[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Petrol Head

My point was that, maybe not to the extent of an S-Class buyer, but a Camaro SS buyer most likely isn't concerned with fuel economy. If it gets 15-20 mpg I think everyone is happy. Anything more is a bonus. The car companies should quit putting so much money and effort into making cars that don't need to be that economical for that particular vehicle's customer base, and instead put that extra money into making cars for people who DO care about fuel economy that much more efficient.



The company can then maintain their fleet CAFE average without dumb, extraneous, frivolous garbage like AFM and CAGS.

The economy of scale.

Let's just use AFM and CAGS as examples. Covers both auto and manual camps.

To build an LT1 without AFM lifters and the associated parts, this means a dedicated production line and parts. Camaro M6 is the only car with LT1 without AFM, and that's not a high-volume vehicle by any means. Even if you add in Camaro A8/A10 and Corvettes, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the number of trucks where the customer base mind more about MPG and CAFE will also kick in. Those truck engines share a lot of parts with LT1. It just makes more sense economically to produce the same engine with the same parts, then just program it to not activate ever.

As for CAGS, pretty sure that functionality comes with most TR-6060. Challengers have it, too. And what do you prefer, pay thousands for gas guzzler tax or buy a $20 eliminator and install it?

Sent from toaster or something

[JROC]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

In theory, it should if you drive a lot of highway. How much in real life, that I can't say.

Also, LS1 is a smaller engine that made less power... Hard to compare to the LT1 which has about 10% extra displacement and 100+ more horsepower.

Corvettes are light cars with good aerodynamics. Again, not a good comparison to trucks and even the Camaro(heavier with a blockier front).

BTW, I will probably get smack for this, but I am gonna say it: I don't mind Start/Stop. Some of them are executed well. Went on a road trip with some buddies and we had a Grand Cherokee V6, and the Start/Stop is undetectable. Now, it's not something I particularly want in a sports car, but IIRC Euro sports cars like the M4 has a way to permanently disable it.

Sent from toaster or something

I'm not saying a LS1 shouldn't get better MPG than an LT1, but I've heard the claim made that the GEN5 motors get better MPG's than the older GEN3 and 4 motors. I don't see it. Does a C7 LT1 (with AFM) A8 car get better MPG's than a C6 LS3 (no AFM) A6 car? GEN4 cars are also lighter and more aerodynamic than GEN6 Camaros. Other than DI on the LT1 I agree that it shouldn't achieve better MPG's. Again that claim is just made sometimes.

Lighter is only a part of the equation. A Foxbody is light, but doesn't get the MPG's of a LS1 Camaro or Firebird. Sub-2,000 RPM's cruising down the interstate is IMO the biggest contributor to good MPG's in GM V8 performance cars. JMHO.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by JROC

I'm not saying a LS1 shouldn't get better MPG than an LT1, but I've heard the claim made that the GEN5 motors get better MPG's than the older GEN3 and 4 motors. I don't see it. Does a C7 LT1 (with AFM) A8 car get better MPG's than a C6 LS3 (no AFM) A6 car? GEN4 cars are also lighter and more aerodynamic than GEN6 Camaros. Other than DI on the LT1 I agree that it shouldn't achieve better MPG's. Again that claim is just made sometimes.

Lighter is only a part of the equation. A Foxbody is light, but doesn't get the MPG's of a LS1 Camaro or Firebird. Sub-2,000 RPM's cruising down the interstate is IMO the biggest contributor to good MPG's in GM V8 performance cars. JMHO.

I got both the EPA numbers and Fuelly numbers for reference. I chose the 14 C7 because it has an A6 just like the C6, which eliminates one variable.

With the Camaro, the EPA numbers show that the M6 version of 4th Gen will be better on gas than a 6th Gen. Fuelly shows that they are also pretty similar in terms of gas mileage.

But heh, we got more power out of the same-ish amount of fuel, so that's something.

[orange blaze]

I have a 2017 SS automatic. I love the v4 mode. Works like it should and cruisin down the interstate 80mph and runnin 1700 rpm with 35 mpg. Can't beat that and when you want the power its instant. Unlike my 2011 i had the deactivation was crap so i got rid of it.

