Homepage Garage Wiki Register Members List 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

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-10-2013, 06:38 PM   #477
Number 3
Hail to the King baby!
 
Number 3's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 ATS 2.0T & '14 Chevrolet SS
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
I'm afraid gunning for both will water down the effectiveness of the design too much. The only "easy" solution I can think of that won't kill the design would be to work for a lower belt line, and try hard to skinny up the A-pillars on the 6th-gen. This improves visibility, but keep the shoulders, and the chopped roof for their aggressive value.

Luckily Tom Peters is darn near a genius with design - and I'm confident they'll address as much of the convenience stuff as they can without loosing any of the Camaro's visual potency. I look at the new Corvette and find hope.


Does it? I checked the fuel efficiency tab under ATS, and couldn't find anything that said 22/32? Where'd you see it?
Cadillac website - buid your own and compare, then click the Fuel Economy tab to compare any car. I compared RWD 2.5, 2.0T and 3.6
__________________
"Speed, it seems to me, provides the one genuinely modern pleasure." - Aldous Huxley Link to Every Camaro photo I've taken in Hi-Resolution
Number 3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 09:11 PM   #478
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 3,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
So the fact that the ATS with the 2.0T is rated higher than the ATS with the 3.6 doesn't convince you? 2.0T is 22/32 and the V6 is 19/28. Sorry if that doesn't convince you, but it should.
You can't compare apples to oranges. The 2.0T is 50 hp short, and in a lighter version of the car. That's the reason for the difference more than anything. In addition, see more below...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
I look at the ATS (hopefully the same underpinnings as the 6th-gen Camaro)...the specs show:

2.5 I4 (202 hp)...3315 lbs...22/33 mpg

2.0 T4 (272 hp)...3373 lbs...20/30 mpg

3.6 V6 (321 hp)...3461 lbs...18/26 mpg
EPA website lists ratings as

2.5 22/32
2.0T 21/31
3.6 19/28

Again, apples and oranges. EPA numbers are misleading and don't tell the whole story. As you mentioned, the heavier, larger Camaro with the same 3.6L gets a 30 rating. Clearly, the 3.6L ATS is not fuel economy oriented. However, the 2.0T ATS may well be. With similar orientations, my money says the ratings would be much closer, perhaps even identical between the engines, with the V6 producing 50 more hp.

And speaking of EPA numbers, there is a world of difference between EPA ratings and actual real world mileage. Downsized and turbocharged engines aren't actually delivering the fuel economy increases their EPA stickers are promising. Just ask any Ford owner with an EcoBoost, or a Cruze owner, or any of the others who actually keep track of their mileage.

If engineers were chasing actual fuel economy gains (not to mention cost effectiveness), and not just flawed EPA ratings, they would keep larger displacement N/A engines and design in cylinder deactivation rather than develop whole new downsized and turbocharged engines. Listen to GM's own engineers if you don't believe me. One of the reasons (among several) the C7 kept a large V8 instead of having a TTV6 was a V8 with AFM provided better fuel economy than a turbo V6.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 10:16 PM   #479
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 26,407
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3 View Post
Cadillac website - buid your own and compare, then click the Fuel Economy tab to compare any car. I compared RWD 2.5, 2.0T and 3.6
Gotta love inconsistencies.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
You can't compare apples to oranges. The 2.0T is 50 hp short, and in a lighter version of the car. That's the reason for the difference more than anything. In addition, see more below...

EPA website lists ratings as

2.5 22/32
2.0T 21/31
3.6 19/28

Again, apples and oranges. EPA numbers are misleading and don't tell the whole story. As you mentioned, the heavier, larger Camaro with the same 3.6L gets a 30 rating. Clearly, the 3.6L ATS is not fuel economy oriented. However, the 2.0T ATS may well be. With similar orientations, my money says the ratings would be much closer, perhaps even identical between the engines, with the V6 producing 50 more hp.

And speaking of EPA numbers, there is a world of difference between EPA ratings and actual real world mileage. Downsized and turbocharged engines aren't actually delivering the fuel economy increases their EPA stickers are promising. Just ask any Ford owner with an EcoBoost, or a Cruze owner, or any of the others who actually keep track of their mileage.

If engineers were chasing actual fuel economy gains (not to mention cost effectiveness), and not just flawed EPA ratings, they would keep larger displacement N/A engines and design in cylinder deactivation rather than develop whole new downsized and turbocharged engines. Listen to GM's own engineers if you don't believe me. One of the reasons (among several) the C7 kept a large V8 instead of having a TTV6 was a V8 with AFM provided better fuel economy than a turbo V6.
I hear Cruze is doing well, it was the hyundai and kia that didn't deliver...

The paper-to-real world numbers isn't a related discussion, imo. I'm afraid I have to disagree with your using it as a premise for suggesting there's no increase in efficiency to be found in a 2.0L turbo. The biggest factor in converting EPA numbers to the real world is a person's right foot...

