Well at least this article had some hard numbers in it. IMO 26 mpg on the highway isn't too bad for a sport coupe with a decent V6 in it.

It didn't look like much early on in the plain white but every picture since then has added more and more to the puzzle. It's a great blending of old and new. From the HUD to the old school gauges, to the 60's styling cues mixed with modern curves and corvette power.

My Mustang GT or XK8 is about to get traded in for sure.

Sounds and looks pretty sweet.

V6

26mpg 300 hp rwd and fun behind the wheel? Camaro
26mpg 200 hp rwd and fun behind the wheel? 350z
28mpg 270 hp fwd and boring vanilla commuter. Camry
26mpg 210 hp rwd and cough... cough... fun? Mustang
25mpg 250 hp rwd and heavy behind the wheel? Challenger SE
26mpg 300 hp fwd and .... fwd? Maxima
29mpg 270 hp fwd and huge? Accord
25mpg 240 hp rwd and doesn't even have a v6? S2000
26mpg 300 hp and the fastest 300 hp ever? 335i. (328 is 28)
26mpg 300 hp rwd and tiny? SLK 350
23mpg 232 hp and the competition? RX8

v8

23mpg 422 hp rwd and fun behind the wheel? Camaro
23mpg 300 hp rwd and fun behind the wheel? Mustang GT
19mpg 425 hp rwd and heavy behind the wheel? Challenger SRT8

Why again do all you people hate the Camaro's efficiency? I'll gladly sacrifice 2mpg for RWD and sporty feel vs a camry or accord any day of the week. As a matter of fact, I'd sacrifice another 2mpg for the rumble of a v8 and tire smoking fun in the SS, but that's just me. My point is that the Japanese nor the Germans can do fuel efficiency or HP/L (v6) better. If they make a Camaro competitor it's exactly the same mpg wise. Because Toyota and Honda are boring companies, I think I'll stick with Nissan, BMW or a USA brand.

I still won't buy it because it's assembled by UAW hands.

Ohh, I almost forgot. BMW M3 v8 is 20mpg hwy with 414 hp. Looks like the Bavarian folks hatred for displacement hurts them in the MPG department.

Mercedes c63 v8 amg 451 hp and 19mpg hwy.

I think OHV is the best technology available for gas mileage and N/A high performance. Nothing comes close to Chevy's V8.

this really isnt that bad. if gas isnt so horrible when it come out, i will probably be interested in one

@Whyhateit?

Who bashed it before you said anything? The only comments before yours were praise... Someone a little touchy?

come != comes

Not to bash it but let's be realistic. People on here are pretty gullible if they think think they're going to get 26mpg and 23 mpg out of the V6 and V8, respectively...and that is even if you drive only on the freeway. You may come close if you are on the freeway at 55 - 65 mph...if you're lucky. I'm skeptical until I see actual driving tests. If they work out...then this is a great car...if not, then we just had a lot of smoke blown up our ass, just like every manufacturer does. They manipulate the system and get the EPA to make unrealistic tests for mileage just so they can put better numbers in the window at the dealer. Most people will be taking advantage of the power and the active fuel management (shutting off two cylinders probably) will never be activated. Good looking car though...I'll be looking for Bumblebee...although many aftermarket (non-racing) wheels will add weight and reduce the gas mileage even further. Same with other inevitable mods;)

I have to say I was on the fence with the previous white model shown, but that overhead shot of the yellow camaro is awesome! Definately not bad HP to MPG numbers, should be a winner. I didnt know it came with IRS, standard non the less! Doesnt the GT500 still have a solid rear? Ford needs to go back to the IRS of the 04? Cobra. I gotta say though im no expert, but that front suspension doesnt look "state of the art" to me. Though im the guy that just updated my mustang (a 65) to 1974 standard, so its gotta be better than that haha!

i especially like the part where a large portion of my money goes to uaw workers so they can live high on the hog while they bleed the company to death

@ Why hate

The 350z has 300hp+, not 200hp.

And the only time you're going to get rated highway miles is cruising at 55-60mph with cruise control on.

As for this bucket, the whole retro interior thing sucks (just like on the Mustang). Why not retro body / modern interior...that would be nice. At least this IRS.

Smart move from Chevy putting a good V6 in there instead of a crappy one.

