[V8 Firebird]

Originally Posted by vtirocz

Can you elaborate on what you mean by “might have better mpg while driving”?

I don't know how American gov test every cars.

I just guess if they test fuel range only in DYNO.(Sorry, I am not American)

The engine systeam isn't all about its fuel range.

Aerodynamics and tires can effect fuel range too.

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by V8 Firebird

I don't know how American gov test every cars.

I just guess if they test fuel range only in DYNO.(Sorry, I am not American)

The engine systeam isn't all about its fuel range.

Aerodynamics and tires can effect fuel range too.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

[V8 Firebird]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

[S2K+1LE]

Originally Posted by vtirocz

On the certification cycles (ie. FTP75 and HWFET)? Do you have a data log of this fuel cut on a part throttle upshift?

Do you have them without? It's far better to use your own evidence to support your point, rather than attack someone else.

[lt4camaro]

Originally Posted by STYLO LT1

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/08/07/...o-fuel-economy

Cannot even read anything good about the 2019 refresh.

https://carbuzz.com/news/the-2019-ch...less-efficient

[DangerZL1]

Originally Posted by lt4camaro

Cannot even read anything good about the 2019 refresh.

https://carbuzz.com/news/the-2019-ch...less-efficient

Even they think it’s butt ugly. It’s almost like GM is trying to kill it.

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by S2K+1LE

Do you have them without? It's far better to use your own evidence to support your point, rather than attack someone else.

It wasn’t meant as an attack. I’ve looked at data logs on similar products and do not see fuel being cut on shifts. Reduced for torque management, but not cut to 0 on the shift.

[TastyBake]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

*Long Post Warning*

In essence...adding gears only helps fuel mileage when its NEEDED...not when its for pleasure.

In general, you are correct (and thanks for the post!).
But how the transmission is built varies the results as well.

https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/...0speed-gm.html

The 10 speed has less friction/mechanical loss (i.e., Cornwell ratchets instead of home depot ratchets) and it shifts faster than the outgoing transmission (i.e., can change the ratchet quicker). They brag it shifts faster than a Porsche's tranny. The 10-speed has 3 overdrive gears (i.e., more small ratchets). A big factor is how the tranny is programmed to shift.
So I don't think they are at the point where they are going beyond the efficiency hump and they are doing it for both mpg and the pleasure of torque. The Lexus LC 500 has one as well.

Oddly, the last two are VERY close at 0.69 and 0.64. I assume this is because a 10-speed is better for marketing.

Overall, they are trying to get it closer to a CVT for torque, mpg efficiency, reliability, and the sounds of shifting gears in order to sell cars to enthusiasts.

Since the manual dropped performance as well, I'll blame the loss on drag.
Maybe air is pushing that front end away saying "Eeewww, get that away from me!!"

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by 50MileSmile

I believe the EPA has tweaked its testing procedures during the last couple of years, so that may have something to do with it. It will be interesting to see if any other 2019 models show unexpected increases or decreases.

If you want to have hours of fun comparing 2018 vehicles to 2019 vehicles, go here: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...tion=sbsSelect.

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

Not too concerned about it. Not sure 100% on the fuel economy testing rules( maybe martin can explain them better), but it all could be down to rounding. Maybe when they tested the 2016's, the test resulted in 26.6 MPG resulting in allowing GM to say Camaro got 27 MPG on the highway. Testing on the 2019 resulted in 26.4 MPG making GM round down.



It could all be a result of decimals and rounding......

Just seeing this thread. Not sure how much I can add to it. Need4Camaro did an excellent job framing the theory of how transmissions work.

I see three potentials

1. Did the vehicle get heavier through the addition of new content?
2. Did the test procedures or calculation protocols change? I'm not aware of any changes, but then I wasn't looking for changes either..
3. Realizing that for most if not all of the test cycle, the higher gears are irrelevant. Maybe a fraction of the highway test. I would suggest comparing 2nd - 6th gear ratios between the A8 and A10 to see if there is anything there that might impact FE

Originally Posted by vtirocz

Here's a summary of the model year 2016 - 2019 fuel economy data (see pic below). The raw data is available here: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml

It does look like the 2019 fuel economy shifted downward 3-4% compared to the 2016-18 data. I'm not aware of test procedure changes specific to 2019 that would impact the numbers, but I plan to look into this further. I did look at the Corvette fuel economy data between 2018 and 2019 and don't see a similar shift.

