Nice looking

....still too large & heavy.

 

Right here:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

Regular Corvette automatic: 15 & 25 mpg.
Dodge Challenger R/T w/ standard Hemi & automatic: 16 & 25 mpg.

Regular G8 GT (362 hp) gets 15 & 24 mpg city/highway
Challenger SRT8 (425 hp) gets 15 & 24 mpg city/highway

Ready for a shocker?

The manual tranny 2010 Camaro SS is projected to get slightly worse fuel economy than the the regular G8 GT.

TRANSLATION:

The manual Challenger SRT a car many think as having terrible fuel economy is likely to have slightly better fuel economy than a manual LS3 Camaro SS, despite being bigger, roomier, and slightly heavier....

....while putting out 3 more horsepower and 17 more lbs/ft of torque.

Kind of throws the "insane" fuel economy stereotype out the window.

(That sound you now hear is the defening sound of utter disbelief)

 

Plague, that's exactly what the upcoming Camaro's L99 exactly is... an LS3 w/ AFM!

The AFM powered engine has a lower redline and about 22 less horsepower, but it has the same heads as the LS3 and outside of the hardware unique to it's AFM system, it's an LS3.

On the flip side, the L99 is also, more or less, a 0.2 liter bigger L76, which is what is in the current G8 GT (right down to the LS3 heads).

The AFM Camaro is projected to get the same fuel economy as the G8 GT (also with AFM), despite being a slightly bigger engine due to gearing. Perhaps even 1 mpg better depending on engine programing (with corresponding loss in immediate performance).

Manual Camaro SS doesn't get AFM, and will get less mileage than the G8 GT, which will put it not only behind Mustang GT and Challenger R/T in fuel economy, but also a sliver behind even the SRT-8 Challenger.

The L99 will respond to mods just as easily as the L76 (since they are both essentially the same) but you will simply have a more expensive LS3, and my understanding is that you will have to essentially shut down the AFM system, ending any fuel economy advantage.

To those thinking of modding an L99 Camaro for LS3 level power:
You may as well simply get the actual LS3, learn to drive a stick, and keep the warranty (which would be voided if you start mucking with the engine).

 

I see the numbers, I just don't understand how the Corvette gets such poor numbers. It is a very lightweight and aerodynamic vehicle. This new method or rating system that they are using seems to be a huge change.

According to fueleconomy.gov my Dad's stock 1996 impala SS would also be rated 15/24 by the new system. And his stock 2005 LS2 A4 Corvette is only rated at 16/24? Wait, that probably doesn't have the "performance gear ratio" that his does, an upgrade from 2.73 to 3.15 gears. So basically his 3200# 2005 Corvette should get the same or worse fuel economy as his 4200# 1996 Impala SS? I just don't see how it is possible.

I'm still wondering how long it will be before GM decides to bring out a Corvette XFE (maybe with a better name)? 6.0L with AFM & VVT (maybe even Direct injection?), Z06 aluminum frame. Light weight narrower forged wheels. Maybe a lighter weight retro styled hood unique to this model? Dropping 200 pounds and 50 horsepower plus the benefits of AFM and VVT should get the fuel economy back up to what the old rating system was showing without giving up much performance.

 

When I first quoted you, I was just letting you know you had the wrong numbers. But you really should compare apples to apples. Comparing the Challenger to the G8 is a poor comparison. You should be comparing the Challenger to the Camaro or the Charger to the G8. The G8 GXP will get 13/20 according to Pontiac's website with 415hp and 415 lb/ft. It doesn't say if it is manual or auto for that number.

Second, the Challenger SRT8 (425 hp) gets 13/19 in auto and 14/22 in manual. The R/T (372 hp) gets 16/25. The Charger gets the same rankings in 2009 fuel economy. But, this is AFTER Dodge made changes for the 2009 year on its HEMI engines. Since the Challenger gets the same ratings as the Charger, we should take a look at the 2008 numbers.

For the Charger R/T, they are 15/23. For the SRT, they are 13/18. So, if you want to give Dodge kudos for improving their engines, great. I am not sure having a new engine in one model year should make a large shift away from the thought that Dodge engines aren't as efficient. They are simply rated better for this year.

