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 05-23-2013, 08:39 PM   #18
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 KMPrenger View Post
Actually, the final drive ratio is the same between the two if my memory is correct (3.27) so I too am a bit surprised the ATS does not have a small MPG advantage. Only the 2LS Camaro has highway MPG rating of 30 because it has a 2.92 final drive ratio. Other V6 Camaros are rated at 28 MPG.

I wonder if there is something else affecting mileage for the ATS, or if the weight loss really doesn't help mileage much?
Keep in mind that just because a car loses mileage compared to another on the EPA test doesn't mean there is actually a difference in the real world. The EPA tests are inaccurate, and since car makers are more often trusted to run the test themselves (see Hyundai/Kia), they are almost not even useful for comparative purposes.
__________________
"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 05-23-2013, 09:20 PM   #19
90503


 
Drives: 2011 2SS/RS LS3
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 11,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Keep in mind that just because a car loses mileage compared to another on the EPA test doesn't mean there is actually a difference in the real world. The EPA tests are inaccurate, and since car makers are more often trusted to run the test themselves (see Hyundai/Kia), they are almost not even useful for comparative purposes.
I agree that the mileage numbers used to satisfy the CAFE or EPA or whatever is getting more and more disconnected from what customers really see.

Especially for the V-8s, more and more gimmicky features...AFM, 1st to 4th, etc., are used to get high mileage numbers to satisfy the gov....and can be easily by-passed or unused by the driver...

The next gen LT-1 engines will have AFM in both manual transmission and automatic transmission cars. The Vette's will have a default driving mode that doesn't include AFM being active, you'll have to choose it.

If the government actually matches what drivers get for mpg, and eliminates the gimmicks that the factory can use to get a high rating, I think the party will really be over...lol...

Last edited by 90503; 05-25-2013 at 11:05 AM.
90503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2013, 10:07 PM   #20
CooG
RIP - Convertible SS
 
CooG's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 Mustang Boss 302 - RED
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 971
3
CooG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2013, 11:54 PM   #21
sspolo
 
sspolo's Avatar
 
Drives: None at the moment :'(
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by fielderLS3 View Post
Aftermarket hybrid engine that plugs into any car? I think you'd have more luck with gasoline pills...at least those are cheaper.
haha yea. The site was somewhat sketchy. It would be nice if it were true though!
sspolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2013, 10:33 AM   #22
FL1CK
Switchin' n Twitchin'
 
FL1CK's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Camaro
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA (Eastlake)
Posts: 3,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard1183 View Post
Wonder if the manual tranny will have 7 as well?
Already does, 1-6 and reverse
__________________
I am not childish, you're just being a poopy head!
FL1CK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2013, 03:51 PM   #23
wakespeak

 
Drives: 2013 2SS LS3/NPP
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 920
We're stuck with 14.7:1 fuel/air mixture. Big engines suck in more air which in turn needs more fuel. So displacement works against you. Therefore to get the best fuel economy you need smaller displacement. Turbo/blower engine would be one method, AFM the other. Either would need to be supplemented with reduced weight and better aerodynamics.

In either case, in part throttle it would run on reduced displacement, getting your 30 mpg. The turbo/blower effectively increases displacement by forcing in more air, so your 3.5 liter can be a 6 liter with boost. AFM of course just reduces/add cylinders.

I think GM should raise the price of Camaros (or at least the V8 models) to limit their numbers and play the CAFE averaging game that way. This would keep the cars at higher margins/quality/performance. Create a different fuel economy oriented car for the buyers that are about fuel economy eg Cruze SS, 130R etc.

BMW eventually went the turbo route. I hate AFM myself, so I would rather have a turbo v-6 or pay a gas guzzler tax when buying the v-8.
wakespeak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2013, 04:06 PM   #24
Wizard1183

 
Wizard1183's Avatar
 
Drives: ABM SS2/RS M6
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Lafayette,LA
Posts: 1,447
Send a message via Yahoo to Wizard1183
Quote:
Originally Posted by FL1CK View Post
Already does, 1-6 and reverse
Lol smartass. You know what I meant.
__________________


Life is short, drive it like you stole it!
Wizard1183 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2013, 07:35 PM   #25
knowitman
Camaro fan since birth
 
knowitman's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 ZL1
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakespeak View Post
We're stuck with 14.7:1 fuel/air mixture. Big engines suck in more air which in turn needs more fuel. So displacement works against you. Therefore to get the best fuel economy you need smaller displacement. Turbo/blower engine would be one method, AFM the other. Either would need to be supplemented with reduced weight and better aerodynamics.

