Anyone else think the SS 6 speed will get MORE than 23 mpg highway?

The projected EPA highway rating for the SS 6 speed manual is 23 mpg.

From personal experience with my 99, and reports from others, the 4th gen LS1 6 speed easily exceeded its EPA highway number when cruising in 6th.

Now, the 2010 SS 6 speed manual uses similar gear ratios to what my 99 LS1 6 speed has. And 6.2 isn't enormously larger than 5.7. Then consider that since the 4th gen ceased prodution, the EPA has revised the way the mpg numbers are figured to show lower numbers - meaning that if you could exceed the old highway numbers, you can certainly exceed the revised highway numbers by an even greater amount.

The only question mark is how much frontal area and drag the 2010 has v. the 98-02 4th gen.

Until the cars are on the ground this is speculation on my part, but I think cruising at 80mph in 6th on a road trip a 2010 SS manual is going to be able to knock down 27 mpg, despite the 23 EPA highway rating.

Well, considering a LT1 6-speed car is now rated at 15/24, I think it will be easy to exceed that number. The only time I ever got below 24mpg was when I had my 4.10 gears, and was doing 80mph. I got ~23mpg. 3.42s would get ~28, doing around 70. But the 6th gear ratio is not as tall as it was in the 4th gens (.57 vs .50 in 4th gens). And the rear axle ratio is shorter (3.45 vs 3.42). While that doesn't make a huge difference, it will probably cost about 1-2 mpg (final drive 1.97 in the '10, and 1.71 in the 4th gens). I think the car will get between 26-27 hwy, if you keep it below 75mph. This analysis is only for the manual transmission car.

according to this article:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=129586
Houlihan also said the 2010 Camaro's coefficient of drag is an OK, but unremarkable 0.35 for the SS and 0.36 for the LS/LT V6 models. Ed Welburn, GM's vice president of global design, said it's tough to get super-slippery aero numbers for cars with full-width grilles and recessed headlights — design cues Welburn and his styling team insisted on, obviously, to deliver on the 2010 Camaro's retro promise.

a bit higher than the 4th gen which was 0.33-0.34

some sources i found say the 2005+ Mustang has a Cd of 0.38.

I think the EPA estimates will be exceeded. Those LT1 numbers cant be for real unless you're ragging on the car from light to light. I was seeing ~18 city and up to damn near 30mpg highway when my car was stock(ish). That was getting on it a few times too but driving rather conservatively.

For comparison though to a more relevent rating, my Malibu is basically right at its 22/32 rating and maybe just a bit higher as its just been broken in. Can the new SS do better? I think so but maybe not by much. We'll see once they're on the roads and broken in.

No, b/c why would GM under estimate MPG at this time? They would be foolish to publish a false MPG with the way gas prices are at and the numerious hybrid cars. (Every New and Old person looking at the Camaro will tend to look at MPG now then they did 6-8 years ago. Do I think GM will do everything in its power to raise the MPG by 1-2 MPG by the time the car is in dealerships? YES!!

Put a gas sipping 4 cyclinder in the Camaro, this way you have the game covered. 4,6,8. 225 hp would be great in a 4.

It will be exceeded. The EPA gives GM the mpg rating. GM can't say a car gets better mpg's than what the EPA will rate. That will be the numbers you see on the build sheets. The 4th gens surpassed EPA mileage and that was with the old measure. Here are some reasons why the new SS should get 28 mpg on the highway. New standards for measure are lower for example my 08 escape is rated at 27 highway and I have seen 28 with mixed driving. Secondly the LS3 is a more efficient engine than the LS1 which will level playing field of the weight issue. Expecct to see the same mileage you would get from an LS1 six speed in both the M6 and A6 fifth gen SS.

Too lazy to grab the links now, but Scott said we can expect better than the LS1 4th gen in the new SS. I get 30 MPG in my 98 Z. Has to do with the way EPA calculates it now or something he said.

It better. My "ragged-out" old cam/heads LT1 gets 28-29 mpg on the highway with 3.73 gearing.

My old LT1 got 30+ MPG on the freeway at 80 MPH. Those 3.42s and M6 helped, but I don't think the '10 will be very far behind. I could see it's aerodynamics hendering it a little, but I'm sure that LS3 is more efficient, and could likely make up most of the aero' difference.

My old LT1 got 30+ MPG on the freeway at 80 MPH.

Same here. IIRC, the best I was able to get was 33 mpg.

I don't think the '10 will be very far behind.

