year numbers for the Camaro would make GM hard-pressed to sell three different engines...as well as a ttv6 being more expensive and not as efficient as the v-8.???.....Things are getting as clear as mud!...lol...

Please carry on, and thanks....
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 11:53 AM   #498
90503


 
90503's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur View Post
I actually ran these numbers for my wife when we got her a Sonic. We were trying to decide if she would keep her car long enough to get her money back out of a Volt or some other fuel economy-oriented GM vehicle. She doesn't drive nearly enough to benefit from the gas savings of the Volt, even if she kept it for over 150k miles. What's more frustrating is that a primary cost driver on new cars is the advanced engineering it takes to design something with today's fuel economy standards. Cars keep getting more expensive, and a large part of that is the cost of these new engines with 30+ mpg. I can only imagine what the LS3 would cost if GM didn't have to add all of the expensive emissions equipment necessary to fulfill legal requirements. I wish we could go back to fuel economy being a voluntary thing everyone uses to compete rather than a mandatory thing everybody does just to keep up.
I think your family math is more the exception than the rule...Most folks never total the entire cost of automobile ownership anyways (gas, insurance, maintenance, mileage and depreciation, etc...)

It's probably more a "gut-feeling" and quick mental math month-to-month...lol...
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 12:16 PM   #499
SlingShot


 
SlingShot's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 ZL1 - #670
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Seminole, Fl.
Posts: 8,009
Based on my 2.0T, mpg is directly based on driving habits. Under normal driving with a 45mph speed limit, using 3-5 lbs boost I can get 22mpg. On the highway driving like a normal person at 70mph I can get 30mpg. On the flip side of that, if I were to get into the boost at 20-23 lbs my mpg drops to around 14. The 2.0T has the GMPP tune, putting out around 300hp / 350TQ. Even with the higher numbers from the tune, the mpg has remained the same, but now requires 93 octane.

With the ZL1 it's rated at 12/19, and driving normal and staying out of the boost, around town I can get 13 mpg and 20 mpg highway. On the flip side of that, if I get into the boost and drive stupid the mpg will drop to 7 or 8.
__________________
SlingShot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 02:25 PM   #500
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 4,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
My understanding of forced induction is that it needs to be calibrated a little richer than NA when under boost, so at the same power output as a larger NA engine it will use more fuel when they're both making that level of power.

It's because under conditions where you aren't into boost that the smaller FI engine drops back into essentially NA mode that you make any fuel economy gains. So it makes sense to let the turbo engine stay out of boost during the emissions and mpg certification as much as possible.
That's kinda the tree I was barking up. These small turbo engines behave very nicely for the gentle, unrealistic EPA cycle, but once even a little out of the parameters of that, they change into a different animal. So the EPA gets their numbers, and the consumer gets very little actual benefit for a great deal additional expense.

And some of these engines are getting small to the point that you don't necessarily have to be demanding that much power to make spooling up the turbos necessary. All it may take is a small hill with the cruise set.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GretchenGotGrowl View Post
Yeah, I got better MPG than the sticker said on my Cruze and I'm getting better MPG on my EcoBoost F-150 than the sticker claimed. You just have to learn to keep out of boost when you don't need it.
The same can be said of any engine. The N/A cars I've driven have always beat their EPA targets, often by significant margins. It's in how you drive, not what you drive. And most people don't drive well in terms of efficiency. FI engines are no magic bullet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
I think it's got something to do with catalytic converter durability.

Ford does the same thing, and aftermarket tunes are somewhat leaner.
There are good reasons for it. Snoop around the internet and find out what happens to a 5.0 when the tuner goes a little too lean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
Am enjoying all you boys' expertise..."Real world" mileage I'd say is a non-issue...I don't think anybody really expects to get what is advertised...The "rated" mileage on the window sticker is what will rule the day, and determine what is offered for sale...

...Also, I'm just not seeing where a V-6 would fit into all this...I think Norm said earlier that the total year numbers for the Camaro would make GM hard-pressed to sell three different engines...as well as a ttv6 being more expensive and not as efficient as the v-8.???.....Things are getting as clear as mud!...lol...

Please carry on, and thanks....
I share your frustration. Reality has taken a back seat to regulation which in itself is becoming more disconnected with reality every day. Remember the day when the automakers could build cars, and not just a regulator's or legislator's (whom may or may not have relevant knowledge of the field) blueprint of what they think transportation should be?
__________________
2022 1SS 1LE (Arrived 4/29/22)
"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."
. 2022 1SS 1LE (Coming Soon)
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 02:45 PM   #501
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2018 ZL1 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 31,876
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
Am enjoying all you boys' expertise..."Real world" mileage I'd say is a non-issue...I don't think anybody really expects to get what is advertised...The "rated" mileage on the window sticker is what will rule the day, and determine what is offered for sale...

