[fradaj]

Originally Posted by PYROLYSIS

So are you up to at least 34 HWY yet?

With the V6 in 3 cylinder mode on the HWY, it could end up with a pretty good MPG number.

[ChefBorOzzy]

Accord v6 with cylinder deactivation gets 34mpg I believe. That's a non performance oriented car. I don't see the Camaro getting that. 33 max, but probably even a tick or two less.

[fradaj]

Originally Posted by 90503

Just can't help but think what a shame so to speak it is about all these powerplants....

I believed Chevy and Camaro didn't want to play an un-productive HP numbers game with Ford and Dodge, now it can't seem to avoid doing it with itself and it's own brands....

Seems like GM spends more time worrying about how to not step on the image and toes of Cadillac and Corvette and themselves instead of worrying about how to outsell Ford and Dodge with the best product available...

Perhaps it's a problem of abundance, but it seems silly they don't just offer to the customers all possibilities of powerplants....

70-75 percent of Camaro sales are non-v-8s....I say I-4, turbo non turbo V-6s should be offered....So what if the turbo 6 is within 50hp of the V-8....(I thought we didn't play hp numbers games here?)....The current v-6 (325 hp?) is within 75 of the L99 at 400 hp...nobody says that is "too close"....

Oh, well...just a ramble....

That 3.0 TT is pretty interesting, especially the 400 lb-ft of torque. I'm not a 100% sure but just looking at the engine it looks lighter than the LT1.

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by fradaj

That 3.0 TT is pretty interesting, especially the 400 lb-ft of torque. I'm not a 100% sure but just looking at the engine it looks lighter than the LT1.

Don't forget all the plumbing need for a twin turbo setup. A lot of weight there.

[LesserO2Evils]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

I'm going to bring Mustang6G into this because I know they have lurkers.. Have you been to that forum? GOD DAMN!

Nossir. I have not. Actually, I have no idea to what you are even referencing? Sorry.

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by LesserO2Evils

Nossir. I have not. Actually, I have no idea to what you are even referencing? Sorry.

What you said about people on this forum. Take that times 10 and you have the user base of mustang6g.com. Plus, way more shit talkers of Camaro and GM in general there than there is of Mustang here.

Both sides have the "delusional", overly optimistic fanbase though.

[LesserO2Evils]

Oh! Gotcha! Yes, that is why I never liked Mustangs OR their patrons. There is just a different mentality amongst that peer group. But I will say that the guys on the GT500 forum are cool as ice water, as MOST are here. No offense, intended!

[Z_Rocks]

So, it seems GM is offering 3 V6s now
1) 3 liter TT 400 HP
2) 3.6 NA
3) 3.6 TT (in ATS-V) 450HP

I wonder which ones will make it to Camaro 2016?
Personally I'll take a 3.6 TT over the V8.

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by Z_Rocks

So, it seems GM is offering 3 V6s now
1) 3 liter TT 400 HP
2) 3.6 NA
3) 3.6 TT (in ATS-V) 450HP

I wonder which ones will make it to Camaro 2016?
Personally I'll take a 3.6 TT over the V8.

Number 2. 3.6 NA.

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by MBS

Or easy it gets that other 1 mpg with the expected weight loss in fact I bet we will see 37 or 38

38?! Why stop there? Maybe...it'll get 40mpg cruising the hwy with cylinders deactivated.

Oh, and maybe there can be a XFE model that gets 42 mpg. Narrow low resistance rubber, active grill shutters, belly pans, etc.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Number 3

That smaller, lighter platform is Alpha. And the best they have through 2015 is 30 mpg for a 2.0T 4 cylinder. To suddenly jump up and down with Christmas morning excitement and think the Camaro with the same engine will get more than the Malibu or the ATS with the same engine is just hope. And that 4 cylinder is allllll new baby. Not 4 years old.

ATS 2.0 T is 30 MPG
Malibu 2.0 T is 30 MPG

Camaro 3.6 L is ?????

Seriously to continue to think that simply being an AWESOME Camaro results in physics defying performance is beyond hopeful.

Sorry but 2 mpg doesn't come from sunshine and rainbows. We are talking about the same architecture that today gives 28 mpg with a V6 and 30 with a 2.0 T and everyone is thinking because it is a Camaro that these numbers go up by 25%????????

The 8 speed should get 1 to 2 mpg
AFM should get another 1 mpg

Start/Stop only affects city driving, not highway.

Go figure.

This ^ and now from recent posts from GM, we know that the camaro version of alpha is unique. 70% unique components, and that the platform was lengthened. Now Unless they are using exotic materials that means that the Camaro will probably be a little bit heavier than a ATS.

So how do some of these people think a bigger, most likely heavier car, using the same drivetrain components is going to achieve better fuel economy. Or achieve better fuel economy than a midsize car?

Number 3 hit the nail on the head with this post

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by shaffe

This ^ and now from recent posts from GM, we know that the camaro version of alpha is unique. 70% unique components, and that the platform was lengthened. Now Unless they are using exotic materials that means that the Camaro will probably be a little bit heavier than a ATS.

So how do some of these people think a bigger, most likely heavier car, using the same drivetrain components is going to achieve better fuel economy. Or achieve better fuel economy than a midsize car?

Number 3 hit the nail on the head with this post

Don't know where you are getting 70% uniqueness to the Camaro equals more weight. You do realize weight savings was the main reason for switching platforms. I can guarantee it will not be heavier than the 5th gen. So if it's not heavier, has a more FE engine, and a 8spd auto which are proven to increase mpg (look at the challenger and charger), then how exactly will it get worse or the same mpg? Did you read what Number 3 posted? He was talking about no crazy jump in mpg, not that 31-32 wasn't possible.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by SuperSound

Don't know where you are getting 70% uniqueness to the Camaro equals more weight. You do realize weight savings was the main reason for switching platforms. I can guarantee it will not be heavier than the 5th gen. So if it's not heavier, has a more FE engine, and a 8spd auto which are proven to increase mpg (look at the challenger and charger), then how exactly will it get worse or the same mpg? Did you read what Number 3 posted? He was talking about no crazy jump in mpg, not that 31-32 wasn't possible.

where did I say heavier than the 5th gen? Since people have known the gen 6 will be on the alpha a majority have people said that it will be close to the ATS in weight. Which was a hell of a good starting point to guess weight. We know now that it uses 70% unique materials and that it will also be larger than the ATS alpha platform. Larger typically means heavier. Also I don't think that 70% unique means lightweight either, the camaro still has to have a lower price point. if anything the lighter weight materials would be used in the more premium ATS.

I did not say heavier than the 5th gen, I said most likely heavier than the ATS. It will be lighter than the 5th gen no doubt, but I think with what we know now I don't think using the ATS as weight estimate is valid anymore. It only shares 30% of components with a car we know now is smaller. That is what I said, sorry if it came off the other way.

I also totally agreed with Number 3 on his post. which is why i said "hit the nail on the head" I was agreeing with him that thinking all of a sudden the camaro is going to get better MPG then a ATS or Malibu is a bit on the optimistic side

[SuperSound]

Originally Posted by shaffe

So how do some of these people think a bigger, most likely heavier car, using the same drivetrain components is going to achieve better fuel economy. Or achieve better fuel economy than a midsize car?

Number 3 hit the nail on the head with this post

I guess this where I'm am confused. You can't use the ATS as a comparison for FE yet. For one it doesn't have the 8spd yet or the LGX. I think it's a sure bet both cars will see a 2-4 mpg jump for the v6s. Like Number 3 mentioned weight isn't as big a factor anyway but I thought you were comparing to the 5th gen.