[avalonandl]

Originally Posted by orange blaze

I have a 2017 SS automatic. I love the v4 mode. Works like it should and cruisin down the interstate 80mph and runnin 1700 rpm with 35 mpg. Can't beat that and when you want the power its instant. Unlike my 2011 i had the deactivation was crap so i got rid of it.

I would love to get 30 mpg.....

If I get 26 I'm lucky....no AFM in the M6...components are there it's not activated. If I drive at 60 mph in 6th maybe....

At 80 mph its 25 mpg with premium....

[cellsafemode]

Originally Posted by JROC

What do you mean it works? You mean it improves MPG? I doubt it. The best MPG's from GM vehices I've seen are from vehicles without AFM. I don't care what anyone says my LS1 Camaro got better MPG than my GEN6 SS. What AFM equipped vehicles do you know of that gets better MPG than a C6 Vette including a Z06 with 505 BHP from a 7L motor with a 4.125" bore? The reason I feel that most GEN3 and up SBC's get decent to good MPG's is largely due to the gearing GM uses in their vehicles. Notice the M6 cars with the Vipers overdrive gears gets the best MPG's. They gear them longlegged. When a large V8 barely has a load on it pulling a car/truck down the highway it's not going to burn a ton of fuel.

Your LS1 camaro made a hundred+ hp less than your SS with AFM. You're not going to get all the benefits of that increase in power + the ability to drive around at 80mph and still get over 25mpg. I had an LS1 Z28 for a long time from 2001. It's not outdoing what current engines can do in any way except in having cheaper replacement parts.

WTF are you talking about? First like a rock was a Silverado ad campaign. (But yes it was me joking) Not a Camaro built on a platform that dates back to the late 60's ad campaign. Generally trucks are considered to be more reliable vehicles than performance cars are. For example a LS1 alternator is an overheating POS, but the truck alternators from those equivalent years weren't. Replacing an alternator or thermostat once in ten years of ownership sucks, but is not that big of a deal. $100, and an afternoon after work and you're back in action. Fixing a collapsed lifter, (assuming it didn't take out the cam or a motor) or fixing a water pump that's mounted inside the timing cover that decides to take a dump right in your crank case, (Ford/Chrysler) are big issues that in best case scenarios are going to cost $1500+ to fix (maybe less if you can do the repair yourself) if they don't take anything else out with them. Dropping valves (LS7) is a big deal. Putting new seals in the rearend of a 16 year old truck because the old seals got old and dry and started leaking isn't a big deal.

I don't look at 200K miles as anything amazing. 300K is where you should start bragging about reliability from a motor that you don't have to open.

If you're going to ignore actual studies for your own anectdotal "evidence" then there's no point in trying to discuss anything. I posted a link to a study of over 10 million cars over the last 30+ years from 81 to 18.

The percent of cars that make it to 200k is incredibly low single digit percents. Does that still amount to hundreds, if not thousands, sure...in sample sizes of millions. A good benchmark is not one in which only 5% or less ever hope to make it to. At least not a benchmark that matters to owners.

the point being, if most cars regardless of how old (be them from the 80's 90's or later) are not driven beyond say 100k before junked for whatever reason, then the fact that the engine could have gone on to 200k for that 0-5% of the population that hangs on to them, is irrelevant to car owners. In the same way some people here feel that getting 40mpg in this car is irrelevant because they dont drive on flat empty highways for long periods of time. Only what i'm talking about is easily encompassing 95% of the ownerbase. 200k reliability simply doesn't matter. Low to mid 100's is probably where we should be concerned about reliability since it would appear that the vast...vast majority will never own the car beyond that regardless.

edit: and yes, i'm aware that the study was limited to car sales and not something like active registrations but there is no data on odometer readings of actively registered cars. There are numbers on average ages of cars though and that's roughly 11-12 years old these days. Increasing each year...not decreasing as one would expect with more unreliable motors replacing historically reliable ones.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

I got both the EPA numbers and Fuelly numbers for reference. I chose the 14 C7 because it has an A6 just like the C6, which eliminates one variable.