I am not sure it will be a "real shocker" that a 422 hp sports car is going to get worse rated mileage than a 361 hp sports sedan. Not much of a comparison there. Since the G8 GXP is supposed to get 13/20, I would assume hope the manual Camaro would get at or slightly better numbers. But, the HP numbers are much more on par with the SRT8 cars from Dodge. When you compare those numbers... the SS/GXP is on par.


One final thought, my 2004 Mazda6s 3.0L with 220 hp is rated for 17/24 according to the 2008 rating system. My 2009 Enclave 3.6L with 288 hp is also rated for 17/24 under the 2008 rating system.

They aren't even close on actual fuel economy. Straight highway driving, I an get over 30 mpg in the Mazda6. I have almost got 24 mpg in the Enclave.

 

Even though GuionM got the SRT mpg wrong, it still doesn't look good on the comparison between "equal" cars if the Camaro SS doesn't significantly better the GXP's 13/20mpg. Is that GXP mpg confirmed?

2009 Challenger SRT 14/22 425hp stick
2010 Camaro SS ??? 426hp stick

2009 Charger RT 16/25 372hp auto
2009 G8 GT 15/24 362hp auto

 

Thanks for the correction.

On the other point, on the contary, the G8 Challenger is in fact a very good comparison. Reasons?

1. Both cars are in the same weight ballpark... in fact, the Challenger R/T is slightly heavier.

2. The Camaro's fuel economy figures are going to closely mimic the G8's in both the GT and GXP. In both instances, Camaro's larger and/or more powerful V8s should get lower fuel economy than the G8s (there's not even a 150 pound difference between the SS and GT).... but I'm taking people at their word that the Camaro's fuel economy will be on par.




The Hemi 5.7 was changed for the 2009 model year. The only Challengers with the 5.7 are the 2009 models. Therefore, ALL Challenger 5.7 R/Ts have the new improved 5.7 Hemis. The new 2009 Charger R/Ts have them as well.

The SRT engines were not changed. The SRT 6 speed manual transmission is the reason why the SRT8's mileage jumped (just as GM's 6 speed manual jumped mileage in LS1 Camaros and GTOs).

There is no reason to look at 2008 numbers if we are talking about 2009 cars.


I have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

"...not sure having a new engine in one model year should make a large shift away from the thought that Dodge engines aren't as efficient. They are simply rated better for this year."?????

You have GOT to explain this one to me!

Again, I don't think you are getting the point.

A 425 horsepower, 2 ton car (the manual SRT8 Challenger) getting the same fuel economy as a 362 horsepower 2 ton car (the G8 GT), which in turn gets better fuel economy that the expected 422 horsepower car (the Camaro SS manual)was the point.... and the irony.


So which is it? Is it "Not much of a comparison there" or is it "the SS/GXP is on par"???


You are welcome to be disbelieving even with the EPA numbers posted. But that doesn't change the points which are dead on accurate.

1. The Hemi engines are not hardly the gas hogs many think they are. They are on par, and in some instances marginally better in fuel economy than comparable LS engines.

2. The larger Challenger R/T will clearly get better fuel economy than the Camaro SS.

3. There is a very real probability that the Challenger SRT8... the car that has been raked over the coals for it's fuel economy... will have fuel economy that's no worse (and has even money at being a mpg better) than the 3 hp and 17 lbs/ft of torque shy Camaro SS.


Instead of covering ears and humming really loud in an effort not to hear news one doesn't like, or attempt convulsed reasoning, or look desparately for some way out regardless as to how weak, one should perhaps egg GM on to try to reverse this irony.


Afterall.... Chrysler is still investing heavily in making it's Hemi fuel efficient for the future....

..... and it's GM that seems to be moving towards taking V8s out of passenger cars.




(yes.... there is a reason for my provocations.... if you want to see GM start investing in improving V8s or comitting to RWD cars ever again... as both competitors are doing. )

 

I am saying that comparing sports sedans and sports cars isn't great. I wouldn't compare a 2005 GTO to a 2005 Charger SRT8. The GTO would run circles around it.


