Topic: 2010 v6 Camaro = 18 city and 29 hwy (US)

[Trainman]

Since when were they the same procedures?  Doesn't Transport Canada have its own test for our window stickers?

I remember reading that the EPA test was closer to real-world numbers.

Ford is advertising 29 MPG highway for its new F150.  Now THAT is impressive!  and a V8 to boot, no puny 6 banger here!

Of course it waits to be seen if anyone can actually get 29 MPG from either of these 2 vehicles.

Isn't that in imperial gallons?  I remember a commercial for the Focus that claimed something like 50 MPG highway.

This  is why he should have converted to our numbers ,too much confusion. He posted not too long ago about the cobalt XFE and how much better it was on fuel than the corolla and civic and used the U.S. numbers.

Helped to get the point across did it not?  Lets standardize on the units and be comparing oranges to oranges please.

This is from Driving.ca:

"As for fuel consumption, the V6 is slated to achieve 9L/100 km hwy, while the manual V8 will get 10L/100km hwy."

So now we are talking as we should.

BTW, the first Camaro has rolled off the shop floor:

http://www.newsdurhamregion.com/news/article/121918

[rrocket]

I've seen 4-5 driving in Windsor/Detroit...all with US Manufacturer plates on them....

[Seafoam]

Since when were they the same procedures?  Doesn't Transport Canada have its own test for our window stickers?

I remember reading that the EPA test was closer to real-world numbers.

Ford is advertising 29 MPG highway for its new F150.  Now THAT is impressive!  and a V8 to boot, no puny 6 banger here!

Of course it waits to be seen if anyone can actually get 29 MPG from either of these 2 vehicles.

Isn't that in imperial gallons?  I remember a commercial for the Focus that claimed something like 50 MPG highway.

This  is why he should have converted to our numbers ,too much confusion. He posted not too long ago about the cobalt XFE and how much better it was on fuel than the corolla and civic and used the U.S. numbers.

Helped to get the point across did it not?  Lets standardize on the units and be comparing oranges to oranges please.

This is from Driving.ca:

"As for fuel consumption, the V6 is slated to achieve 9L/100 km hwy, while the manual V8 will get 10L/100km hwy."

So now we are talking as we should.

BTW, the first Camaro has rolled off the shop floor:

http://www.newsdurhamregion.com/news/article/121918

 That's better ,yes you did get your point across to some.  So I don't see the big deal ,didn't the corvette get close to those numbers if you short shifted it?

[johngenx]

Perhaps 1% of V-8 Camaro buyers (and 5% tops of V-6 buyers, given the generous HP of the V-6) will come close to the rated fuel economy.  Owning the V-8 means using that power, not shifting at 1400rpm and driving 10km/h under the posted.

In all the km's I owned the Porsche, I did one (yes, managed to do one) tank where I drove it for fuel economy.  It managed surprisingly good fuel economy, but I loathed every minute of driving it.  Minivans hauled ass from me at lights and people stared as I sat in the right lane, creeping along at the speed limit.

Our Corolla loves to be driven easily.  It shifts so smooth and rides so nicely.  It's at it's most comfortable exceeding the rated fuel economy.

All of the performance cars I've owned were complete opposites of the Corolla.  Their gear ratios were chosen for making things happen, and engines were tuned for having the accelerator to the radiator.  Take the Porsche to the grocery store?  Possible, but why?  Heavily weighted steering was not particularly parking lot friendly (but great as the speedo bashed by 200...) and poor rearward visibility (better than many sports, though) made backing out in a sea of pickups a real pain.  Nope, the Porsche was happy blasting down highway 11 from The Crossing to Rocky Mountain House.  Little or no traffic, sweeping bends, good visibility and lots of room to let 'er run.

[Mitlov]

Perhaps 1% of performance car buyers will come close to the rated fuel economy.  Owning any performance car means using that power, not shifting at 1400rpm and driving 10km/h under the posted.

Fixed

[Mitlov]

Does the Camaro need some godawful skip-shift mechanism (first into fourth) to be rated like this, like the Corvette does?

[tpl]

Corvettes still have that ?   Last I'd heard, 2 Corvette generations ago, there was an aftermarket device that sent the right signals  but did not stop the gear-change... one would have hoped that either GM would have given up silliness like that or every 'vette dealer would have fitted the gadget before delivering the car to the buyer.

[Mitlov]

Corvettes still have that ?   Last I'd heard, 2 Corvette generations ago, there was an aftermarket device that sent the right signals  but did not stop the gear-change... one would have hoped that either GM would have given up silliness like that or every 'vette dealer would have fitted the gadget before delivering the car to the buyer.

I'm pretty sure they still use a skip-shift mechanism on the Corvette, but it's very easy for a mechanic to disable the mechanism.  Still, fuel economy ratings with an active skip-shift mechanism are not going to be a reliable indicator of what you get without it.

Look at it this way: the Cadillac CTS DI, which has the exact same engine as the Camaro and RWD (I hesitate to say "the exact same drivetrain" because I don't know if they have different gearing) gets 17 mpg city, 26 mph highway with the automatic, and 16 mpg city, 25 mpg highway with the manual.  Now maybe the fuel economy difference can be attributed solely to weight and aerodynamics, but that still seems like a big difference from these claimed numbers.

[ArticSteve]

Does the Camaro need some godawful skip-shift mechanism (first into fourth) to be rated like this, like the Corvette does?

Just cylinder deactivation which I'd want permanently deleted.   

