2014 Corvette Stingray - 30mpg hwy
 

Yeah, it's a big, American V8 sports car...

But, early reports indicate there will be an "Economy" version of the new Vette that brings back the Stingray name with highway fuel economy rated at 30+mpg. Not bad for a 400hp 5.5L V8 with pushrods.

five-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-2014-corvette

Have a little story.
Friend of mine raced a 79 Mazda Rx7 in Showroom Stock II. I decided I had to have one too and went out and got a used '79. Drove over to his house to show him...... and he had a BRAND NEW 1986(pretty sure) Corvette!!!!
He drove to my wedding and got 26 mpg!!!! had two overdrive gears.
I couldnt believe it because the Rx7 only got like 16mpg!

corvettes are essentially a cheap, relatively, race car. so they are light, again relatively, and are very aerodynamic. even the c06 should have no problem getting 30+ mpg combined with the right driver.

I used to daily drive a '94 LT1/6-spd Vette, and would regularly get 27-29mpg highway. But that's a big difference from being rated at 30mpg hwy.

I imagine if it were rated for 30mpg, many drivers on here could get 40+ mpg with a little effort.

And I've also heard of the older Camaro/Firebirds sometimes getting upper 20s on the freeway.

I get upward of 29 in my V6 auto '92 Camaro on the highway. I got an average of something like 24 round trip to GA and back towing over 1,000 lbs on the way back.

Official Press Release today:

Corvette Stingray Most Efficient Sports Car on the Market - 2014 model unmatched in combo of 455 hp and EPA-estimated 29 mpg highway

I had a 1985 5-speed V6 Camaro that would get 26 to 29 mpg on the highway even with my immature attempts to make it go faster.

Looks exciting! I imagine the smallest engine, with the seven speed standard, could hit 40 mpg.

You would think an 8.4 liter v10 would get terrible mileage, but in fact I read a review of the 2nd gen viper srt10 that stated they averaged about 24-26 mpg on the highway. Not bad considering the 500 hp and huge engine.

So a corvette getting 30 mpg doesn't really surprise me. They have so much torque that they can cruise at about 1200 rpm at 65 mph. Not to mention technologies like cylinder deactivation that the viper didn't have.

Chevy needs 5.5 liters to make 400 hp, NA.
Chrysler needs 8.4 to make 500, NA.
Ford needs 5.0 to make 420, NA.

All being premium fuel. Although, on cars.com, they are showing the 8.4 liter is pushing 640 hp, MUCH better than the 499 the old 8.1 was doing, and I only see a 6.2 listed for the Corvette, with 450 or 460. The GT is still at 420. Interesting, to me.

Isn't there usually an inverse relationship between horsepower and mileage? :)

2,003 Insight (manual) 59 MPG highway, 73 HP, 4,307 Baconunits
2,013 Prius 48 MPG highway, 134 HP, 6,432 Baconunits
1,994 Geo Metro XFI 52 MPG highway, 49 HP, 2,548 Baconunits
2,008 Ford F150 19 MPG highway, 248 HP, 4,712 Baconunits
2,014 Corvette 29 MPG highway, 455 HP, 13,195 Baconunits

Quick! Someone do the math on a 227.5 HP motor swap! :D

http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content...2/05/Orly1.jpg

22/32
http://www.9magazine.com/wp-content/...Cayman-S-1.jpg

22/34
http://images.thecarconnection.com/m...00413187_m.jpg

22/31
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....en-audi-tt.jpg

25/34
http://0.tqn.com/d/cars/1/0/q/k/2/ag_13brz_frtlt1.JPG

I think power comes into play, the 86 GT has less than half the HP of the Corvette, it should be seeing better than 32. 400+ gets 31, 180 gets 32?

TT and Z4 are both not near as much power- I wouldn't classify them as a true sports car, like the base Camaro, Mustang, Challenger. They are sports cars, but they aren't the sportiest- sporty? lol, thats what I always call it. I, personally, try to reserve sports to Corvettes, GT500s, Viper, that range as true sports cars. Though, the Viper is expensive for a sports car, but its definitely not a super/hyper car...