The entire ATS is tuned for excitement and performance. That four banger was engineered specifically for the car - and they're billing it's credentials as the "best", or "most fun" ATS of the bunch when equipped with a manual transmission (That could be another note...the V6 is only available with an auto if memory serves). So I'm not sure it's tuned for economy over performance...at worst - a balance.

I agree to disagree on the point of fuel economy...I believe real-world examples prove the T4 to be the more efficient option. Given that we believe the new Camaro will be riding on the Alpha platform like the ATS...I think we may as well go into a Caddy dealership and stare at the ATS as though it were a real, working crystal ball for Camaro's future...

But let me take this conversation in a new direction for a moment...Ford is said to be putting an Ecoboost 4-banger into the new Mustang. The Genesis coupe uses a turbo 4 as ITs base engine. The new subaru and scion twins use a 4 cylinder (albeit they're TINY little vehicles...)...I think it only makes sense to have Camaro enter than field with a superior engine (& car as a whole)...at worst it means they'll sell more! If they don't...that mere fact could be exploited as a "weakness", or "GM's behind the times", etc....

If they build it...I believe it will sell in today's market. It's:

> Inexpensive (if trimmed as a base car)
> Fun (loads of torque)
> Efficient (31mpg + based on ATS numbers)
> and "it has a Turbo"!! (I am a little shocked at how much weight that little component carries with buyers..)

I believe the title of this thread reflects many enthusiasts inability to see past unadulterated performance (not a bad thing, just an observation)....instead of "why would anyone want it", I would ask: "Why not build it"? After all - nobodies forcing us performance junkies to buy it.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.

Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 10:19 PM   #480
ShnOmac


 
ShnOmac's Avatar
 
Drives: 2006 Silverado SS, 2009 G8 GT
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PNW
Posts: 13,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Listen to GM's own engineers if you don't believe me.
ShnOmac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 10:27 PM   #481
Mr. Wyndham
I used to be Dragoneye...
 
Mr. Wyndham's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Camaro 1LE
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 26,407
Send a message via AIM to Mr. Wyndham
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
One of the reasons (among several) the C7 kept a large V8 instead of having a TTV6 was a V8 with AFM provided better fuel economy than a turbo V6.
Was that ever explicitly said?

I know the new LT-1 is supposed to impress us all with its efficiency (not being facetious on this point - I LOVE this new small block...)...but I don't recall ever hearing them say mpg was the reason for not doing a TTV6. I remember Tadge Juechter saying that a V6 wasn't right for the car...and that it didn't provide the performance they wanted...but never that it couldn't provide the efficiency.
__________________
"Keep the faith." - - Read Before You Post.

Mr. Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 11:05 PM   #482
mikeyg36


 
mikeyg36's Avatar
 
Drives: 2015 Z/28 #533, 2016 2SS
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Garden City, NY/Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 6,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham View Post
Was that ever explicitly said?

I know the new LT-1 is supposed to impress us all with its efficiency (not being facetious on this point - I LOVE this new small block...)...but I don't recall ever hearing them say mpg was the reason for not doing a TTV6. I remember Tadge Juechter saying that a V6 wasn't right for the car...and that it didn't provide the performance they wanted...but never that it couldn't provide the efficiency.
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.
__________________
“Driving a muscle car fast isn't that fun, it's driving one slowly and making a ton of noise and pissing people off, that's what’s fun.” –Matt Farah
mikeyg36 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 11:44 PM   #483
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 11,455
Pardon the interruption...lol...but just a "dumb" question perhaps...Why is the 2.0 ltr the one that gets the turbo?...Why not a turbo on the 2.5?...wouldn't that be more fun, better performance, better mileage?
90503 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 11:51 PM   #484
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
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!
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2013, 11:57 PM   #485
camaro-dreamer
 
camaro-dreamer's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Porsche 981S
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: TN
Posts: 306
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!
The analysis is even a bit worse than you contended. The 2.0T is recommended to use premium whereas the v6 and naturally aspirated 2.5 use regular unleaded. Therefore, all of those gallons of fuel in the 2.0T cost more.
camaro-dreamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 12:13 AM   #486
Captain Awesome
Account Suspended
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2SS/RS
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaro-dreamer View Post
The analysis is even a bit worse than you contended. The 2.0T is recommended to use premium whereas the v6 and naturally aspirated 2.5 use regular unleaded. Therefore, all of those gallons of fuel in the 2.0T cost more.
Wow! Thanks for pointing that out. It is way worse than I thought!

Premium averages about $0.30 more per gallon, so the 2.0T costs $13,029 to go 100K miles. and the V6 costs $13,332 to travel 100K miles.

Over the life of the car, you will save $303 in gas by deciding to go with the $1,805 extra for the turbo engine to save money on gas!

A.w.e.s.o.m.e.

Does anyone else see this is a problem?
Captain Awesome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 01:01 AM   #487
v6sonoma


 
v6sonoma's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 SS RS
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Providence, RI
Posts: 8,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Awesome View Post
Wow! Thanks for pointing that out. It is way worse than I thought!

Premium averages about $0.30 more per gallon, so the 2.0T costs $13,029 to go 100K miles. and the V6 costs $13,332 to travel 100K miles.

