[squish72]

Originally Posted by DaveC113

I'm cool with it if it's the Koenigsegg 3-banger...

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...pecs-analysis/

Came here to add to this

https://youtu.be/WwlNqaz9q_0

[LT1ornothing]

Originally Posted by squish72

Came here to add to this

https://youtu.be/WwlNqaz9q_0

LoL, that 3 banger longblock must cost more than a new ZL1 1LE entire vehicle.

Amazing engine none the less.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by 1LEornothing

The v6s have to wind it up much higher in the city from light to light, whereas our v8s barely have to shift above 2,000 rpms before you find yourself pulling away from traffic 20+ mph over the speed limit. While we feather our accelerators in the city and end up speeding anyway in our v8s, the v6 guys gotta wind their engines way higher to find that itty bit of torque past 4,000rpm to pull the same. So the v6s are on the throttle way harder than the v8s and end up getting the same or worse mileage than a v8 in the city.

My 4th gen ls1 would destroy my colleagues 1st gen CTS v6 in city AND highway fuel economy. Not a direct apples to apples comparison, just trying to show an OHV V8 gm besting a 3.6 DOHC V6 gm in both city & highway mpg, both vehicles sharing similar curb weights.

I don't think you have to pull the V6 RPM up that high to get it going, but I get the point. You can keep the small block RPM very low and it will cruise all day long.

I believe the EPA rating for V6 M6 and V8 A10 are very close.

[wilbur_xmas]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

Yeah, the V6 puts out some really good fuel economy numbers, I remember my 2LT achieved 31-32 mpg with ease. Now I have to really feather the pedal and watch my speeds to get 27-28 mpg, "normal" driving means sub-20 or low 20s at best.

That's impressive mpg in both cases. During the lifetime of my V6 2LT 1LE I have averaged 17.9 mpg according to the computer (which is typically optimistic). But I think the 1LE removes quite a few of the items that contribute to fuel economy by adding aero/drag, more unsprung weight with larger brakes/wheels/tires, and more rolling resistance with stickier tires. I also pretty much only drive it on the track or in the twisties. Even on the freeway I only see about 28 mpg at a steady 70 mph at sea level. I often wonder if the LT1 motor would get me better mileage, but until I'm a better driver the LT1 would just be a frustrating exercise in throttle restraint.

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

I have heard the opposite.

I have heard two cases of people around me who owned V6 Camaro's and the fuel economy isn't much better than my SS, and that's in city driving where my SS would have a disadvantage. Maybe it's the way they drive them, I don't know. I drive my SS 1LE kind of hard already.

That said, V6 only needs 87 octane while V8 and 2.0T both prefer 93 octane, so there is still some fuel savings to be had there.

Make that three, my V6 gets crap mileage with a 17.9 mpg average over ownership. I also run 91 (highest we can get at the pump here) all the time since that's what I run at the track for a margin of safety with the higher heat, load, and revs, so that negates cost savings of regular grade fuel. Still worth it because this is the exact car I wanted. Besides, fuel, even at California cost, is a pretty small portion of the consumables once you factor in brakes, tires, fluids, track fees, and insurance to keep this pig on the track.

[Seniorrs]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

I don't think you have to pull the V6 RPM up that high to get it going, but I get the point. You can keep the small block RPM very low and it will cruise all day long.

I believe the EPA rating for V6 M6 and V8 A10 are very close.

Price of reg. and premium not very close.

[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by Seniorrs

Price of reg. and premium not very close.

Which I have mentioned in one of my previous replies.

But yeah, if you take it to a track on a hot day like the previous poster mentioned, you probably want to run premium anyway to make sure it won't knock.

[Seniorrs]

Read nasaspeed.news: octane vs horsepower. Separating fact from myth in the debate over which fuel makes more power

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

I have heard the opposite.

I have heard two cases of people around me who owned V6 Camaro's and the fuel economy isn't much better than my SS, and that's in city driving where my SS would have a disadvantage. Maybe it's the way they drive them, I don't know. I drive my SS 1LE kind of hard already.

That said, V6 only needs 87 octane while V8 and 2.0T both prefer 93 octane, so there is still some fuel savings to be had there.