Seeing as it's 15 years newer than my jalopy, it shouldn't be behind at all. :yes:

Well, there is a difference between what GM got for the motor, and what the EPA got.
But the EPA figures are on the sticker. So keep that in mind. We're seeing what one independant group got, we have nothing to compare their test results on.

I have exceeded rated highway MPG on most cars I have owned. My wife beat EPA by 5 mpg in here 05 AWD V6 Saturn Vue. With the a/c on no less.

I wouldnt be surprised to see GM improve on those numbers a tiny bit when EPA certification happens. I fully expect to be able to exceed the HWY mileage, whatever it ends up EPA wise.

My Vette get's 27mpg even with a cam and bolt-ons on the hwy. Thats at 75-80 in 6th gear.

The only car I've had that doesn't beat the numbers is my current Impala SS. That thing gets hideous mileage. Avg on the highway is about 23.5-24. It always has. It was rated at 28 when we got it, but is re-rated to 26 now. It's nowhere close. City we get about 13-14.

On the flip side, the vette gets 19 city, and about 31 highway:D

CLEAN, how fast is highway driving for you? I've found that my truck (2005 5.3L 4L60E 3.23 245/70R17 tires, but with a mail-order 87 octane tune, muffler back exhaust and opened up intake), old rating 16/20, new rating 14/19) is close in city driving, but driving constant 50-60mph=21-24+mpg, 60-70mph=19-21mpg, 70-80mph=17-19mpg. Stop and go driving is what kills fuel economy. The time sitting at stop lights means no miles, but the engine idling is still using fuel.

just something i found interesting i was strolling the car lot today and checking out the new cars and on the sticker it would have the EPA rating for mileage then under it in smaller print it had the expected consumer mileage on all the new cars. the expected consumer mileage was about 5 mpg higher on most cars. so based off those cars im guessing the mileage will exceed the EPA rating

I have to wonder if that was done by the dealership or is that on all cars?

I saw it as well, it is like a 5 mpg range on either side of the official estimate.

But the 6th gear ratio is not as tall as it was in the 4th gens (.57 vs .50 in 4th gens). And the rear axle ratio is shorter (3.45 vs 3.42). While that doesn't make a huge difference, it will probably cost about 1-2 mpg (final drive 1.97 in the '10, and 1.71 in the 4th gens).

But you are forgetting to include the change in tire diameter. The new car has larger tires, 28.66 inches (that's the number I have seen)as compared to 25.7 inches on the 4th gens. Based on those numbers the new cars should only be running about 50RPM higher at 70MPH.

Plus Scott has already pointed out to someone that the 5th gen WILL get better fuel economy than the 4th gens

I think considering that for 422hp, 23mpg is an amazing feat.
But Im sure that someone not driving it hard core, will be able to get 30mpg.

deepends on how its driven. here in cali the consistant flow of traffic on the freeway is 75-80 and about 70 for the slow drivers and 80-85 for the fast drivers.

The EPA estimates will probably fit right in here.

deepends on how its driven. here in cali the consistant flow of traffic on the freeway is 75-80 and about 70 for the slow drivers and 80-85 for the fast drivers.

The EPA estimates will probably fit right in here.

If the EPA estimates are right under those conditions then MPG flat sucks. I get about 26.5 to 27 MPG in my car at 75-80. That's with Cam, Supercharger and 4.30's

If the EPA estimates are right under those conditions then MPG flat sucks. I get about 26.5 to 27 MPG in my car at 75-80. That's with Cam, Supercharger and 4.30's

my friend can't get any better than 24-25mpg on his cam only.:shrug: and that was going ~60.

maybe it's the cali gas , i get ~21 mpg here when most people get 25+ mpg on the net.

With a manual trans you determine the MPG. Drive the car hard around town showing off and wasting rubber in gears 1-4 all the time will get you 10-15 mpg. Drive like a person looking to avoid the gas pump and shifing higher and going easy when not racing the Camry next to you as the lane narrows and you should get much higher mpg.
This car should do just fine on the highway. Upper 20's shouldn't be a problem.

They should replace the torque guage with a MPG guage like BMW has so you can play with it.

I hope the 5th gen gets better mileage than my 95 Bird Convert with a 3.4
I get around 20 mpg average city/hwy driving. About 23 on the hwy and 18 city.
Granted I never have the top up so that could impact it. I only have 90K miles on it also. It has been this way ever since I had it. Guess I should have bought one with a V8.