My thoughts may not be clear, but the vehicles you mentioned (other than the Porsche, not sure about it) are not nearly as powerful while just edging out the fuel economy.

Yes, but he had the weird picture of the bird, and spelled really poorly.

How is a Z4 or a TT not a sports car but a Challenger is? The Challenger is just a 2 ton rebodied late 90s Mercedes E class and the Mustang has a live axle rear suspension off a pickup truck. These are not sports cars by any stretch of the imagination.
Horsepower does not make a sports car. The claim was that the Corvette is the most fuel efficient sports car on the market. Thats clearly not true.

Maybe a tad off topic, but id opt for a STI or EVO, M3/M5 anyday... especially for the price these days, you just cant beat the versatility and "real world" performance.. Already been proven to get 40mpg out of a Subi... I could still get away with a decent sup'd Mini Cooper S with a few basic mods and still get 30mpg and still have allot less wobely plastic body work on all..

EDIT: +1 on the GT500, and ill throw in the BOSS 302 version that my local dealer has with a 5 link kit in place already...

OHHHH 5 link. That would be impressive in 1968.

I note that you trimmed off the second half of that statement:
Which is, in fact, accurate to the best of my knowledge.

Making bold, slightly misleading statements is standard fare for marketing departments everywhere, this really isn't anything to get all worked up about. But the fact is, the Corvette s a fantastic sports car with a large, powerful engine that achieves very impressive fuel economy.

As for what cars are and are not sports cars... Simply having a live axle doesn't disqualify a car in my book. To me, a "sports car" must be good at driving on a road coarse, and its performance there defines it more than what specific design criteria was met. I would be surprised if there is any stock, production car that can post faster lap times at the Nurburgring that will use less gas on the drive home.

The Mustang is either a muscle car, rental car or secretary's car depending on who you ask. Its never been a sports car.
Porsche 918
7:14 around the Ring
3.3L/100km
887hp combined
20 mile EV range.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu_GezgxQ4o
Anyway to slice it, the GM claim is bogus.

And it's EPA highway fuel economy rating is...? That 78mpg that Porsche claims is certainly not realistic, just like the Chevy Volt claiming 230mpg.

I hadn't realized the 918 was anything other than a prototype. I just looked up that they do plan to sell them soon. For $800k more than the Vette...

Porsche's claims take advantage of NEDC rules that allow them to start with a full battery on the city loop. EPA would classify electric efficiency and gas efficiency separately.

-

Obviously, the Mustang is not a sports car. It's a two-door sedan. :D

-

But more seriously, sportscar shmortscar. The exclusive term ain't nothing but a body-style, considering there are four-door sedans that can whip traditional sports cars in terms of both power and handling, and most traditional "sportscars" are actually 2+2 coupes now. The traditional definition is 1- or 2- seat only, open-topped and low-slung. Which means, from the list given, the Corvette and Z4 are the only ones that count.

If you have updated EPA numbers feel free to post them here. Until then 78mpg stands.
Does that somehow disqualify it as a sports car? Your own words were:
The Porsche 918 meets your definition in every way.

So the convertible Corvette is a sports car but the hard top isn't? The Boxster (22/32) is a sports car but the Cayman isn't? Thats an interesting theory. Keep in mind that the 29 mpg claim was only for the hard top Stingray. No mention of the vert.

http://images.thecarconnection.com/l...00420870_l.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....e-stingray.png

http://file.kelleybluebookimages.com...e_psbox142.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....ayman-s-fd.jpg

Like hell it does. There is no way that car will be anywhere near 78mpg EPA rating. It won't be rated until it just before it is released for sale.

No, it is certainly a sports car. I just deny that it will get better mileage on the way home after a day at the track than the Vette will. Maybe it will prove me wrong later, but it certainly hasn't yet.

I just brought the price up because it surprised me.

The Cayman is the epitome of a sports car. Just read an article about the latest one where they say it just may be the best handling car in the world and it definitely beats out the 911.

