Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 3
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
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.