[aquadorhj]

Grow mullets,

put on your wife-beaters,

Build your Camaro here!
http://www.chevrolet.com/allnewcamaro/?evar10=DIVISIONAL_HOMEPAGE_LEFTPROMO1_ALL_NEW_CAMARO#camaro=build-your-own

(US Chevy site.)

Yee Haw!!!
I like the colour called "aqua blue metallic".


My choice of trim ends up around US $27k plus change.

So it will be like 40k up here..   

[johngenx]

I'd still prefer a 67-69 Z28 with the 302 or a 70 1/2 with the 350, but they actually cost way more than the new one!

[Mitlov]

Gimme a Camaro 1LT, Convenience and connectivity package, sunroof, and Boston acoustics sound system.  Manual transmission, of course.  MSRP of US$26,490.  Imperial blue metallic exterior, gray interior.  Unbelievable 

[toolatecrew]

I'd still prefer a 67-69 Z28 with the 302 or a 70 1/2 with the 350, but they actually cost way more than the new one!

But what kind of mileage does it get?

[Snowman]

I'd still prefer a 67-69 Z28 with the 302 or a 70 1/2 with the 350, but they actually cost way more than the new one!

But what kind of mileage does it get?

If I had either one of those cars I would be more concerned if I had enough condoms vs. fuel when I went for a drive.

[drederick]

Since when were they the same procedures?  Doesn't Transport Canada have its own test for our window stickers?

I remember reading that the EPA test was closer to real-world numbers.

I'm not sure if that question was for me - but what I meant when I wrote the following:

"If there were Canadian numbers they would be posted..... but is it all that much of stretch to understand and compare vehicles using the EPA system? same testing procedures - so it is as apples to apples as can be had."

was not that Canada and the US EPA have the same testing procedures, rather, I meant that you can compare vehicles using the same testing (us epa to us epa and transport canada to transport canada)

There are no transport Canada numbers yet. Also, the EPA site does not have a selector for any 2010 models yet so there is no ability to use their conversion to l/100kms (and those numbers would be generated using the US EPA testing procedures so they could not be used to compare with actual Transport Canada testing anyways - they would only be good for comparsion to other US EPA generated numbers)

For whatever reason the US EPA testing is either done prior too, or results released prior to the Transport Canada testing thus the whole 'he has posted US measurements before" mystery is solved.

[drederick]

Corvettes still have that ?   Last I'd heard, 2 Corvette generations ago, there was an aftermarket device that sent the right signals  but did not stop the gear-change... one would have hoped that either GM would have given up silliness like that or every 'vette dealer would have fitted the gadget before delivering the car to the buyer.

I'm pretty sure they still use a skip-shift mechanism on the Corvette, but it's very easy for a mechanic to disable the mechanism.  Still, fuel economy ratings with an active skip-shift mechanism are not going to be a reliable indicator of what you get without it.

Look at it this way: the Cadillac CTS DI, which has the exact same engine as the Camaro and RWD (I hesitate to say "the exact same drivetrain" because I don't know if they have different gearing) gets 17 mpg city, 26 mph highway with the automatic, and 16 mpg city, 25 mpg highway with the manual.  Now maybe the fuel economy difference can be attributed solely to weight and aerodynamics, but that still seems like a big difference from these claimed numbers.

We'll know soon enough if it does have the skip-shift mechanism (it isn't mentioned in anything I have read - and wasn't it only used in v8 cars previously?) but either way the 6 speed auto gets the 18/29 rating - the 6 speed manual gets 17/29:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/corvette_camaro_corner/2010_chevrolet_camaro_fuel_economy_figures_and_option_packages_released_car_news
The base 3.6-liter direct-injected V-6 will not only offer customers a burly 304 hp, but will also return impressive fuel economy—on regular unleaded, no less. Camaro buyers opting for the 3.6-liter hooked to an automatic transmission will see EPA ratings of 18 mpg city and 29 highway on the sticker, and manual-equipped cars are rated at 17/29 mpg. Both sets of figures top the 2010 Ford Mustang V-6, as that car returns 16/24 with an automatic, while the manual gets 18/26. Hyundai’s V-6 Genesis is estimated to achieve 18/26 with an auto and 17/26 with a manual, while the automatic-only Dodge Challenger V-6 yields 17/25 mpg. The Camaro’s higher numbers are due in part to the use of more precise direct fuel-injection technology that is not offered on its competitors.

[Mitlov]

The Camaro’s higher numbers are due in part to the use of more precise direct fuel-injection technology that is not offered on its competitors.

But the Cadillac 3.6 DI has direct injection too.  Exact same engine as far as I can tell.  Yet it gets 2 mpg worse in the city and about 4 mpg worse on the highway.

[Snowman]

I’m sure rolling resistance and aerodynamics impact the fuel consumption numbers despite the similar drivelines.

[quadzilla]

I’m sure rolling resistance and aerodynamics impact the fuel consumption numbers despite the similar drivelines.

And possibly a taller (?) final gear ratio.

[drederick]

The Camaro’s higher numbers are due in part to the use of more precise direct fuel-injection technology that is not offered on its competitors.

But the Cadillac 3.6 DI has direct injection too.  Exact same engine as far as I can tell.  Yet it gets 2 mpg worse in the city and about 4 mpg worse on the highway.

Caranddriver were refering to the Camaro's competitors that do not have DI - not the Caddy

2010 engines are not listed on the GM Powertrain site yet - but once it is there you'll be able to compare the two.

This Camaro continues a trend of FE leading powertrains (malibu 6speed auto/2.4, 2010 Equinox 2.4 DI/6speed auto, Cruze.....) and shows GM is really capable of some great - and competetive - things.