I hope the 5th gen gets better mileage than my 95 Bird Convert with a 3.4
I get around 20 mpg average city/hwy driving. About 23 on the hwy and 18 city.
Granted I never have the top up so that could impact it. I only have 90K miles on it also. It has been this way ever since I had it. Guess I should have bought one with a V8.

my girlfriend has a 98 v6 camaro and gets the same exact milage. she's had the car forever and has always gotten that mileage.

my friend can't get any better than 24-25mpg on his cam only.:shrug: and that was going ~60.

maybe it's the cali gas , i get ~21 mpg here when most people get 25+ mpg on the net.

Could also be that when I calculate my mileage I do it ONLY on a long trip consisting of almost exclusively highway driving, with the only stops being for gas, food, toll booths and the occasional traffic slowdown...

But my in town mileage is only about 15 if I stay out of the gas

Why don't people realize that EPA ratings are never going to mirror what they actually get? It's just a consistent test procedure that facilitates comparing one car's fuel economy to another.

There is no doubt in my mind that the EPA highway rating for the 5th gen SS with a stickshift will be at least 24mpg.

Side note: TTopJohn, for the 5th gen, the number of ratios in the transmission shouldn't be used to identify the transmission. All four available transmissions (6L50, 6L80, AY6, TR6060) have six speeds!

Side note: TTopJohn, for the 5th gen, the number of ratios in the transmission shouldn't be used to identify the transmission. All four available transmissions (6L50, 6L80, AY6, TR6060) have six speeds!

Yeah, I clarified that as "SS with the six speed manual" in the body of my post, just didn't feel like typing a longer thread title. And how about that transmission lineup? Even the "base" car is 6 speed across the board!

I found a chat transcript with one of the Camaro team members that said something to the effect of if you got x with your 4th gen, you will certainly be able to get x or better with a comparable 5th gen.

my girlfriend has a 98 v6 camaro and gets the same exact milage. she's had the car forever and has always gotten that mileage.

I have a 96 V6 with the same 3.8 that your g/f has and I get around 18-22 in town depending on how I drive it and when it's anywhere in the ballpark of peak performance I get well into the 30s. I took it from south central KY to central NC on 14 gallons of gas and my trip odometer read at least 460 miles (I don't remember the exact number off the top of my head. Keep in mind that's going through the mountains, plus the terrain in SC KY isn't exactly the best for fuel mileage as well. And it was bone stock except for the Flowmaster muffler. One in two out. It blows people's minds that i can get that kind of fuel mileage. I get better than most 4 bangers do running 80 mph

My 01 TA T56 will get 31mpg with only highway driving at 80mph. (Fill up right off the interstate, drive many miles, get off and fill up again)
The strange thing is, if I keep the car at only 60mph on the same road, (Very hard to do) I only see 26mpg. I only tried the 60mph test one time though.

I believe Fbodfather said that we will all be pleased with the MPG of both SS models. He said that the new EPA method of calculting MPG made the estimate lower than most will actually get.

6th gear works fine as a large overdrive on the Z06, no reason they couldn't do the same for the SS. Even 5th gear should be very tall.

My '06 GTO M6 3.46 rearend w/ .57 overdrive gets a repeatable 25.2mpg at 79-80mph.
rating is 25mpg.
When I slow down it goes up to 30mpg range.

Can someone explain the EPA test measures? I have no idea how the LT1 M6 could be rated at 15-24 mpg on today's system. My 1993 TA M6 got 3.23's but a steeper gearbox (2.97 1st vs 2.66, 0.62 6th vs 0.50). When I was 16(with low 2 dollar gas) and first got it I romped the **** out of it with no highway driving and got no lower then 16. When my T/O bearing went and reving over 2000 would cause the car to shake like hell I drove it nicely around town and got 22-23. Never really did a highway trip so I can't comment a highway number.

well.. didn't the ls1 camaros weighed in at 3400lbs? hm.. guess those 500lbs difference will really hurt.. a bigger engine and what not will hurt... the 6.2 is an AMAZING engine... but the weight is a penalty...

well.. didn't the ls1 camaros weighed in at 3400lbs? hm.. guess those 500lbs difference will really hurt.. a bigger engine and what not will hurt... the 6.2 is an AMAZING engine... but the weight is a penalty...
not on the highway. Weight is negligible when you're at-speed. It could weigh 5000 lbs and it wouldn't make a huge difference. What will hurt is aerodynamics....which isn't stellar for this car.


imo, I think the EPA will rate the LS3+manual @ 23hwy, and the L99+auto will get a 24hwy rating. But in the real world; I think both will return close to 30hwy. Am I wrong? Probably.:D

not on the highway. Weight is negligible when you're at-speed. It could weigh 5000 lbs and it wouldn't make a huge difference. What will hurt is aerodynamics....which isn't stellar for this car.