I can only attest to my personal experience, the V6 clearly had better fuel economy. It may have been because I drove it mostly as a "normal car", I didn't rev the heck out of it. Didn't have enough torque for my taste.

[Seniorrs]

Comming from modertly modded focus st I put 94 k miles on I could feel the lack of torque of the v6 it was a little disappointing.After taking it mostly easy for first 4k miles I started driving it like a Acura rsx-s I owned years ago. At 7k miles now I'm use to the lack of grunt. I would say it's the most fun car I have owned and I am 59 .

[redcoats1976]

Originally Posted by 1LEornothing

The v6s have to wind it up much higher in the city from light to light, whereas our v8s barely have to shift above 2,000 rpms before you find yourself pulling away from traffic 20+ mph over the speed limit. While we feather our accelerators in the city and end up speeding anyway in our v8s, the v6 guys gotta wind their engines way higher to find that itty bit of torque past 4,000rpm to pull the same. So the v6s are on the throttle way harder than the v8s and end up getting the same or worse mileage than a v8 in the city.

My 4th gen ls1 would destroy my colleagues 1st gen CTS v6 in city AND highway fuel economy. Not a direct apples to apples comparison, just trying to show an OHV V8 gm besting a 3.6 DOHC V6 gm in both city & highway mpg, both vehicles sharing similar curb weights.

thats odd.i dont drive especially hard but im ahead of most people coming off a stoplight and i hardly ever see the far side of 3,000 rpms.getting about 23 in the city,28 on the highway but i do tend to run about 80 on the highway.my buddy with the SS was bitching about his fuel economy the other day but didnt give any numbers for me to quote.these are both 5th gen cars.

[LT1ornothing]

Originally Posted by redcoats1976

thats odd.i dont drive especially hard but im ahead of most people coming off a stoplight and i hardly ever see the far side of 3,000 rpms.getting about 23 in the city,28 on the highway but i do tend to run about 80 on the highway.my buddy with the SS was bitching about his fuel economy the other day but didnt give any numbers for me to quote.these are both 5th gen cars.

I'm sure the 5th gen SS chugs more fuel, they are heavier than the 6th gen and the LT1 in the 6th gen SS puts down more torque in the lower rpms than either the LS3 or L99s. Because of this, I strongly believe the 5th gen v6s were much more fuel efficient than the 5th gen v8s. However, that efficiency gap is greatly reduced in the 6th gens. In real world observed fuel economy, the 6th gen v6 is hardly more fuel efficient than the 6th gen v8. The v6 just gets to enjoy the cheaper fill ups on 87 octane.

[genxer]

Originally Posted by 1LEornothing

I'm sure the 5th gen SS chugs more fuel, they are heavier than the 6th gen and the LT1 in the 6th gen SS puts down more torque in the lower rpms than either the LS3 or L99s. Because of this, I strongly believe the 5th gen v6s were much more fuel efficient than the 5th gen v8s. However, that efficiency gap is greatly reduced in the 6th gens. In real world observed fuel economy, the 6th gen v6 is hardly more fuel efficient than the 6th gen v8. The v6 just gets to enjoy the cheaper fill ups on 87 octane.

I would have thought direct injection would let the factory cam get nice and big. Maybe they've held back?

[redcoats1976]

Originally Posted by 1LEornothing

I'm sure the 5th gen SS chugs more fuel, they are heavier than the 6th gen and the LT1 in the 6th gen SS puts down more torque in the lower rpms than either the LS3 or L99s. Because of this, I strongly believe the 5th gen v6s were much more fuel efficient than the 5th gen v8s. However, that efficiency gap is greatly reduced in the 6th gens. In real world observed fuel economy, the 6th gen v6 is hardly more fuel efficient than the 6th gen v8. The v6 just gets to enjoy the cheaper fill ups on 87 octane.

i looked at the 6th gen in 2016 when i bought my 2015.being a large guy i liked the interior room of the 5th gen,and i didnt want to pay more for the 6 cylinder ($1400) over the turbo 4.being an old school guy and wanting to keep the car long term im leery of the intercooler/turbo/wastegate as something extra to break after the warranty is over.i was impressed by the peppiness of the T4 though,most of the 4s ive driven were gutless wonders.i still love my 5th gen,and being retired a new car is probably not in the cards anyway.