Camaro MPG

[balls-out]

Since there seems to be a fair bit of camaro knowledge around here...
My previous LT1 camaro would do up to 30 mpg on a run.
My new is yet to better 24 and is usually in the teens. I do a low mileage and to date I'd put the cr*p mpg down to my entusiasm for torturing rubber.
However I just nearly a full tank crusing on Mways and 24 was the result.
My first camaro was a 95 car and this one a 96 with SS pack. I can't see the hole in the hood should cost me 6mph. The car is running just fine - does anybody know of any common problems that might cause excess petrol usage.

PS - By all means make humourous comments about somebdy with a 5.7l V8 complaining about fuel consumption.

[Flip Martian]

Sorry mate, no idea. The SS puts out more horses I think but not THAT much more to make that much difference I wouldn't have thought.

[JulesV]

My Z28 averages between 15-20mpg which is mainly local journeys. A bit better on a run but have never had anything near 30mpg (or at least I don't think so). Your present consumption sounds pretty good to me.

[ukvoyager.info]

I have a LS1 powered 5.7 Monaro and rarely get above 22. As to your question, no idea sorry. I would be happy with 26 though!

[TheMighty]

I'd been keeping an eye on mine over a few long runs for a while and approximate figures led me to believe I was getting about 29mpg (UK/imperial gallons) so I was already pretty happy with that. Last weekend I thought I'd try and get a more accurate figure. The car was filled and then refilled at the very same pump when I returned from my 335 mile round trip which was pretty much all A-road and M/Way excect for maybe 15 miles or so. I used the cruise control much of the journey at "around the national speed limit". After filling up I noted all the figures and did the sums when I got home.

I was very impressed to find we'd averaged 32.6mpg!

I have checked, and rechecked the figures and these can only be validated further by my previous approximation of 29mpg. I think for a 346cuin V8 that thats pretty bloody marvelous!

Back to your LT1 car... Yes there definitely was a noticable difference in power between the Z28 and SS LT1 cars so that would probably cost in gas but the difference in fuel economy may also be down to the rear end ratio. There were two ratios available on auto trans cars, the standard 2.73:1 and a slightly sportier 3.23:1. I'd guess a lot of the SS's were optioned with the 3.23 diff which I guess could make quite a difference on gas mileage. I think '96 was the year that the six speed cars got the 3.42:1 rear end too.

[mrobin33]

TheMighty said:

I'd been keeping an eye on mine over a few long runs for a while and approximate figures led me to believe I was getting about 29mpg (UK/imperial gallons) so I was already pretty happy with that. Last weekend I thought I'd try and get a more accurate figure. The car was filled and then refilled at the very same pump when I returned from my 335 mile round trip which was pretty much all A-road and M/Way excect for maybe 15 miles or so. I used the cruise control much of the journey at "around the national speed limit". After filling up I noted all the figures and did the sums when I got home.

I was very impressed to find we'd averaged 32.6mpg!

I have checked, and rechecked the figures and these can only be validated further by my previous approximation of 29mpg. I think for a 346cuin V8 that thats pretty bloody marvelous!

Back to your LT1 car... Yes there definitely was a noticable difference in power between the Z28 and SS LT1 cars so that would probably cost in gas but the difference in fuel economy may also be down to the rear end ratio. There were two ratios available on auto trans cars, the standard 2.73:1 and a slightly sportier 3.23:1. I'd guess a lot of the SS's were optioned with the 3.23 diff which I guess could make quite a difference on gas mileage. I think '96 was the year that the six speed cars got the 3.42:1 rear end too.

Are you sure your trip computer is not giving you US mpg. UK mpg would be about 20% more which would make your 29mpg more like 34.5mpg.

[yabadaba]

mrobin33 said:

TheMighty said:

I'd been keeping an eye on mine over a few long runs for a while and approximate figures led me to believe I was getting about 29mpg (UK/imperial gallons) so I was already pretty happy with that. Last weekend I thought I'd try and get a more accurate figure. The car was filled and then refilled at the very same pump when I returned from my 335 mile round trip which was pretty much all A-road and M/Way excect for maybe 15 miles or so. I used the cruise control much of the journey at "around the national speed limit". After filling up I noted all the figures and did the sums when I got home.

I was very impressed to find we'd averaged 32.6mpg!

I have checked, and rechecked the figures and these can only be validated further by my previous approximation of 29mpg. I think for a 346cuin V8 that thats pretty bloody marvelous!

Back to your LT1 car... Yes there definitely was a noticable difference in power between the Z28 and SS LT1 cars so that would probably cost in gas but the difference in fuel economy may also be down to the rear end ratio. There were two ratios available on auto trans cars, the standard 2.73:1 and a slightly sportier 3.23:1. I'd guess a lot of the SS's were optioned with the 3.23 diff which I guess could make quite a difference on gas mileage. I think '96 was the year that the six speed cars got the 3.42:1 rear end too.

