2010 - 2015 Camaro Technical Discussion All 5th Generation Camaro technical discussion that doesn't fit in other forums

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

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 30, 2008 | 08:08 PM
  #31  
SupplySgt.'s Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 218
From: Murfreesboro, TN
Originally Posted by TrickStang37
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
Old Aug 7, 2008 | 12:58 AM
  #32  
DarthD's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3
From: Seguin, Texas 78155
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.
Old Aug 7, 2008 | 01:01 AM
  #33  
Pruettfan's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 190
From: Chandler, AZ
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.
Old Aug 12, 2008 | 11:57 AM
  #34  
geetee500's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 9
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.
Old Aug 12, 2008 | 05:28 PM
  #35  
b4z's Avatar
b4z
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 61
From: chas., s.c. U.S.A.
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.
Old Aug 12, 2008 | 06:02 PM
  #36  
93Phoenix's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 392
From: Roch, NY
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.
Old Sep 7, 2008 | 02:36 PM
  #37  
Highlander's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,082
From: San Juan PR
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...
Old Sep 8, 2008 | 12:29 AM
  #38  
Dragoneye's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 801
From: New York
Originally Posted by The Highlander
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.

Last edited by Dragoneye; Sep 8, 2008 at 12:31 AM.
Old Sep 9, 2008 | 02:27 AM
  #39  
TrickStang37's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 619
Originally Posted by Dragoneye
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.
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.
Old Sep 9, 2008 | 05:43 PM
  #40  
toegead93's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 616
From: West Palm Beach, FL
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?
Old Sep 9, 2008 | 06:16 PM
  #41  
DarthD's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3
From: Seguin, Texas 78155
Originally Posted by toegead93
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.
Old Sep 9, 2008 | 10:14 PM
  #42  
Highlander's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,082
From: San Juan PR
Originally Posted by TrickStang37
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.
Old Sep 14, 2008 | 02:13 PM
  #43  
assasinator's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 44
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.
Old Sep 14, 2008 | 04:45 PM
  #44  
81Z28355's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 329
From: Hemlock, Mich.
Originally Posted by assasinator
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.
Old Sep 14, 2008 | 08:31 PM
  #45  
assasinator's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 44
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.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 AM.