This goes to my point that the 2009 have been out for a few months doesn't mean that their should be a great shift in thinking that Dodge makes fuel efficient V8's. Besides, we are talking about rating of 1-2 mpg. Not exactly earth shattering. Not exactly what you are going to see on the road either.

Still refering to the 2008 numbers, which aren't nearly as impressive.

Cars are on the road for 4 months now. Not exactly enough time to see if people are getting the advertised numbers (like my enclave).

Your actually missing the point there. It DOESN'T get the same mileage. 15/24(G8 GT Auto) != 14/22(Challenger SRT8 Manual) or 13/19(Challenger SRT8 Auto)

On Pontiac's site, it says 13/20, but doesn't say if that is an auto number or a manual number, but it is close to both of the SRT8 models.


If you read that line with out the rest of the paragraph, you might be confused, what I said was...

"I am not sure it will be a "real shocker" that a 422 hp sports car is going to get worse rated mileage than a 361 hp sports sedan. Not much of a comparison there. Since the G8 GXP is supposed to get 13/20, I would assume hope the manual Camaro would get at or slightly better numbers. But, the HP numbers are much more on par with the SRT8 cars from Dodge. When you compare those numbers... the SS/GXP is on par."
The 422hp sports car is the Camaro. I am not surprised the Camaro SS might get worse mileage than a G8 GT with 361hp. Again, I don't think it is a good comparison. I think a better, but not good comparison, would be the G8 GXP and the Camaro SS, which are going to use the same engine.

13/19 mpg seems like a bad idea when gas is at $4, which is why it was labeled so.

V8's in general are gas hogs. Is the HEMI still a gas hog.. yep. But so are the LS engines. Are the good considering their output, yes. I don't think opinions are going to change over the new 2009 engines. They weren't that far behind before. Now they are slightly ahead of GM engines in regards to "rated" fuel economy. If they want to make some news, 400/400 with 30 mpg highway, I think that would be nice (also unrealistic right now).


I do not like taking the V8's away. I enjoy them. But, we won't know who was right for about 10-15 years, if either of them is still around.

GM is also moving to FWD cars. Not a move I want, but a move that might help them become profitable again.

It will be interesting to see if either car is being offered in a few years considering their current MPG standings and CAFE. Being slightly better in MPG won't matter if they can't sell the car b/c of MPG.

That I do want to see, but only if they can do it and be profitable in doing so. I don't think any of the big 3 can make vehicles in the future that won't be profitable. I hope these cars can stick around, but more importantly, I hope the Big 3 will stick around.

 

back on topic, I wonder if this car will ever see the light of day?

http://freiburgersjunkyard.com/blog/...ts-Assets.html

 

This car isn't being done by Saleen. It's being done by SMS which is Steve Saleen's new company.

http://www.smslimitedusa.com/

 

doh!

OK, back to the fuel economy discussion

GM! Bring us direct injection gasoline V8s!

 

That would be great.

 

I'm not letting this one go. Someone explain this to me.

2009 Charger RT 16/25 372hp auto 4085lbs
2009 G8 GT 15/24 362hp auto 3995lbs


The only explanation I can think of is that new Hemi combustion chamber is much more closed than the first gen POS. The first gen CC was an open chamber mess. No squish area to think of.

 

What are the gearing ratios on both cars? Are they both 4-speeds, or 5, or whatever? What are the torque numbers? All that can make a HUGE difference.

That's why you see cars like the Vette that can get close to the same (or even better) highway mileage than cars like the S2000, gearing & torque play a huge part, and number of gears makes a pretty big difference around town.

Not arguing anything, just really don't know what gears/ etc. each car has

 

Chrysler made engine changes for the 2009 model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysle...2009_Revisions

The L76 has been around since 2006. AFM was added when the G8 surfaced in 2008, so it is an older engine by about 3 years.

If you want something that something very odd to think about...

2009 Charger SE 17/25 250hp auto 3819lbs
2009 Charger RT 16/25 372hp auto 4085lbs

2009 G8 17/25 256hp auto 3885lbs
2009 G8 GT 15/24 362hp auto 3995lbs

Why does 100 hp only make 1mpg difference?