EcoModder.com

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)
-   EcoModding Central (https://ecomodder.com/forum/ecomodding-central.html)
-   -   2017 camaro vs 2011 cruze? (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/2017-camaro-vs-2011-cruze-35229.html)

ProDigit 06-06-2017 05:32 PM

2017 camaro vs 2011 cruze?
 
Hi,

I saw the 2017 camaro, with 2.0 Turbo engine, looks amazing!
I currently own a 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco, and get average of 32MPG.

It's really low for a cruze, and I think the main reason is that I'm either going below it's efficiency level (traffic, city speeds of 35MPH), or over (highways at 65+MPH).

On the highways, the cruze runs most efficient at between 50-55mph, where the engine runs at 2-2.25k RPM, and averages at 50-55MPG; but lowers at speeds over 60MPH to 45MPG or below.

I mostly ride at those speeds, with the avg ranges from 60-75MPH (sometimes peaking over 80MPH).

I was looking at the Camaro, hoping with it's taller gearing that I would get better gas mileage at least on the highways. The amount of travel I do, I was hoping to save a few bucks on gas, switching over.

Of course, I don't just buy a brand new Camaro, to save a few bucks of gas.
I am in love with the car, prefer it by far over the Mustang (Mustang always had a nicer interior than the camaro, but not anymore).

And now I'm just trying to justify a few more reasons to do the swap?

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 06-06-2017 06:31 PM

I haven't seen the newer 4-cyl Camaro yet, but that 8-speed automatic might help even in city due to its quite wide gear spread.

RedDevil 06-06-2017 06:49 PM

If the choice is limited to just the Cruze and Camaro ignore this, otherwise and while not knowing your range I'd suggest a 4th gen Prius or Chevy Bolt if you can afford them, or a used Volt, 3rd gen Prius or any small engined Honda if TCO comes into play.

Hersbird 06-06-2017 09:49 PM

Last spring they had a manual Camaro Turbo at Dave Smith Motors brand new for about $21,000 (MSRP was about $28k). I believe that was only about $3000 more than their Cruise deal. I think that's a heck of a deal for a more basic Caddy ATS.

gone-ot 06-06-2017 10:06 PM

Drag racing or MPG?

ksa8907 06-06-2017 10:22 PM

Keeping eco in mind, i would look at the 1.4 turbo in the cruze. The 2.0 turbo can make a lot of power, around 400hp, with stock internals. I'm sure it's plenty of fun, depends on your priorities.

ennored 06-06-2017 10:38 PM

Real world numbers
 
I've put about 15,000 miles on a 2016 Camaro automatic 2.0 turbo (with the base tires) in the last year. It is capable of some relatively good fuel economy. It'll get ~35 MPG driving 70 on a windless day, and you can average over 40 going slower (it shifts into 8th gear at 44 MPH). It has really nice range with a 19 gallon tank, fantastic "one tank trip" car.

I haven't driven the older Cruze much, but spent a little time in a new hatch. It easily gets 5, if not 10, MPG more under the same conditions as the Camaro. Smaller motor, smaller car, smaller tires, it adds up and makes sense.

ProDigit 06-07-2017 12:56 PM

8th gear at 45mph?
That's ridiculous!
The manual has 6 gears, and a 10% gearing difference, so probably around 40.
My 1.4liter turbo does 6th at 35 mph, but usually shifts at around 40.

I was kind of hoping that the engine would rev lower, since I'll be getting the manual.
That's a real turnoff for me. As well as the Camaro taking hi octane fuel.. no.. I'll stay with my Cruze.
Why is it that almost every car on the market shifts through the 6 gears at below 40?
And at 80 are revving close to their redline?

Thanks for the input, but it's a clear turnoff for me ��

slowmover 06-07-2017 02:39 PM

Shoot, son, I'm ten gears in, and reaching for the next just past fifteen mph.

samwichse 06-07-2017 03:09 PM

Code:

                Tremec TR3160        Tremec TR6060        Hydra-Matic 8L45        Hydra-Matic 8L90
                6-speed manual        6-speed manual        8-speed automatic        8-speed automatic
                (2.0T and 3.6L)        (6.2L)                (2.0L and 3.6L)                (6.2L)


First:                4.40                2.66                4.62                        4.56
Second:                2.59                1.78                3.04                        2.97
Third:                1.80                1.30                2.07                        2.08
Fourth:                1.34                1.00                1.66                        1.69
Fifth:                1.00                0.74                1.26                        1.27
Sixth:                0.75                0.50                1.00                        1.00
Seventh:        --                --                0.85                        0.85
Eighth:                --                --                0.66                        0.65
Reverse:        3.99                2.90                3.93                        3.82
Final drive:        3.27                3.73                3.27 (2.0L)                2.77
                                                2.77 (3.6L)

Looks like the ratio in top gear for the 6 speed is exactly halfway between 7th and 8th for the auto.

