[QUOTE=gr8fl red!;5489638]Thank you for confirming my previous posts that GM under rates in their estimates. If they under rated the 4th Gen don't you think it's possible they under rated the 5th Gen? And if not, then I will still take a 420hp car getting 23mpg over a 345 hp car getting 27mpg

 

The gas ratings for the six speed is up to the owner anyway. With the torque of the LS3 you could get by using 2nd, 4th and 6th and probably get better mileage. Personally I don't care.

Besides I always laugh because people, and car companies like to quote highway mileage and nobody drives only on the highway. I took a few trips in my 4th gens and yes you could get about 30 mpg but that was a trip driving from fill up to empty on the freeway. Daily driving isn't like that.

 

Better rename the website.
No more Z28.

 

It seems like GM it putting all their attention towards the V6 and the V8 is just an afterthought. I know they are trying to sell in volumes, but at least acknowledge the V8.

23 mpg is hard to swallow and plus it requires premium fuel...OUCH

 

I think they need to say "proportions" more in the ten minutes they only got it in like five times....


Now I am waiting to see the fuel econ on the M6 SS. I want a manual but if it robs fuel econ I am not getting it.

 

As posted above, ...the MPG of our 4th gens would be less with the new calculations, ...so in effect they are very comparable. As for the hp ratings, ..320 was stock, ...345 was with the airbox and DD.
Anyway, ...to 'what I think?..."
...let me put it this way, ...my expectations were probably a bit higher than they should have been for the webcast, ...so I too do feel a bit let down by it. On the other hand, ...it is the Camaro that I'm waiting for. That, ...I can say, ...has NOT let me down...

 

To sum up my reaction: need more info.

 

...the V8 is definitely not an afterthought on their part. In today's economy, etc., ...it makes sense to place more emphasis on the V6, ...which like you said will help sell volumes.

 

Looks like we get the 245/275 F/R tire combo. Would much rather have 275 all around and be able to rotate. That's my only real complaint so far, except I sure would have loved to see green on the color palette.

 

i meant horrible gearing for performance.

 

[QUOTE=PorcaroZ28;5489653]GM DOES NOT DO THE ESTIMATES FOR MPG!!

and as for the underrated HP, which is a different topic in itself and doesn't happen anymore since GM SAE certifies ALL their new engines, HAVE to be +-1% of their rated power.

 

I think the 275's are going to be very borderline for that power output. With that gearing it may be OK, but anything above that power level and wider tires will be sorely needed. they should have been 275's up front and 295-315's in the rear.

 

six airbags this thing is gonna be ungodly expensive to fix when all of those blow. Not complaining about the safety, but still

 

Im gonna guess the auto's will be ~106-108 mph in the 1/4 and the manuals about the 108-110 range on average.

 

3900/420=9.28
3500/345=10.1

Why would you take a SLOWER car that also gets WORSE MPG??????