Oh my, this thread is funny. If you buy a sports car for it's highway MPG you are buying the car for the wrong reason. Drive a Prius to work, save the sports cars for the weekend and track days. Why trade off the comforts and practicality of a commuter car for the power of a sports car if you are not going to use the power? If you drive these cars in the way they were meant to be driven you won't be getting 30 mpg. If you want to have fun in the car you won't be getting 30 mpg. Save the fuel economy for your daily driver. Focus on the fun in sports cars.

Arguing about what is a sports car and what is a super car is just absurd. A sports car is a sports car if it was designed to be one. The amount of horsepower it has or the price tag has nothing to do with it. Does it put an uncontrollable smile on your face as you hit the apex of a corner? If you have ever sat in a Del Sol you know it was a sports car. I don't care if it only had 120 hp. 2 seats, targa top, low driving position, back hugging seats, shift knob up by the steering wheel, etc. It was all designed to feel sporty, and sporty it felt. The MX-5/Miata is one of the best sports cars in history. It has proof to back it up. It is probably the most raced production car ever. If that doesn't make it a sports car what does?

Typically, the classic definition is what's used to define roadsters nowadays, but most accept the use for tin-tops.

"An automobile equipped for racing, especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds."

or

"a small, high-powered automobile with long, low lines, usually seating two persons."

Early sports cars, given the times, typically had no roof, as automobile tops back then were typically non-aerodynamic canvas bits on frames. It's only later on that they became enclosed.

-

I wouldn't really worry about it. I only ever drag it out when we have a net-fight over whether front-wheel drive cars can be sports cars or not. The answer? It doesn't matter. A Honda Integra is just as much a Sports Car as a Porsche 911, as they're both 2+2s with a focus on performance rather than comfort. And the Integra is lighter. The increasing weight and size of the 911 have some people classify it as a Sports Grand Tourer.

Meh. They're all sports cars, to me.

Let me rearrange that statement, this might help.

I wouldn't classify them as a true sports car, like the base Camaro, Mustang, Challenger.
=
Like the base Camaro, Mustang, Challenger, I wouldn't classify them as a true sports car.

I don't consider any of these cars "sports" cars, they are "sporty" to me and my car critiquing group. Is there a clear, defined line on what the EXACT description [of a sports car] is? No, and I don't think mine is right or wrong. It's an opinion, not being harsh, based on the information being presented.

I agree, the statement of being the most fuel efficient sports car is moot.

But,
86 GT-25/28/34-200
Au-TT-22/26/31-211
Bm-Z4-22/26/34-240
PCay-22/26/32-275
and
CVet-x/x/(30+)-(400+)


(Compare Side-by-Side & Compare Subaru BRZ 2013 vs. AudiTT2013 vs. BMWZ42013 vs. PorscheCayman2014 - Cars.com)

SO, for the economy to performance ratio makes me wonder why the 86 GT isn't getting 68 mpg highway. I know it doesn't work that way, I am saying it regarding the point-one has 3 to 0 extra highway mpg, but 200 LESS horsepower. To me, that means efficient for the Corvette.

When I had the patience to listen to the ignorant remarks about all cars non Mustang (Mustang forum), the biggest argument was pony car, vs sports car, vs whatever. The point when someone non stop argued with me that his 2013 GT500 cost less to buy, operate, fuel, drive for six years vs a 2013 Fusion hybrid, all things mileage the same, was the breaking point for me. Regardless of the Fusion getting twice (~) the mileage, and costing half- math wasn't his strong point- he thought it would be cheaper because the dealer told him so.

So conversations (it doesn't seem like an argument- yet lol) like this, don't bother me. Rational individuals conversing and bringing up facts, opinions, and personal experience to me, is a conversation.

As stated, I agree there is no real firm definition. I usually start consider sports cars in the 350-450 range that are track oriented. Mustang? No- sporty car. Boss Leguna Seca? Sports. Two seaters? Unless they are cruisers, or an Elio, or smart, then I would think sports. But with so many entry level cars with performance, mileage, and being able to be a DD, and AMGs, M series, GT500s, ZL1s, Koenigseggs- "sports car" is a bit broad to classify the Miata through the Veyron.

Extremely disagree, and kind of agree, respectively.