Are you sure your trip computer is not giving you US mpg. UK mpg would be about 20% more which would make your 29mpg more like 34.5mpg.

The LS1 Camaro doesn't have a trip computer. He said that he did all the recording and maths himself. That's what I'm going to do, starting when I next fill up....hoping that I'll get similar results. However, given that I do mainly around-town driving I expect it will be quite a bit lower. What do you get in your vette(s) by the way?

Edited by yabadaba on Friday 27th June 08:19

[LuS1fer]

The '95 LT1 put out 275hp which rose to 285 in '96 but the SS had a full-blooded 305hp which is 30hp more than your old one. Now the SS duct is not exactly aerodynamic but is unlikely to have a huge effect given the gaps round the headlamps (!)

The autos had aa high 2.73 ratio rear end which allowed good fuel consumption with a high overdrive in the gearbox. The manuals had the 3.42 lower-geared rear end bu you could get this with the auto. If yours has this, it's almost certainly down to that.

You can tell by checking the sticker with all the RPO codes on it which will be on the door jamb or on the lid of the glovebox or handbrake compartment.
GU2 is a 2.73, GU5 is the 3.42

http://camarossworld.com/Production%20Numbers/RPO....

[mrobin33]

yabadaba said:

mrobin33 said:

TheMighty said:

I'd been keeping an eye on mine over a few long runs for a while and approximate figures led me to believe I was getting about 29mpg (UK/imperial gallons) so I was already pretty happy with that. Last weekend I thought I'd try and get a more accurate figure. The car was filled and then refilled at the very same pump when I returned from my 335 mile round trip which was pretty much all A-road and M/Way excect for maybe 15 miles or so. I used the cruise control much of the journey at "around the national speed limit". After filling up I noted all the figures and did the sums when I got home.

I was very impressed to find we'd averaged 32.6mpg!

I have checked, and rechecked the figures and these can only be validated further by my previous approximation of 29mpg. I think for a 346cuin V8 that thats pretty bloody marvelous!

Back to your LT1 car... Yes there definitely was a noticable difference in power between the Z28 and SS LT1 cars so that would probably cost in gas but the difference in fuel economy may also be down to the rear end ratio. There were two ratios available on auto trans cars, the standard 2.73:1 and a slightly sportier 3.23:1. I'd guess a lot of the SS's were optioned with the 3.23 diff which I guess could make quite a difference on gas mileage. I think '96 was the year that the six speed cars got the 3.42:1 rear end too.

Are you sure your trip computer is not giving you US mpg. UK mpg would be about 20% more which would make your 29mpg more like 34.5mpg.

The LS1 Camaro doesn't have a trip computer. He said that he did all the recording and maths himself. That's what I'm going to do, starting when I next fill up....hoping that I'll get similar results. However, given that I do mainly around-town driving I expect it will be quite a bit lower. What do you get in your vette(s) by the way?

Edited by yabadaba on Friday 27th June 08:19

The C5 Z06 gives about 18 US Mpg/22 UK mpg day to day short blasts and commuting into NY including 30 minute crawl through Holland Tunnel. On a long run 22/26 mpg. It's in England now and JulesV is keeping it exercised. I suspect he is getting 3 mpg. He is a Camaro fan by the way and his example generates as much sound energy as both mine put together.

C6 Z06 over its first 5000 miles (in last two months!!) has averaged 21/25 mpg - 4000 miles mostly fast road trip across USA (coast to coast) and some 1000 miles commuting and local burn outs.

I can't expect better - in fact its brilliant in my view. My other 400-500 bhp cars do about half that.

[JulesV]

mrobin33 said:

yabadaba said:

mrobin33 said:

TheMighty said:

I'd been keeping an eye on mine over a few long runs for a while and approximate figures led me to believe I was getting about 29mpg (UK/imperial gallons) so I was already pretty happy with that. Last weekend I thought I'd try and get a more accurate figure. The car was filled and then refilled at the very same pump when I returned from my 335 mile round trip which was pretty much all A-road and M/Way excect for maybe 15 miles or so. I used the cruise control much of the journey at "around the national speed limit". After filling up I noted all the figures and did the sums when I got home.

I was very impressed to find we'd averaged 32.6mpg!

I have checked, and rechecked the figures and these can only be validated further by my previous approximation of 29mpg. I think for a 346cuin V8 that thats pretty bloody marvelous!

Back to your LT1 car... Yes there definitely was a noticable difference in power between the Z28 and SS LT1 cars so that would probably cost in gas but the difference in fuel economy may also be down to the rear end ratio. There were two ratios available on auto trans cars, the standard 2.73:1 and a slightly sportier 3.23:1. I'd guess a lot of the SS's were optioned with the 3.23 diff which I guess could make quite a difference on gas mileage. I think '96 was the year that the six speed cars got the 3.42:1 rear end too.