In either case, in part throttle it would run on reduced displacement, getting your 30 mpg. The turbo/blower effectively increases displacement by forcing in more air, so your 3.5 liter can be a 6 liter with boost. AFM of course just reduces/add cylinders.

I think GM should raise the price of Camaros (or at least the V8 models) to limit their numbers and play the CAFE averaging game that way. This would keep the cars at higher margins/quality/performance. Create a different fuel economy oriented car for the buyers that are about fuel economy eg Cruze SS, 130R etc.

BMW eventually went the turbo route. I hate AFM myself, so I would rather have a turbo v-6 or pay a gas guzzler tax when buying the v-8.
Adding a turbo doesn't always increase fuel economy. The new GM Turbo V6 has near identical power and torque as the LS3 and gets the same gas mileage. The friction in an engine is a big determinant on fuel economy. A smaller engine might have to work harder, aka higher RPMs or throttle, than a larger engine to maintain a certain speed. In that case the increase in fuel economy might not be as noticeable because both engines could very well be using the same mass of air. The larger engine would require less throttle, and while it will "suck" in a larger volume of air for every stroke that volume of air will be at a lower pressure due to a greater pressure drop at the throttle and could be very similar in mass to that of a smaller motor using more throttle or spinning more RPMs. Also, when designing a car around turbos, the compression ratio must usually be lowered for reliability and longevity. This decreases the efficiency of the engine while it is not under load.

When the car goes into AFM mode, it may only be putting fuel into 4 cylinders, but it still has the friction of 8. Therefore, the other 4 have to work a bit harder, aka more throttle, which equals more air entering the 4 working cylinders. The only gain is you don't have as many combustion losses out of 4 cylinders vs 8 cylinders. That is why the gain in MPG seems minimal.

BMW went the turbo route mostly because it is a European based company. Most countries in Europe tax a car based on engine displacement. It's not a very fair system because nothing is an apples to apples comparison.
__________________
#3642
knowitman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2013, 10:17 PM   #26
OrangeVert
"Catharine"
 
OrangeVert's Avatar
 
Drives: '11 2SS/RS LS-3 IOM/IO vert
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 1,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowitman View Post
Adding a turbo doesn't always increase fuel economy. The new GM Turbo V6 has near identical power and torque as the LS3 and gets the same gas mileage. The friction in an engine is a big determinant on fuel economy. A smaller engine might have to work harder, aka higher RPMs or throttle, than a larger engine to maintain a certain speed. In that case the increase in fuel economy might not be as noticeable because both engines could very well be using the same mass of air. The larger engine would require less throttle, and while it will "suck" in a larger volume of air for every stroke that volume of air will be at a lower pressure due to a greater pressure drop at the throttle and could be very similar in mass to that of a smaller motor using more throttle or spinning more RPMs. Also, when designing a car around turbos, the compression ratio must usually be lowered for reliability and longevity. This decreases the efficiency of the engine while it is not under load.

When the car goes into AFM mode, it may only be putting fuel into 4 cylinders, but it still has the friction of 8. Therefore, the other 4 have to work a bit harder, aka more throttle, which equals more air entering the 4 working cylinders. The only gain is you don't have as many combustion losses out of 4 cylinders vs 8 cylinders. That is why the gain in MPG seems minimal.

BMW went the turbo route mostly because it is a European based company. Most countries in Europe tax a car based on engine displacement. It's not a very fair system because nothing is an apples to apples comparison.
Very interesting, makes perfect sense - thanks for explaining.

Edit: I find it interesting that my 4-cyl 1993 Toyota pickup was rated 28MPG highway and the best mileage pickup said company makes in 2013 is rated 25MPG highway. 20 years of improvements in technology, and they have DEcreased 3MPG! Perhaps they measure it differently now. But still ... come on!