If I could afford a Prius (24k to start) and a GT500 ( 48k to start), I would have bought a real commuter car and a real "sports" car. Since I'd rather not pay interest for the rest of my life on a depreciating liability, I bought a commuter (saved 5k, 60~% of the fuel economy) and a sporty car (saved 29k, 60~% of the horsepower), and got what I got. But if I had so much money that I could drop 72 grand on cars just so my daily drive sucks, I wouldn't buy either of these two.

Maybe buying a car that satisfies several needs rather than just being a specialty car built for one thing is the wrong reason. Although, I drive it like it's supposed to be driven, I am getting 137% of the highway mpg. But until I am getting 100k+ /year in interest, I couldn't fathom wasting money like that.

Like, buying a phone that won't play music, or take pictures, so I can buy an mp3 player and a separate camera for more money (based on my practical wants).

The 918 has a smaller engine than the Vette and even if you don't plug it in its still a full parallel hybrid just like the Prius. I don't see how the 918 wouldn't get more than 30mph on the highway.
The previous generation Cayman (987) has depreciated to under $20k. I can definitely see buying one in the near future. They worked out most of the engine bugs of the 986/996 so it should be far more reliable. The new generation Cayman is a real gem but far outside my budget.
Miata is an excellent example of a pure sports car. The hard top convertible you can actually live with every day in any weather. Sports car has nothing to do with horsepower.
http://images.thecarconnection.com/m...00010515_m.jpg

Interestingly, my co-workers 1987 Corvette gets a real world 28 on the highway. 1MPG better than my 2.5L Jaguar X-Type/Ford with manual trans.

The only way that Porsche is going to get 78mpg is if it comes with a fold up moped that goes in place of the spare tire.

Read it and weep.
2015 Porsche 918 Spyder First Drive – Review – Car and Driver

The 71 mpg is again, on the "New European Driving Cycle", which allows you to start the test with a full battery and end it with a flat one.

The EV-only range is in excess of the NEDC drive cycle, which is about 13km combined urban and extra-urban. That's how it gets such impressive figures. NEDC does force you to start with a cold engine, but the AC and other accessories are turned off.

This is quite inferior to the way the EPA does it, with multiple cycles and separate ratings for electric+gas and gas only. Gas only shows pure hybrid operation, with the batteries only charged from the onboard generator and brake energy recovery systems.

34 MPG on the highway and 25 in the city for a car with 200BHP. The rating is for the AT but the MT gets about the same in the real world. The GT86 gets better MPG than the Corvette and it's almost half the price. We're not talking rocket surgery here. There isn't a direct relationship between MPG and HP.

Back to the economy thing...

One major factor in an engine's BSFC numbers is "piston ring swept area". As this swept area is 1) a major source, likely the biggest, source of friction, 2) an area for piston to cylinder heat transfer (wasting combustion heat) and engines with less swept area also have less surface area in the combustion area to transfer heat, boosting efficiency.

Engines with larger displacement spinning slower have significantly less piston ring swept area.

It's no surprise the large displacement V8 engine can achieve impressive economy in a lightweight, aerodynamic car. All it takes is proper tuning and proper gearing.

However, at idle, larger engines consume more fuel. And around town, this takes it's toll.

In an early page, one stated 30 mpg on the highway is not impressive for a sports car, and cited the 86 GT. I believe 34 mpg.

It's evident there isn't a direct relationship between MPG and HP, but having twice the horsepower, and almost 90% of the fuel economy, is impressive. I don't think anyone is talking about price, we're talking power to fuel economy- it's not the new Porsche, but it's also not a hybrid and it's less than a million.

I think saying it has 90% of the fuel economy is a bit of an exaggeration. In the city when that giant V8 is idling and running at low load (even on 4 cylinders) it will suck much more fuel, that's a guarantee and it shows in the EPA city rating.

And if you want a more worldly Porsche to compare to, the new 981/991 s are pretty fuel efficient, have a good amount of horsepower, and don't cost 1 million.

Agreed- but when one cuts their engine on the way to the light, it uses zero fuel :)

The point was highway, for this scenario-as I believe the OP intended.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post381516

EPA 45mpg combined in hybrid mode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...UB9RqY_I#t=594