[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Ok, your thinking isn't far off. For highway MPG, 50% is aero, the rest is powertrain and mass. But simply go back to GM for the reference. 31 mpg for the 2.0T and 28 for the 3.6L V6. AFM gets you a whopping 1 mpg. Not sure how the Camaro 1) gets to 34 and 2) has the 4 cylinder actually getting even better.

Oh and there is the small matter that you are quoting 4 cylinder MPG. The Accord V6 is 32 Highway.

http://automobiles.honda.com/tools/c...omptrim3=38906





Not sure where you get this. Highway may be equal with a locking torque convertor but generally a manual will always get better.

8 speed vs. 6 speed auto? About 1 to 1.5

Source documentation if you believe otherwise. And you can only quote a change from 6 speed to 8 speed. You can't include other powertrain or aero (body styling) changes.

Well, they said the new auto is 5 percent more efficient and we should pick up 1-2 with AFM. I think real world with AFM will be even better. I'm not sure what exactly a 5th gen v6 is rated at.

Darn it. Could have sworn the v6 Accord is rated at 34. Lol.

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

lolwut? you put the car in neutral, that's how. I'm lost on your thinking.

Figured. You're using more fuel coasting to a stop in neutral than you are in gear or in gear in an automatic equipped car.

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

Figured. You're using more fuel coasting to a stop in neutral than you are in gear or in gear in an automatic equipped car.

where the heck do you get that information? putting the car in neutral is like just sitting in your car with the car at idle. You are using very little gas. whereas in an automatic, when in gear, the rpms fall slower and uses more gas. In a manual, right when you push the clutch in to put in neutral, your rpms fall down to idle speed almost immediately.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

Figured. You're using more fuel coasting to a stop in neutral than you are in gear or in gear in an automatic equipped car.

In the calibration of many cars today, fuel shuts off when coasting. The aggressiveness of this depends on how much fuel economy the OEM is striving to get. Aggressive fuel shut off can lead to drivability issues, but for the most part people don't notice the difference. Only picky drivers.

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

where the heck do you get that information? putting the car in neutral is like just sitting in your car with the car at idle. You are using very little gas. whereas in an automatic, when in gear, the rpms fall slower and uses more gas. In a manual, right when you push the clutch in to put in neutral, your rpms fall down to idle speed almost immediately.

But coasting down in gear will result in 0 fueling (depending on the extent of the motoring condition). Shifting to neutral / idling would burn more fuel. This adds up over time!

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by vtirocz

But coasting down in gear will result in 0 fueling (depending on the extent of the motoring condition). Shifting to neutral / idling would burn more fuel. This adds up over time!

I've only really driven manual. so I did not know that in automatics that coasting down in gear shuts the fuel off.

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

I've only really driven manual. so I did not know that in automatics that coasting down in gear shuts the fuel off.

It's typically a similar strategy on manuals. If you coast down in gear, fueling will go to 0 (depending on extent of the motoring condition).

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by vtirocz

It's typically a similar strategy on manuals. If you coast down in gear, fueling will go to 0 (depending on extent of the motoring condition).

if you mean the mpg tracking, putting a manual in neutral shows 0 as well. edit: even if it shows 0, your car is still consuming fuel.

so if that is what you guys are talking about, I call BS. unless the engine actually cuts off fuel when coasting down, then the engine is still consuming fuel more-so in the automatic because it's slower to reach idle speed than a manual in neutral.

[Number 3]

Take any existing car. Add AFM 1 to 1.5 mpg. Add 8 speed vs. 6 speed add 1 mpg. So assuming they do the same aggressive MPG calibrations and contenting, the LS (ooops there isn't one) would get 32.5 to 33 mpg.

So the even bigger question is can a 2.0T that gets 31 in the ATS actually deliver 35 to 36 in the Camaro? Maybe it can with the 8 speed.

But if the 2.0T can't get at least 3 mpg highway better than the V6 it has no real mission in life other than fewer cylinders.

[Camaro_Corvette]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

My guesses...

2.0T: 33 MPG
LGX: 31 MPG
LT1: 26 MPG

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

if you mean the mpg tracking, putting a manual in neutral shows 0 as well. edit: even if it shows 0, your car is still consuming fuel.

so if that is what you guys are talking about, I call BS. unless the engine actually cuts off fuel when coasting down, then the engine is still consuming fuel more-so in the automatic because it's slower to reach idle speed than a manual in neutral.

Yes, it shuts off fuel when coasting.

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Take any existing car. Add AFM 1 to 1.5 mpg. Add 8 speed vs. 6 speed add 1 mpg. So assuming they do the same aggressive MPG calibrations and contenting, the LS (ooops there isn't one) would get 32.5 to 33 mpg.

So the even bigger question is can a 2.0T that gets 31 in the ATS actually deliver 35 to 36 in the Camaro? Maybe it can with the 8 speed.

But if the 2.0T can't get at least 3 mpg highway better than the V6 it has no real mission in life other than fewer cylinders.

I think the biggest reason for the 2.0T is for overseas consumers, than anything else.

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Yes, it shuts off fuel when coasting.

in a manual as well?

[Number 3]

Also don't forget neutral idle. Car shifts into neutral when brake is applied and car is stopped for more than 1 second.