Are you sure your trip computer is not giving you US mpg. UK mpg would be about 20% more which would make your 29mpg more like 34.5mpg.

The LS1 Camaro doesn't have a trip computer. He said that he did all the recording and maths himself. That's what I'm going to do, starting when I next fill up....hoping that I'll get similar results. However, given that I do mainly around-town driving I expect it will be quite a bit lower. What do you get in your vette(s) by the way?

Edited by yabadaba on Friday 27th June 08:19

The C5 Z06 gives about 18 US Mpg/22 UK mpg day to day short blasts and commuting into NY including 30 minute crawl through Holland Tunnel. On a long run 22/26 mpg. It's in England now and JulesV is keeping it exercised. I suspect he is getting 3 mpg. He is a Camaro fan by the way and his example generates as much sound energy as both mine put together.

C6 Z06 over its first 5000 miles (in last two months!!) has averaged 21/25 mpg - 4000 miles mostly fast road trip across USA (coast to coast) and some 1000 miles commuting and local burn outs.

I can't expect better - in fact its brilliant in my view. My other 400-500 bhp cars do about half that.

Very funny!

[JulesV]

Incidentally the fuel economy of my Camaro is better than my new car, an MG ZT-T despite the Camaro having an extra 1100cc. Must be down to the weight and gearing I guess.

[TheMighty]

LuS1fer said:

The '95 LT1 put out 275hp which rose to 285 in '96 but the SS had a full-blooded 305hp which is 30hp more than your old one. Now the SS duct is not exactly aerodynamic but is unlikely to have a huge effect given the gaps round the headlamps (!)

The autos had aa high 2.73 ratio rear end which allowed good fuel consumption with a high overdrive in the gearbox. The manuals had the 3.42 lower-geared rear end bu you could get this with the auto. If yours has this, it's almost certainly down to that.

You can tell by checking the sticker with all the RPO codes on it which will be on the door jamb or on the lid of the glovebox or handbrake compartment.
GU2 is a 2.73, GU5 is the 3.42

http://camarossworld.com/Production%20Numbers/RPO....

Sorry LuS1fer but I have to disagree.
Pretty much as I said above and verified by your link:
GU2 is a 2.73;
GU5 is a 3.23;
GU6 is the 3.42;

Both GU2 and GU5 were Auto trans options and GU6 was the manual option 3.42.

Edited by TheMighty on Friday 27th June 15:56

[balls-out]

thanks
I have the build sheet for the car (a friend works for GM in Detroit).
Its GU6 - REAR AXLE 3.42 RATIO.

Both cars were manual, but don't know what ratio my first z28 did.

I generally don't pay any attention to mpg. Its a bit like the price of a pint in london, the more you think of it, the more you wonder if you should.
I have a ChevyVan too, which really does drink heavily.

Its all manually calculated, and I guess I'll keep an eye on it, but I'm sure that this one is worse than the previous. Although the SS is meant to be 305 vs 285 bhp, I've read there might be some salesmanship involved. Other than the air duct into the carb, there are no other mods that affect the power rating. If anything cold air through the hood should help mgp.

[LuS1fer]

TheMighty said:

LuS1fer said:

The '95 LT1 put out 275hp which rose to 285 in '96 but the SS had a full-blooded 305hp which is 30hp more than your old one. Now the SS duct is not exactly aerodynamic but is unlikely to have a huge effect given the gaps round the headlamps (!)

The autos had aa high 2.73 ratio rear end which allowed good fuel consumption with a high overdrive in the gearbox. The manuals had the 3.42 lower-geared rear end bu you could get this with the auto. If yours has this, it's almost certainly down to that.

You can tell by checking the sticker with all the RPO codes on it which will be on the door jamb or on the lid of the glovebox or handbrake compartment.
GU2 is a 2.73, GU5 is the 3.42

http://camarossworld.com/Production%20Numbers/RPO....

Sorry LuS1fer but I have to disagree.
Pretty much as I said above and verified by your link:
GU2 is a 2.73;
GU5 is a 3.23;
GU6 is the 3.42;

Both GU2 and GU5 were Auto trans options and GU6 was the manual option 3.42.

Yes, probably misread it in haste. I believe the 3.23 option was only offered on the '93 cars, switching to 3.42 in 1994 on the manual cars.Most of the autos came with the 2.73. The other thing is that they fitted a skipshift to the manual cars which took you from 1st to 4th on light throttle openings. This is frequently disabled.

The 1996 Camaro SS hit 60 in 5.3 and 100 in 13.2 and ran the 1/4 in 13.7 @ 102 when tested by Car & Driver which was faster than the '93 275hp Z28 which hit 60 in 5.6 and the quarter in 14 @ 100 so I think the extra horses were real. Hot Rod actually ran a 13.55 @ 104.86 in a 310hp LT1 (fitted witth an optional SLP cat-back exhaust).