With the Camaro, the EPA numbers show that the M6 version of 4th Gen will be better on gas than a 6th Gen. Fuelly shows that they are also pretty similar in terms of gas mileage.

But heh, we got more power out of the same-ish amount of fuel, so that's something.

Should also be factored in somewhere that the Test cycles and computation for EPA mileage changed somewhere in the 20-teens. A 2002 Camaro would be about 1-1.5 mpg lower on today’s test cycles.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

Should also be factored in somewhere that the Test cycles and computation for EPA mileage changed somewhere in the 20-teens. A 2002 Camaro would be about 1-1.5 mpg lower on today’s test cycles.

The numbers I posted are all adjusted numbers in the case of 02 Camaro and Corvettes. There is an option below(which isn't in the screenshots) that shows the original EPA numbers with the old testing cycles, which is about 2 MPG better.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

The numbers I posted are all adjusted numbers in the case of 02 Camaro and Corvettes. There is an option below(which isn't in the screenshots) that shows the original EPA numbers with the old testing cycles, which is about 2 MPG better.

Cool, you’re on top of it. More difference than I thought.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

the point being, if most cars regardless of how old (be them from the 80's 90's or later) are not driven beyond say 100k before junked for whatever reason, then the fact that the engine could have gone on to 200k for that 0-5% of the population that hangs on to them, is irrelevant to car owners.

IMHO, the one big flaw in the numbers that are out there (that you're referencing) is that there's no way to know at what mileage an engine failed or whether the car was scrapped for a different reason. How many cars go to the crusher / scrap yard because they were totaled at under 50k miles?

I would guess that the biggest reason engines don't make it to 200k is because the car around them gives up before the engines do so there isn't any hard evidence to truly know what percentage of the engines would, indeed, make it.

It's an unknown that all we can do is speculate around.

[JROC]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

Your LS1 camaro made a hundred+ hp less than your SS with AFM. You're not going to get all the benefits of that increase in power + the ability to drive around at 80mph and still get over 25mpg. I had an LS1 Z28 for a long time from 2001. It's not outdoing what current engines can do in any way except in having cheaper replacement parts.




If you're going to ignore actual studies for your own anectdotal "evidence" then there's no point in trying to discuss anything. I posted a link to a study of over 10 million cars over the last 30+ years from 81 to 18.

The percent of cars that make it to 200k is incredibly low single digit percents. Does that still amount to hundreds, if not thousands, sure...in sample sizes of millions. A good benchmark is not one in which only 5% or less ever hope to make it to. At least not a benchmark that matters to owners.

the point being, if most cars regardless of how old (be them from the 80's 90's or later) are not driven beyond say 100k before junked for whatever reason, then the fact that the engine could have gone on to 200k for that 0-5% of the population that hangs on to them, is irrelevant to car owners. In the same way some people here feel that getting 40mpg in this car is irrelevant because they dont drive on flat empty highways for long periods of time. Only what i'm talking about is easily encompassing 95% of the ownerbase. 200k reliability simply doesn't matter. Low to mid 100's is probably where we should be concerned about reliability since it would appear that the vast...vast majority will never own the car beyond that regardless.

edit: and yes, i'm aware that the study was limited to car sales and not something like active registrations but there is no data on odometer readings of actively registered cars. There are numbers on average ages of cars though and that's roughly 11-12 years old these days. Increasing each year...not decreasing as one would expect with more unreliable motors replacing historically reliable ones.

I not worried that my GEN4 got better MPG than my GEN6 just pointing out that it does. HP and MPG's aren't always directly connected to one another. Again just look at C6Z. It got better high mileage then some Hondas. How hard is the motor being worked. A 7L V8 cruising lazily at 2K RPM's may very well get better MPG's than a I4 needing 3500 RPM's to maintain the same speed. My 02 SS got better MPG's than my 99 GT as did my Terminator, as does my 19 SS. (BTW my car being a M6 don't use AFM even though it has the components for it) Ford thought that going to a small OHC motor would improve their V8 vehicles MPG and it basically had the opposite effect. Ecoboost is no amazingly efficient motor, unless you stay out of boost which is hard to do, and even a V8 would be pretty efficient driving that conservatively to save gas.