imo, I think the EPA will rate the LS3+manual @ 23hwy, and the L99+auto will get a 24hwy rating. But in the real world; I think both will return close to 30hwy. Am I wrong? Probably.:D

weight still makes a noticeable difference when at speed. When I worked at honda, the element and accord had the same engine, but the element weighed more and got ~3-4 mpg less from what I remember.

but what played more of a role in the mpg between the two? weight or aerodynamics? If an If an Accord weighed the same as the Element what would the difference be?

but what played more of a role in the mpg between the two? weight or aerodynamics? If an If an Accord weighed the same as the Element what would the difference be?

Aero.

weight still makes a noticeable difference when at speed. When I worked at honda, the element and accord had the same engine, but the element weighed more and got ~3-4 mpg less from what I remember.
Some people don't get that accelerating weight does have disadvantages.

not trolling guys, but a counterpoint.

if i had a car. any car and it weighed 4000lbs, had a larger motor, had horrible aero. used 93 octane. costs $4.00+ a gallon to fuel it. and i tried to sell it to a dis-interested 3rd party.(non biased car buyer).

how many do i expect to sell?

then you give that car a bazillion hp. and price it too high for the average buyer to purchase WHAT DO YOU HAVE?

a ford GT500, a 2010 Z28, and a dodge challenger SRT.


no wonder they are asking you and me to bail them out.

GM lost 52+ billion in 19months. ford and dodge more than their share.

a v6 challenger costs $34000.00 i looked at it yesterday. a v6 camaro zeta car?

i am an enthusiast like everyone else here, but this is madness.

not trolling guys, but a counterpoint.

if i had a car. any car and it weighed 4000lbs, had a larger motor, had horrible aero. used 93 octane. costs $4.00+ a gallon to fuel it. and i tried to sell it to a dis-interested 3rd party.(non biased car buyer).

how many do i expect to sell?

then you give that car a bazillion hp. and price it too high for the average buyer to purchase WHAT DO YOU HAVE?

a ford GT500, a 2010 Z28, and a dodge challenger SRT.


no wonder they are asking you and me to bail them out.

GM lost 52+ billion in 19months. ford and dodge more than their share.

a v6 challenger costs $34000.00 i looked at it yesterday. a v6 camaro zeta car?

i am an enthusiast like everyone else here, but this is madness.


How in the heck to you think a V-6 Challenger is 34k If you go to the Dodge web site they start at under 23k and the R/T V-8 starts at under 30k. And I think the manufacturers that you listed would like to sell the V-6 counter part of the cars listed, the top of the model cars you listed are very low production.

dont ask me. i just looked at the pricetag. the dealer had 4995.00 in dealer added options alone.

call gary matthews chrysler in clarksville TN phone number # 931-552-7100 tomorrow and ask them about the black v6 challenger sitting in the final prep area. they can explain it better than me. i just looked with my eyes. and my wife was suprised too.

i fully expected a cheap car. that was not cheap.

i have a camed ls1 and get 16 city, 25+ hwy. not sure exactly but atleast 25, and i think it was closer to 28/29. and i have 4.10s still only 1600rpm or so at 70. 2100@90mph

those kinda rpms dont sound good for the engine, but if it works, it works.

i ecpect this combo to get less than LS1/t56 4th gens.

I would hope so. Atleast 26 with the 6 speed. Could be in part to the big wheels.

My SS gets 29-30mpg if I keep my throttle consistent and keep on the highway. I think the LS7 Z06 vette was even rated ~26-27mpg highway.

I would hope so. Atleast 26 with the 6 speed. Could be in part to the big wheels.

My SS gets 29-30mpg if I keep my throttle consistent and keep on the highway. I think the LS7 Z06 vette was even rated ~26-27mpg highway.

The Z06 gets 14 city, 24 highway, and that car weighs 3100 lbs.

I think that the Camaro will be rated 24 or 25 on the highway. Scott has said that a given driving style should net better highway fuel economy on the 5th gen than on the 4th. Given the added weight, I can only assume that this is due to gearing and engine improvements.

I dont know..I think that aerodynamics are going to play some role here.. the 4th gen has the laid back windshield, whereas the 5th gen is more like the older generations.

I got 28-29 in my '01 SS in 6th cruising at 75-80. My buddy has an '06 ZO6 and got 27-28 on his last road trip..

If I had to guess? 26-28..