It's like I tell other people regarding my GM car... its got a good engine and transmission (at least the transmission is ok until about 120k or so), but its all the details that suck. It's always small things that are breaking that add up and are just plain annoying.

Once GM can make a car in which everything is as good as the engine, then all the other car manufactures had better beware! Until that happens (probably never), they don't have anything to fear.

@ Mike M

I don't understand why people automatically assume more cylinders means worse gas mileage. With fuel injection a v6 or 8 will only use as much gas as you tell it to. Under low throttle it will use less fuel per cylinder to get the same power as an engine with less cylinders. Mash the gas and you use more fuel than the engine with less cylinders but generate more power.

The only thing that makes a engine with more cylinders less efficient is the drag associated with moving the extra engine mass.

With my 2002 camaro z28 I can get an excellent 26-30 miles per gallon in freeway driving. The new camaro weighs more but has a much more efficient engine. I fully believe the mileage claim. Course if you abuse the gas petal you shouldn't expect these numbers.

I will never understand why people feel the need to bash on V8s. It must be fashionable.

I hope you all had an exciting weekend I know I did on my 100foot yacht in the Caribbean, I had the pleasure of entertaining the girls from cheetah night club Las Vegas and boy are those girls something else. thanks for buying into this idea everyone, I remember when it was cool for a girl to drive a v6 mustang or v6 firebird, even my gay cousin had a red v6 firebird, he never had problems finding ass but then again it was the 90's and everyone was doing it.

I think this new Camaro is a leap forward for the company. We respect common knowledge and future energy trends but when it comes down to it; who cares about all that. You either can afford to live with it or you buy a Prius. I bet a lot of you think you will look cool in the V6 and the fact is to the untrained eye you will look the same as a macho man driving his Z28 the only difference will be when you are seen by a real petrol head. They will mock you and laugh with disgust that you are like a woman. So if that rules out the V6 you should be sure to get the Z28 it’s where the 422 hp is. And you know that if you’re interested in showing off you will need the largest tool to feel like the biggest man. I am still going through with my offer to spit in every 3rd car rolling out of the assembly line and hope you’re lucky enough to get a bobby L. Signature Edition. And we are working with our friends at Oakley to have them supply us with those awesome sunglasses from there early 90's as fashion accessories because we believe that if we are living in the past you should to.

I'm surprised at the independent rear suspension. I highly approve, personally, as it bodes well for decent handling in the curves. But I wonder what die-hard quarter milers will think?

V6s don't automatically weigh less. The LLY with an auto weighs 380 lbs, with a manual weighs 428 lbs. The L76 in the G8 GT weighs 403 lbs. Expect the LS3 to weigh in around the same.

As for mileage, I have an LS1 that gets me about 30 on the highway cruising at 65, if I up it to 75-80 I am getting around 28. The LS2 I have in a heavier car gets around 27-28 cruising at 75-80.

For around town, all that low end torque let's me not start in first, I normally start in second or third, hence my city mileage being better then rated as well. Not so much what you drive as it is how you drive it. I can drive both like I stole them and get the mileage into the teens easy.

I like the car in yellow more than I liked it in other shots, but I still am having a hard time digging it (and I have a '96 Z28 as a fun car).

The Chevy V8's are well known for impressive hp/mpg ratio's, I'm sure these cars will do as well as they're claiming (which is pretty good if gas isn't 4.50 a gallon). Mine made 27-30mpg stock on the highway... now it's got a bit over 400hp and still makes 23 highway. The key is to drop into the big gear and cruise.

I'm liking the IRS, and true dual exhaust is also cool. I'm not big on the interior (retro isn't my thing), and strut's up front?... Yuk!

Mike M states:
Not to bash it but let's be realistic. People on here are pretty gullible if they think think they're going to get 26mpg and 23 mpg out of the V6 and V8, respectively...

Wrong!
My 2006 Ford Five Hundred AWD is only rated at 24mpg highway and 19mpg city. Driving on the highway averaging 65mph nets me 29mpg.

I wouldn't be surprised to get 30mpg on the highway out of the V6 version.