This is why I rebuilt the head at 316,000 miles rather than buy a new truck.
__________________
OrangeVert is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2013, 05:27 PM   #27
LSXaddict
 
LSXaddict's Avatar
 
Drives: 1ss in Blue Ray Metallic
Join Date: May 2013
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeVert View Post
Very interesting, makes perfect sense - thanks for explaining.

Edit: I find it interesting that my 4-cyl 1993 Toyota pickup was rated 28MPG highway and the best mileage pickup said company makes in 2013 is rated 25MPG highway. 20 years of improvements in technology, and they have DEcreased 3MPG! Perhaps they measure it differently now. But still ... come on!

This is why I rebuilt the head at 316,000 miles rather than buy a new truck.

Also 20 more years of govt saftey regulations that require the trucks to be heavier and 20 years of consumers demanding more and more stuff in their trucks.
__________________
2013 1SS M6 with Flowmaster Pro 10 axle back and CAGS shift skip eliminator
LSXaddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2013, 07:01 PM   #28
knowitman
Camaro fan since birth
 
knowitman's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 ZL1
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeVert View Post
Very interesting, makes perfect sense - thanks for explaining.

Edit: I find it interesting that my 4-cyl 1993 Toyota pickup was rated 28MPG highway and the best mileage pickup said company makes in 2013 is rated 25MPG highway. 20 years of improvements in technology, and they have DEcreased 3MPG! Perhaps they measure it differently now. But still ... come on!

This is why I rebuilt the head at 316,000 miles rather than buy a new truck.
The new one is much bigger and heavier than the old one.
__________________
#3642
knowitman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2013, 08:11 PM   #29
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: 9,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeVert View Post
Very interesting, makes perfect sense - thanks for explaining.

Edit: I find it interesting that my 4-cyl 1993 Toyota pickup was rated 28MPG highway and the best mileage pickup said company makes in 2013 is rated 25MPG highway. 20 years of improvements in technology, and they have DEcreased 3MPG! Perhaps they measure it differently now. But still ... come on!

This is why I rebuilt the head at 316,000 miles rather than buy a new truck.
There was a major change in how FE was measured a few years ago starting with the 2008 Models with the intent of making the sticker number more in line with the real world.

The new test accounts for higher speed, harder acceleraton and cold temps.

So your older vehicle was rated using a different more forgiving test than the new model.
__________________
"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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 01:18 PM   #30
Michael2000
 
Drives: .
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by RallySportRand View Post
Have there been any numbers for mileage expectations for the 6th Gen?

I don't understand why we can make a microchip so small it can fit on the head of a pin, but we can't make V8 400+ hp engines that get can 40+ mpg's.

I'd love to see a world where muscle cars and pick-ups get great power AND mileage.
Thermodynamics.

Michael
Michael2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2013, 10:27 AM   #31
rickr9504
 
rickr9504's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 Camaro 2SS 1 LE
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 195
Send a message via Yahoo to rickr9504 Send a message via Skype™ to rickr9504
Good morning all,

New proud owner of a 2013 2SS 1LE. The first thing I noticed it's how fast it burns gas compared to my old Nissan Maxima. It's a downside but nothing beats the sound of the engine and the big smile in my face.

I agree we should have more efficient engines but How about reducing the gas prices instead? what is happening right now is criminal if you ask me. We can go back to $1 gallon if we really want to fix the problem.
rickr9504 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 07:08 PM   #32
Random
 
Drives: 300hp RWD, only costs $3.25 a ride
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickr9504 View Post
Good morning all,

New proud owner of a 2013 2SS 1LE. The first thing I noticed it's how fast it burns gas compared to my old Nissan Maxima. It's a downside but nothing beats the sound of the engine and the big smile in my face.

I agree we should have more efficient engines but How about reducing the gas prices instead? what is happening right now is criminal if you ask me. We can go back to $1 gallon if we really want to fix the problem.
Step 1) Invent cheap space travel
Step 2) http://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-earth.html
Step 3) Gas now costs 10 cents a gallon.
Random 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 07:33 PM.


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