Look man I'm at work typing on my breaks. I don't have much time to look at charts that I'm going to dismiss anyway. The thing is I've know of plenty of high mileage pre-AFM vehicles. I know of noone with a high mileage (let's say 250k+ miles) AFM vehicle. If AFM was some safe/full-proof reliable system that saved at the pump then it wouldn't recieve the hate and negativity it does. It's been on the market for 13-14 years and the general conscience is that's it's a bad system that greatly compromises reliability. I personally know examples even of GEN6 SS guys. There's this guy around where I'm at that had a 16 or 17 SS (M6 car I believe so it wasn't even using the AFM in the motor) and a lifter ate his cam up. Stock car. He bought a 19 Silverado to replace the car. Same with MPG's I don't just go off of a manufacturers rating of what it should get, but instead what am I actually getting. A 99 GT should get better mileage than a Terminator going off the manufacturers rating, but that was never the case for me.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by ember1205

IMHO, the one big flaw in the numbers that are out there (that you're referencing) is that there's no way to know at what mileage an engine failed or whether the car was scrapped for a different reason. How many cars go to the crusher / scrap yard because they were totaled at under 50k miles?

I would guess that the biggest reason engines don't make it to 200k is because the car around them gives up before the engines do so there isn't any hard evidence to truly know what percentage of the engines would, indeed, make it.

It's an unknown that all we can do is speculate around.

I think that's his argument: if the rest of the car falls apart before 200k miles, then what's the point of the engine lasting that long?

Originally Posted by JROC

I not worried that my GEN4 got better MPG than my GEN6 just pointing out that it does. HP and MPG's aren't always directly connected to one another. Again just look at C6Z. It got better high mileage then some Hondas. How hard is the motor being worked. A 7L V8 cruising lazily at 2K RPM's may very well get better MPG's than a I4 needing 3500 RPM's to maintain the same speed. My 02 SS got better MPG's than my 99 GT as did my Terminator, as does my 19 SS. (BTW my car being a M6 don't use AFM even though it has the components for it) Ford thought that going to a small OHC motor would improve their V8 vehicles MPG and it basically had the opposite effect. Ecoboost is no amazingly efficient motor, unless you stay out of boost which is hard to do, and even a V8 would be pretty efficient driving that conservatively to save gas.

Look man I'm at work typing on my breaks. I don't have much time to look at charts that I'm going to dismiss anyway. The thing is I've know of plenty of high mileage pre-AFM vehicles. I know of noone with a high mileage (let's say 250k+ miles) AFM vehicle. If AFM was some safe/full-proof reliable system that saved at the pump then it wouldn't recieve the hate and negativity it does. It's been on the market for 13-14 years and the general conscience is that's it's a bad system that greatly compromises reliability. I personally know examples even of GEN6 SS guys. There's this guy around where I'm at that had a 16 or 17 SS (M6 car I believe so it wasn't even using the AFM in the motor) and a lifter ate his cam up. Stock car. He bought a 19 Silverado to replace the car. Same with MPG's I don't just go off of a manufacturers rating of what it should get, but instead what am I actually getting. A 99 GT should get better mileage than a Terminator going off the manufacturers rating, but that was never the case for me.

On highways, small block V8s can do some amazing gas mileage. I owned an RX-8 before and the best I did was 20 MPG or so on a highway driving like a grandma, while in the SS, I did almost that but I was driving faster, shifting constantly(for break-in), and it's a heavier car. The trick is that when you have a ton of torque down low, you don't need to rev high to cruise. LT1 has a similar torque curve to LS7 before 4000 RPM. I am guessing DI and VVT helped with that.

I feel like a lot of the things said for AFM can just apply to DI and VVT as well, with the whole carbon buildup talk around DI and the VVT rattling you will find on some Toyota's and Honda's. Had an Accord beater with K24 and that thing would clack pretty loudly on cold starts for 2 seconds. You probably don't want to be early adopters for these techs, but at some point I would think they are ironed out. Maybe AFM is ironed out at this point, maybe not. We will just have to see. These techs don't do much on their own, but they add up to an engine that can make much more power on almost the same amount of fuel.