It is amusing the people that think GM is skewing the numbers to get that MPG rating. It will most likely get more if driven with a non-lead foot. As others have said about their LS1 Camaros, mine consistently got 30 mpg on a 270 mile trip to my parents place during the winter (no AC) and 28-29 in the summer (AC on) at 75-80 mph cruise. I wouldn't be surprised to see this car get consistently higher than rated mpg.

I am a little worried about the IRS. My camaro sees alot of 1/4 mile time and I'm not sure I want to do it with IRS (I'll still try though).

It's still Chevy :)

The GTO 04-06 had IRS, and ran the quarter just fine. The issue was you couldn't fit very large tires on them and the rear ends on the manuals would start to have issues when pushing 500+ hp. Wheel hop was also a small issue, and launching them can be tricky. Other then that, the LS2 GTOs could still do low 13s quarter mile and 0-60 under 5 seconds despite weighing 3700-3800 lbs.

I think V6 is mistake. They should have 2.0L with Turbo and get 300HP out of it, oh that's right...they don't know how.

Btw i'd rather get Honda S2000.

Because 2.0 turbos making 300+ hp get such great gas mileage.

And I am sorry, there is a version of the LNF which makes 300 hp. They are planning to release it in the updated Solstice GXP.

Just a reminder about gas mileage. The ammount of gas a vehicle consumes is directly proportional to the ammount of energy it needs to get from point A to point B. In an ideal world with 100% vehicle efficiency, the ammount of energy needed to travel that distance would be the same regardless of engine size or engine power.

In an ideal world, the only factor that is important is the resistance the vehicle encounters from its surroundings. The parameters that influence these losses are the mass of the car, its traction, and its drag coefficient. The heavier the car, the more energy it takes to accelerate it and overcome friction at steady speed. The shape of the car is a determining factor in the drag force working against it as it is moving. Due to the increased traction and drag present at high speeds, it becomes obvious that gas mileage goes down as velocity goes up.

So then you might be wondering why a 8 cylinder generally has worse gas mileage than a 6 cylinder which is generally worse than a 4 cylinder. The answer is really simple and it is not that the previous statement is untrue. Power delivery might play some role, but assuming that the cars are driven identically, a V8 will still use more gas than a 4 cylinder.

A V8 powered car will suffer significantly more losses than a comperable 4 cylinder. Apart from the fact that a V8 will generally be heavier than a 4 cylinder, even if they were the same weight, the losses in the engine will be greater. If the pistons are assumed to be of the same mass, then accelerating twice as many pistons will required twice as much energy (both from friction and inertia). That is assuming that the displacement per cylinder is the same. If you take a 7.0L V8 and a 2.0L 4 cylinder, each piston moves almost twice as far in the V8.

Also, a V8 engine usually requires more oil to cool it. The extra weight of the oil and larger pan will not only be reflected in the cars weight, but also in the efficiency of the engine. To move the extra volume of oil, a larger oil pump is required which has to do more work by displacing more oil. If you notice the trend, V8s generally require more of everything. More power = more stress = larger components and more mass. This scales to almost everything. The cooling system, braking system, power steering system, transmission, driveshafts, all need to be larger to account for the increased weight/stress.

Just a reminder about gas mileage. The ammount of gas a vehicle consumes is directly proportional to the ammount of energy it needs to get from point A to point B. In an ideal world with 100% vehicle efficiency, the ammount of energy needed to travel that distance would be the same regardless of engine size or engine power.

In an ideal world, the only factor that is important is the resistance the vehicle encounters from its surroundings. The parameters that influence these losses are the mass of the car, its traction, and its drag coefficient. The heavier the car, the more energy it takes to accelerate it and overcome friction at steady speed. The shape of the car is a determining factor in the drag force working against it as it is moving. Due to the increased traction and drag present at high speeds, it becomes obvious that gas mileage goes down as velocity goes up.

So then you might be wondering why a 8 cylinder generally has worse gas mileage than a 6 cylinder which is generally worse than a 4 cylinder. The answer is really simple and it is not that the previous statement is untrue. Power delivery might play some role, but assuming that the cars are driven identically, a V8 will still use more gas than a 4 cylinder.