...Also, I'm just not seeing where a V-6 would fit into all this...I think Norm said earlier that the total year numbers for the Camaro would make GM hard-pressed to sell three different engines...as well as a ttv6 being more expensive and not as efficient as the v-8.???.....Things are getting as clear as mud!...lol...

Please carry on, and thanks....
Everyone's goal is to sell more, right? If done right - more engine options could appeal to more people as each has its specific purpose/strength...

Technically, they're already selling 4 different engines...and if this LS7 rumor turns out to be true: 5 engines...

If the powertrain options we're talking about are shared with the ATS, then a good chunk of the powertrain development for "extra engines" is essentially free...
__________________
"Keep the faith." - Fbodfather
Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 02:58 PM   #502
90503


 
90503's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 14,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
Everyone's goal is to sell more, right? If done right - more engine options could appeal to more people as each has its specific purpose/strength...

Technically, they're already selling 4 different engines...and if this LS7 rumor turns out to be true: 5 engines...

If the powertrain options we're talking about are shared with the ATS, then a good chunk of the powertrain development for "extra engines" is essentially free...
I hope they all sell well.. a big fan of options for sure, all the offerings, current and future sound great...and if they all sell well, so much the better... just was going sort of with the "entry" thing...that is, if the new 4 is "the same, or better", than the current V-6, mileage and horsepower wise...something would have to "give" or whatever...Previous post stated that the Impala discontinued the v-6 and touted the 4 as an up-grade....dunno...

Last edited by 90503; 03-11-2013 at 03:26 PM.
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 05:30 PM   #503
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 19 WRX
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 6,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
There are good reasons for it. Snoop around the internet and find out what happens to a 5.0 when the tuner goes a little too lean.
#8, right? Yeah, the OE mfrs have to build a little more margin into their stock tunes than what would on average produce more power/torque/throttle response.


Quote:
I share your frustration. Reality has taken a back seat to regulation which in itself is becoming more disconnected with reality every day. Remember the day when the automakers could build cars, and not just a regulator's or legislator's (whom may or may not have relevant knowledge of the field) blueprint of what they think transportation should be?
This ↑↑↑. With relevant knowledge and understanding of the field held subordinate to the agenda of the moment and the required "cost studies" undoubtedly biased a bit


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 05:38 PM   #504
MikeT
 
Drives: 2008 Malibu V6
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90503 View Post
I hope they all sell well.. a big fan of options for sure, all the offerings, current and future sound great...and if they all sell well, so much the better... just was going sort of with the "entry" thing...that is, if the new 4 is "the same, or better", than the current V-6, mileage and horsepower wise...something would have to "give" or whatever...Previous post stated that the Impala discontinued the v-6 and touted the 4 as an up-grade....dunno...
I think I was the one who mentioned the Impala. The V6 hasn't been dropped completely from the '14 Impala, but it's no longer standard. The standard engine is the 195-hp 2.5L non-turbo four-cylinder. Any way you slice it, that's a pretty major downgrade from the tried-and-true 3.6 DI V6 that's standard in the '13 Impala... and the '14 Impala is slated to costs thousands more.

But, again, what GM has done with the Impala may or may not to be relevant to what will happen to the Camaro. Maybe GM thinks Impala buyers are more comfort-oriented, i.e., they want a big, cushy car but are not so concerned with having a hot engine, so they won't notice or care that the new engine is a slug. I do know, though, that a typical Camaro buyer WILL notice.
MikeT is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Tags
2015 camaro, 2015 camaro forum, 2015 camaro forums, 2015 chevrolet camaro, 2015 chevy camaro, 2016 camaro, 2016 camaro forum, 2016 camaro forums, 2016 chevrolet camaro, 2016 chevy camaro, 2017 camaro, 2017 chevy camaro, 6 gen camaro, 6th gen camaro, 6th gen camaro forum, 6th gen camaro forums, 6th gen camaro info, 6th gen camaro news, 6th gen camaro rumors, 6th gen chevrolet camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro, 6th gen chevy camaro forum, 6th generation camaro, 6th generation camaro info, 6th generation camaro news, 6th generation camaro rumors, 6th generation chevy camaro, camaro 6th gen, camaro 6th generation

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.