Chevy SS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
I'm sure the real world numbers are much better. In mixed driving, I got closed to 21mpg with my G8 GT and I'm getting the same in my Charger RT. However, when I was feeling the spirit or just wanted to hear the exhaust, I got around 16 mpg in the G8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
A little bummed by these numbers, but they're on par with the competition. Charger get +2 highway MPG, but with premium.

Compare Side-by-Side
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
Boy oh boy, the gas guzzler tax ought to be pretty hefty. You know what?? Doesn't bother me a bit. I just want my car!!! Didn't the G8 GXP have a guzzler tax?? And what was it and the economy ratings??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
14/21 is what I expected, sadly enough. But is the EPA website correct in saying the SS drinks regular? I thought the LS3 required premium?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
I remember seeing somewhere that it is "premium recommended, not required". With premium you should get better mileage, but also spend more, which is why I think EPA tests are with the cheapest gas required.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
This is crap and is one thing that upsets me about Chevy. How are they going to build a really nice Camaro SS that has more horsepower, has the same engine, weighs a little less, but has better gas mileage?! The Chevy SS has "Ecologic fuel-saving technologies" advertised on their website, yet because of the combined MPG being less than 18, we will have to pay a gas-guzzler tax if we buy it? That sucks! So whatever price you were figuring on it, add another $1,000 or so to the price.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,140 Posts
The new Ford and Chevy V-8 pickups are rated better. This engine is inefficient. The trucks have way more drag.
oh well it wont matter all that much to people who buy this car since they are buying it knowing its a powerful $45k+ V8 performance sedan!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
The Charger SRT8 has 55 more HP and is 400 lbs heavier and its EPA mpg is about the same as the SS. Must be that higher rear end gear ratio of the SS at 3.27 vs. the chargers 3.06. ???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
The Charger SRT8 has 55 more HP and is 400 lbs heavier and its EPA mpg is about the same as the SS. Must be that higher rear end gear ratio of the SS at 3.27 vs. the chargers 3.06. ???
Yea i was just looking at that, SS and the SRT are identical in the city, its only on the highway the SRT has a 2 mpg gain on the SS which yes would be easily explained by the SS' taller rear gears.

Also interesting the SRT Charger comes with auto 5 while the SS has an auto 6....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,140 Posts
Yea i was just looking at that, SS and the SRT are identical in the city, its only on the highway the SRT has a 2 mpg gain on the SS which yes would be easily explained by the SS' taller rear gears.

Also interesting the SRT Charger comes with auto 5 while the SS has an auto 6....
At least we can expect the next generation SS to be much more fuel efficient, they'll probably end up dropping the V8 for a twin turbo V6 which will help a lot.
Maybe by then we'll see some carbon fiber parts added, the use of carbon fiber in vehicles on a manufacture level is becoming more mainstream now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
At least we can expect the next generation SS to be much more fuel efficient, they'll probably end up dropping the V8 for a twin turbo V6 which will help a lot.
Maybe by then we'll see some carbon fiber parts added, the use of carbon fiber in vehicles on a manufacture level is becoming more mainstream now.
Carbon Fiber is interesting, with so much steel in demand from developing nations i think makers are going to have to start turning to other materials. But CF is still very expensive, $10 a pound for low-grade still. 5$/pound would be the magic number to start seeing companies like GM get heavily involved with CF. The problem is right now the base material in CF (polyacrylonitrile) already blows the nut on that 5$ price ceiling.

CF is something like 20x more expensive than steal and about a fifth of the weight. I'm not sure if that 1/5th weight saving justifies a 20x price increase. Cars are expected to last about 10 years, the lifetime just doesnt justify a 20x cost increase.

Sure cost is coming down, it was $150/pound about 10 years ago, but the smaller price cut from $10 to $5 is always much harder than coming down from $150 to $10. Big drops are a result of improving manufacturing efficiency, where as the small drop from $10 to $5 will have to come from process or material innovation.

Also CF isnt as recyclable as steel is. Steel can be melted down and recast as another vehicle without sacrificing its original strength, try that with CF. First of all it doesnt melt and secondly if you deconstruct it to reconstruct it as another vehicle the CF has just lost all its advantages, it becomes soft and useless.

I dont think CF is the be all end all but it is certainly a part of the equation going forward. Its going to be a combination of improving aero, resizing powertrains (already seeing this), transmission tech and lightweight materials like CF, but also aluminium and magnesium.

If you're interested in reading more about CF and the auto industry check out this powerpoint put together by Ford that contains alot of interesting information regarding price floors and what exactly it take for CF to reach mainstream auto production..

http://web.ornl.gov/sci/physical_sc.../PMC/carbon_fiber09/pdfs/Jim_deVries_Ford.pdf
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
719 Posts
in carbon its not just the carbon fabric that is strong. The resin and weave pattern also aid to the strenght. There are other glass fiber composites the auto industry should look into that might not be as light as carbon but still very strong that could be used in place of carbon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
good idea but I dont know when they would really start using other materials to save weight. It might be later but who knows how long they wait. Even ford has made some changes in their construction of the platforms. chevy has some catching up to do.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,816 Posts
My z06 505 hp 2012 gets 26 on trips with cruise set at 80 mph. My 2013 2 SS Camaro with 4 and 8 operation gets 25 old g8 Gt got close to that without all the variable valve timing and 4 cyl operation. Oh I run high test in the Camaro and did so with the G8 GT. You don't want that technology just saying.
z51vett
Doug
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Just wait for LT1 460 HP will make over 25 mpg easy on this car! Also with 7 speed manual!
Yeah, I'm holding out some hope that they'll pull a "GTO" and put the newer engine in for the second model year. It would seem to make sense from a production standpoint since most of the other cars/trucks will be switching to Gen V engines by then too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
Odd. The GXP was rated 17/21 and is exactly what I'm getting.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top