A V8 powered car will suffer significantly more losses than a comperable 4 cylinder. Apart from the fact that a V8 will generally be heavier than a 4 cylinder, even if they were the same weight, the losses in the engine will be greater. If the pistons are assumed to be of the same mass, then accelerating twice as many pistons will required twice as much energy (both from friction and inertia). That is assuming that the displacement per cylinder is the same. If you take a 7.0L V8 and a 2.0L 4 cylinder, each piston moves almost twice as far in the V8.

Also, a V8 engine usually requires more oil to cool it. The extra weight of the oil and larger pan will not only be reflected in the cars weight, but also in the efficiency of the engine. To move the extra volume of oil, a larger oil pump is required which has to do more work by displacing more oil. If you notice the trend, V8s generally require more of everything. More power = more stress = larger components and more mass. This scales to almost everything. The cooling system, braking system, power steering system, transmission, driveshafts, all need to be larger to account for the increased weight/stress.

Some of these posters are a bunch of jokes! I can tell you for sure, those v6 and v8 aren't making no corolla mpg during freeway driving. 28-30 on freeway yeah right! Go ahead, put it into 6th gear and cruise, you still ain't gonna see no 30mpg. You can lie to yourself if it makes you feel better at the pump.

You didn't buy those big v8 to talk about how little gas it uses. Its all power, speed, looks, etc. something the 4 bangers can't do(unless its boosted ofcourse). Theres no replacement for displacement!(don't even start on force induction) bigger consumes more, period!

@ Luka:

I certainly encourage you to get an S2000. When you get your butt handed to you at a stoplight by a V6 Camaro, you might think otherwise. That car is SLOW. 240 hp, but zero torque.

As far as the IRS, I can do without it. Yeah, it provides a better ride, but it honestly doesn't provide much else. It's worse on a drag strip, and no better on a smooth track, as proven by some of the SCCA classes years ago. On a bumpy road, sure, it has advantages, but if you're going to drive your car at 10/10ths on a bumpy, curvy road, then you have a bigger pair than I have.

The IRS is simply a result of perception in the global market that it's an "upscale" feature, and since the Zeta is a global platform, that's where it came from.

If I had a choice, I'd take a solid axle.

And for those that are still disputing the mileage numbers, just realize that when the engine makes enough torque to move the car down the highway at 70 mph while spinning 1600 rpm, you can get some good mileage numbers.

If I have a v8 reving at 1400-1500 to do x speed, and you have a straight 4 reving at 3000 to do that same speed, what is more efficient now?

Why does GM's 5300 v8 truck engine get the same mileage as the 4300 v6? Or, why does the 5300 v8 get the same or better mileage as the 4200 inline 5? It can't have anything to do with the fact it makes more torque at lower rpm and therefor has to rev less to do a certain speed, can it?

How fast you are going is based off of wind resistance, weight, drive train loss, and how much power you are making. Make it sooner, rev less, pure and simple. The Z06 is capable of cursing at 90 mph at 2000 rpm. At that speed and that rpm, it isn't using very much gas at all compared to say my truck which does 70 at 2000 rpm.

Additionally, about the gas mileage, those of you talking about how V8s and other big displacement engines can't achieve good mileage know just enough about this stuff to be dangerous.

Go start looking up some torque curves, then study up on concepts like brake specific fuel consumption, and you'll see that it IS in fact possible to get decent mileage and decent power. You guys are focusing too much on the HP figures, which are laregly academic, and not enough on the torque numbers (and curves), which is really what matters. It's that torque that gives the S2000 the acceleration of a Camaro.....well, a 15 year old Camaro.

Like many others, I am directly aware of the efficiency of LS series engines, as my brother had a '98 Camaro SS that had no problem getting 28 MPG at 80 MPH on the interstate.

For those of you talking about all of the parasitic drag due to extra cylinders, you seem to be forgetting about the parasitic drag in all of the valvetrain components, which goes up in 4V DOHC configurations, even with roller everything.