Nice analysis.

[18LTLoveIt]

The fuel economy by auto mags started with 6 Gens, all the hully baloo about 200 lbs lighter. Gotta take the good with the bad, Oooh 1 mpg on manuals, Bah, ha ha. Camaro life is the best.

[vtirocz]

Originally Posted by 13LTLoveIt

The fuel economy by auto mags started with 6 Gens, all the hully baloo about 200 lbs lighter. Gotta take the good with the bad, Oooh 1 mpg on manuals, Bah, ha ha. Camaro life is the best.

Say what?

[mmadden2]

Here's an interesting thing...

Back in 2011 I started looking to buy a Buick LaCrosse. I wanted the V6 engine, they only come with 6 speed automatic trans. The top 2011 model was called the CXS, had a 3.6L V6, made 280 HP, and required premium fuel. I'd never owned a car that required premium fuel and wasn't super stoked about that. It's stated MPG: 17 City / 27 Hwy.

The model year was switching so I waited to see if I would buy an 11 or would there be any new or improved features for 2012 that would sway me. Well... for whatever reason they changed the top trim line name from CXS to Touring, the 3.6L engine now made 303hp, and the fuel was now reduced to requiring only regular 87 octane! I bought the 2012 Touring and have never put anything in it other than 87 octane. It is a DI engine, runs 0-60 in around 6 seconds. It's stated MPG is the SAME: 17 City / 27 Hwy. (I believe the 2012 Camaro V6 made 323 HP and also ran on regular?, rated at 18 City / 28 Hwy for the Auto?)

The shape of the LaCrosse didn't change. I don't know how they were able to to get the extra 23 hp and reduce the octane requirement (maybe it a totally different engine, or some of the internals?)

Because I bought the 2012 Buick over the 2011, I've been saving $0.60/gallon over the previous car. If I drive it 100,000 miles (currently has 72k on the odo) and get an average of 20mpg, that's 5,000 gallons of regular gas, I'll see a savings of $3000 over the 2011 car. It's not enough to retire on but's it's something. More power, for less money

Side note: My brother has a 2013 Lexus 350 GS AWD 3.5L V6 which makes 1 HP more (304HP) and his requires premium - ouch.

We've now added a Camaro V8 and we knew going into it that it required premium fuel. I love the power and feel like the premium fuel must be the cost of making the 455 HP. What I would love to know is... How much power could they make using the same engine but tuning it to run on 87 octane?

I'd probably be ok losing a few HP (but keeping the V8). If my old man LaCrosse can make 303 on regular, I would imagine you'd still be over 400hp running regular in the V8.

Rather than eeking out a 1-4% gain or loss, I feel like the Camaro could essentially increase it's fuel efficiency by up to 25% (the cost difference between prem & regular) if they could just run the V8 engine on regular. If instead of 455hp, it ran something like 400-425hp, it would probably be fine with me.

Even better would be if they let you choose on the fly. A button on the dash that sets some tuning for what octane you're running (if that's even possible).

[TastyBake]

Originally Posted by mmadden2

Rather than eeking out a 1-4% gain or loss, I feel like the Camaro could essentially increase it's fuel efficiency by up to 25% (the cost difference between prem & regular) if they could just run the V8 engine on regular. If instead of 455hp, it ran something like 400-425hp, it would probably be fine with me.

Even better would be if they let you choose on the fly. A button on the dash that sets some tuning for what octane you're running (if that's even possible).

That wouldn't be a good sales strategy to lower the hp rating on the car designed to a market for folks who want the most hp. They'll just buy the competition such as a Mustang to get more hp.

Also, unless something has changed, you can run 87 but its CPU will retard the timing using its 87 octane table. Also, you won't gain mpg from switching to 87 (might even lose some).

Also, you can't have a button toggling 87 vs 93 octane and trust the person is correct and gas isn't mixed. The CPU already handles that.

[mdhopt36]

" to use your own evidence to support your point, ...."
*****
Well if I did that, every govt FE post on the window sticker, I've beaten substantially ever since they came out. Regardless of brand/model.
So I don't really pay much attention to the subject anyhow---which makes sense with 455 HP on tap.
(actually, with this car, who gives a $--t???)