[ember1205]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

I think that's his argument: if the rest of the car falls apart before 200k miles, then what's the point of the engine lasting that long?

Understood, but to say that the engines don't/won't last is where I think it gets a little mis-matched in the discussions. Just because the engine wasn't afforded the opportunity to log those miles doesn't mean it couldn't.

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

On highways, small block V8s can do some amazing gas mileage. I owned an RX-8 before and the best I did was 20 MPG or so on a highway driving like a grandma, while in the SS, I did almost that but I was driving faster, shifting constantly(for break-in), and it's a heavier car. The trick is that when you have a ton of torque down low, you don't need to rev high to cruise. LT1 has a similar torque curve to LS7 before 4000 RPM. I am guessing DI and VVT helped with that.

I feel like a lot of the things said for AFM can just apply to DI and VVT as well, with the whole carbon buildup talk around DI and the VVT rattling you will find on some Toyota's and Honda's. Had an Accord beater with K24 and that thing would clack pretty loudly on cold starts for 2 seconds. You probably don't want to be early adopters for these techs, but at some point I would think they are ironed out. Maybe AFM is ironed out at this point, maybe not. We will just have to see. These techs don't do much on their own, but they add up to an engine that can make much more power on almost the same amount of fuel.

The 2014/2015 Silverado's were tested with both the 5.3L and the 6.2L while towing and found to produce roughly the same MPG (1500 4x4, towing about 2500-3000 lbs trailer). With no trailer, the 5.3L could eke out a touch better MPG as long as you were on level roads. Otherwise, the 6.2L would end up besting it in MPG ratings and have power for days when you needed it.

People love to go on and on about how great their little 4-banger does on gas. Sure, if all you're doing is going to get groceries. Wind those squirrels up and send them out to play on an Interstate and tell me how great they are when you get the feeling back in your knuckles.

[Petrol Head]

Originally Posted by cellsafemode

Your LS1 camaro made a hundred+ hp less than your SS with AFM. You're not going to get all the benefits of that increase in power + the ability to drive around at 80mph and still get over 25mpg. I had an LS1 Z28 for a long time from 2001. It's not outdoing what current engines can do in any way except in having cheaper replacement parts.




If you're going to ignore actual studies for your own anectdotal "evidence" then there's no point in trying to discuss anything. I posted a link to a study of over 10 million cars over the last 30+ years from 81 to 18.

The percent of cars that make it to 200k is incredibly low single digit percents. Does that still amount to hundreds, if not thousands, sure...in sample sizes of millions. A good benchmark is not one in which only 5% or less ever hope to make it to. At least not a benchmark that matters to owners.

the point being, if most cars regardless of how old (be them from the 80's 90's or later) are not driven beyond say 100k before junked for whatever reason, then the fact that the engine could have gone on to 200k for that 0-5% of the population that hangs on to them, is irrelevant to car owners. In the same way some people here feel that getting 40mpg in this car is irrelevant because they dont drive on flat empty highways for long periods of time. Only what i'm talking about is easily encompassing 95% of the ownerbase. 200k reliability simply doesn't matter. Low to mid 100's is probably where we should be concerned about reliability since it would appear that the vast...vast majority will never own the car beyond that regardless.

edit: and yes, i'm aware that the study was limited to car sales and not something like active registrations but there is no data on odometer readings of actively registered cars. There are numbers on average ages of cars though and that's roughly 11-12 years old these days. Increasing each year...not decreasing as one would expect with more unreliable motors replacing historically reliable ones.

That website looks like one of those that exist for no reason other than some generically thrown together statistics by people who have nothing better to do.

I’ve spent 35 years reading REAL car magazines, working on REAL cars, and learning about cars from REAL mechanics and engineers. I used to look up the trades and go to every junk yard, new and used dealer, and independent garage with my uncle in summer for parts. Talking to real mechanics and real engineers about real cars then learning to work on them. That was when I was about 10.

And I can tell you I don’t know half as much about cars as a lot of the people on this forum.

What I can tell you is that website don’t mean jack squat. There’s easily MILLIONS of those engines from 1981-2018 still running with well over 200k on the clock.