The Corvette is rated at 26 MPG highway, and if there's a vehicle in Chevy's lineup that's built for performance, and NOT mileage, that's it.

theres no point in explaining things as people dont want to change their perceptions about things. a 2l engine running 3k rpms comsuming 300 cfm will use as much fuel as 6.2l engine running 1400 rpm consuming 300 cfm. Cars need to have air to fuel ratio of about 14:1 when crusing so 14 parts air 1 part fuel. So if air ingestion is the same then fuel ingestion will be similar. The big v8 only gets good mpg because of the low crusing rpm and it suffers greating when it has to accelerate because its doing more work rather then sitting htere at 1.2k rpm. A s2k needs to be moving at 3k rpms just to run 70 mph where as a mustang would only need 1.8k rpm to perform the same mph. Small turboed engines generally dont suffer the same fuel usage issues that bigger turboed cars do because they have better low end torque which allows them to spend less tiem accelerating.

S2000 slow? Haha you never drove one. It will smoke the shit out of V6.

S2000 curb weight, 2864 lbs. Hp, 237. 12.08 lbs/hp.
Camaro curb weight, 3600 lbs. Hp, 300. 12 lbs/hp.

Camaro has more torque down low. Off the line, it will take the S2000 and never look back. The Camaro will also be easier to drive, more torque down low, doesn't have to rev to 6k and stay at 6k to be in the power. It has 82% of its torque at 1000 rpms, which is nearly twice as much as an S2000 makes at peak, 223.85 lb-ft. And to top it off, the Camaro is a larger car, with better gas mileage while running on regular, and will cost less.

"It's that torque that gives the S2000 the acceleration of a Camaro.....well, a 15 year old Camaro."

A few well stated posts JB. Finally a thread on TR that doesn't resemble one from YouTube.
The 3.4 V6 in the 93 Camaro was (off the top of my head) about 170hp and maybe around 200 ft/lbs of torque, so that probably is a fair comparison in that dept.

But, having driven a couple S2000's, i'll take the 93 Camaro. At least i can fit in the damn thing. At over 6'2", i almost have my knees in a birthing position.

The interior is definitely more retro than the Mustang. Only the instrument cluster looks retro in the Ford. Chevy should have worked a little more on the cluster and gauges though. The cluster looks similar to the Mustang (yeah, they were close back then too). The gauges, while in a unique spot, also resemble the retro ones in Ford's 2008 Super Duty trucks.

In the end, who cares about fuel mileage of a Camaro. Or a Mustang. Or a 350Z. Or any go-fast car. That's not why you bought it.

Sorry, meant to say 40% more torque.

I'm very skeptical that a V6 camaro will be blowing the doors off any S2000. This thing is just too heavy and will not be geared for it. While I agree that S2000's aren't all that fast but they still do around 14 to high 13's in the quarter.

My real disappointment with the new Camaro is the weight. A stock V8 1969 Camaro weighed about 3200lbs. With all of today's tech one would think that it would weigh about the same. However it looks like this thing will be from 3500-3800lbs which isn't a pony car anymore.

Yeah V8s are great for economy!
NoDos and cashmoney are correct, talk about hand picking situations.
'when my xxxx heap of shit V8 was on da hiwaz i waz gettin 30 man' what about when you're in the city where most people do most of their driving?

Go back and read CashMoneys post...It's physics bitches.

More displacement = more friction/weight = more fuel used.

Do you people really believe what you post? I got smoked by a Toyota Yaris yesterday and I can tell you that's the last time I race my grandma.

my grandmother is dead thank you very muh CKV

For those of us who are so clueless that they don't understand, here is how EPA ratings are officially determined.

"Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a laboratory using a standardized test procedure specified by federal law. Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 10-15 percent of them through their own tests at the National Vehicles and Fuel Emissions Laboratory."

" In the laboratory, the vehicle's drive wheels are placed on a machine called a dynamometer that simulates the driving environment—much like an exercise bike simulates cycling.

The energy required to move the rollers can be adjusted to account for wind resistance and the vehicle's weight.

On the dynamometer, a professional driver runs the vehicle through a standardized driving routine, or schedule, which simulates “typical” trips in the city or on the highway.

Each schedule specifies the speed the vehicle must travel during each second in the test.

The driver watches a computerized display that shows his driving statistics compared to the specified schedule.

A hose is connected to the tailpipe to collect the engine exhaust.

The carbon in the exhaust is measured to calculate the amount of fuel burned during the test.

This is more accurate than using a fuel gauge."

This is posted around a little slideshow (starring lots of lab equipment and a Miata) at Fueleconomy.gov.

Just thought I'd bring a fact to a stupidfight.