Over the life of the car, you will save $303 in gas by deciding to go with the $1,805 extra for the turbo engine to save money on gas!

A.w.e.s.o.m.e.

Does anyone else see this is a problem?
I think you're forgetting the fact that the Turbo also has 70hp and 70tq more than the 2.5L. So they aren't comparing them purely on fuel economy.
__________________

Mods: BBK Intake, BBK LT's and High Flow Cats, Corsa Cat-back exhaust, Hurst short throw shifter, SLP skip-shift eliminator.

7/1/09 Placed order for IOM/IO int/ SS/RS 6M
9/26/09 Took delivery!
v6sonoma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 02:39 AM   #488
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 3,981
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.




Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyg36 View Post
I hear Cruze is doing well, it was the hyundai and kia that didn't deliver...
It's not just Hyundai and Kia (they are just the most egregious examples, and all of their stuff, turbo and N/A is missing the mark). Turbo engines across the board are falling short of their efficiency promises.

Based on test results I've read, in real world driving (not the EPA cycle) the 1.4L Turbo Cruze does no better than the 1.8L N/A Cruze, and by a lot of accounts, falls short of larger, more powerful N/A engines from Ford and Mazda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyg36 View Post
If they build it...I believe it will sell in today's market. It's:

> Inexpensive (if trimmed as a base car)
> Fun (loads of torque)
> Efficient (31mpg + based on ATS numbers)
> and "it has a Turbo"!! (I am a little shocked at how much weight that little component carries with buyers..)
Inexpensive? The turbo engines cost more than N/A engines. So unless GM is planning on eating the extra expense, there are sticker price increases coming for it. And if it's in the base trim car, that will push up every trim above it in the process. Unless the Turbo 4 comes as an extra cost option with the V6 remaining the base (as Ford has done with some SUVs) I don't see how it doesn't end with an across the board price hike.

Fun? I'll give you that to an extent, they do tend to produce more torque. But, the 2.0T produces only the same torque as the NA V6, and less horsepower. And as I said earlier, a lot of people, particularly sports car fans, prefer the characteristics of a N/A engine.

Efficient? If 31 is the expected number, the V6 in the Camaro already gets 30. The move to the smaller, lighter platform alone will bring that to at least 31. And the V6 will run on regular. So where is the benefit?

As for the last point, the reason many fear turbos is they all know a family member who in the 80s had a turbo and had to take out a second mortgage to replace the turbo. Now, I recognize that today's turbos and synthetic oils have taken care of most of the old turbo problems, but it is still a potential issue, and if it does occur, it is very expensive, and a marginal economy increase is not worth the risk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by v6sonoma View Post
I think you're forgetting the fact that the Turbo also has 70hp and 70tq more than the 2.5L. So they aren't comparing them purely on fuel economy.
The same can be said of comparing the 3.6 V6 and the 2.0T. The 3.6 has a lot more power.
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 02:51 AM   #489
fielderLS3


 
fielderLS3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2016 Mazda6, 2011 Mustang 5.0
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Portage, Wisconsin
Posts: 3,981
To possibly expand on this discussion a bit, maybe we could take this in a bit of a different direction.

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).
__________________
"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.
fielderLS3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 02:53 AM   #490
Sevn86


 
Sevn86's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Camaro 2LT/RS ABM
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 13,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larz29 View Post
Why would anyone want a 4 cyl camaro?? Sounds a bit lame.
To get better fuel economy duh!
__________________
2LT, RS, AT6 ABM, Gray Leather
Quote:
Originally Posted by baclarsen View Post
Dude, you go through cars faster than I go through underware!!
1000 Initial Order 9/14/2009 - Classic Chevy Sugar Land
1100 Order accepted at dealer: 9/15/2009 - NPGV41.
2000 Order accepted by GM: 9/29/2009
3000 Accepted By Production Control: 9/30/2009 - TPW 10/26/09
3100 Sequenced:10/12/09
3300 Scheduled For Production:10/13/09
3400 Broadcast:10/22/09
3800 Produced:10/27/09
4000 Available To Ship:10/28/09
4200 Shipped:10/29/09
5000 Delivered To The Dealer:11/09/09
6000 Delivered To Customer:11/12/09
Sevn86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 06:53 AM   #491
The_Blur
Jayhawk USN
 
The_Blur's Avatar
 
Drives: Demon SS
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 14,622
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.
The_Blur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 08:47 AM   #492
FenwickHockey65
General Motors Aficionado
 
FenwickHockey65's Avatar
 
Drives: 2003 GMC Envoy/2000 Ford Ranger
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 33,692
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.
__________________
FenwickHockey65's GM Thread!

2003 GMC Envoy SLE - Airaid Cold Air Intake, Gibson Performance Catback Exhaust
2000 Ford Ranger XLT Regular Cab (State-issued)
FenwickHockey65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2013, 08:52 AM   #493
Norm Peterson
corner barstool sitter
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Drives: 08 Mustang GT, 10 Legacy 2.5GT, ...
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Eastern Time Zone
Posts: 3,513
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 09:56 AM.
Norm Peterson 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 09:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.