Not great :-/. Now if you could take a 6.2L 6 speed and swap in the final drive gearset from the T2.0L 6 speed, you're in business. Except that starting in 1st would be painful.

Hersbird 06-07-2017 03:58 PM

You know that 3.6 May do really well. With the better gearing combined with direct injection, cylinder deactivation, VVT,and auto start/stop. It's the new LGX 3.6 as of 2016.

I get 1441 rpm at 65 mph with the 8 speed and the 3.6

Hersbird 06-07-2017 07:10 PM

I take back everything I said. Get the Cruise diesel. I see the manual version pulled 77.7 mpg in the old style highway EPA test. That is most like how a hypermiler would drive but not even as good as possible. As a comparison the best Camaro is the 2.0 auto at 43.8 mpg, and the best gas Cruise is the 1.4 auto at 59.2 mpg. The other car to get 77.7 is the Prius Eco. The Ioniq Blue beats them all with a 79.1 mpg.

ProDigit 06-07-2017 09:12 PM

Swapping the transmission of the 3.6 liter with the 2.0 liter seems a good start!
(or swapping the 3.6 engine with a 2,0).
First gear will still be ok.
Most of the time, if you can start in 2nd gear with stock gears, there will be no problem.

A VW beetle, with only 45HP and 4 gears, is a lot harder to start from a dead stop.

It's got plenty of torque down low, and the car is very light. should be possible to do...

You'd think that this is a popular swap, since most people want faster acceleration (which the 2.0 transmission would offer).

pete c 06-08-2017 08:31 AM

Stop pretending it makes financial sense to get rid of the cruze.

It doesn't, assuming it is a reliable car.

You want the Camaro because it is fun and looks cool. I rented one in Vegas in december. I was thoroughly impressed. The 3.6 V-6 with the 8 speed auto with paddle shifers is an awesome drivetrain. My wife has a '12 V-6 6 speed 'stang. That new Camaro has it all over the Mustang. Smoother, makes its power at lower revs and that Camaro was the best handling car I ever drove, by a pretty wide margin.

I have one complaint.

You are sitting in a cave.

The door sills are about neck high. And I have a very long torso, with short legs. Someone with a short torso would need a damn periscope to drive that thing.

If you want to cruise the vegas strip, windows down, arm hanging out the window, looking cool, this is not the car for you. You will dislocate your shoulder.

If you want to stay up in the canyons, chasing guys on their sport bikes, this is the car.

After 2 days in the Camaro we decided that we were doing more of the former than the latter and we drove it back to the airport and traded it for a 4cylinder ecoboost ragtop Mustang. Much better at cruising the strip, much worse at canyon carving.

If I was in the market for one of these and lived in a warm climate, I'd get a ragtop V-6 Camaro. I haven't driven their 6 speed manual, so I would likely go with it, but that 8 speed paddle shifter was pretty damn sweet.

As for mileage, I am sure the Camaro has the ability to make good numbers. The trouble is, the entire time you are driving it, it is whispering in your ear "screw mileage, let's play!!!". I was on vacation and was all about playing.

ennored 06-08-2017 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete c (Post 542214)
Stop pretending it makes financial sense to get rid of the cruze.

Like the couple I saw on one of the home renovation shows who were getting rid of their bed frame so they could buy one made from recycled materials.


I've also spent a good amount of time in V6 and V8 Camaros. I don't have the miles that I do in the LTG though. In rough numbers I'd say the V6 is a 5 MPG hit, and the V8 10, compared to the LTG on the highway.

cRiPpLe_rOoStEr 06-08-2017 11:13 AM

Even though it's not impossible at all to take some good mileage figures from that 4-cyl Camaro, nobody can deny that it has some design features that make it inherently less efficient than the Cruze. A heavier platform, with a heavier driveline which also adds more friction, and bigger, heavier tyres which are also likely to increase rolling resistence. But anyway, that's still cool-looking.

pete c 06-08-2017 12:14 PM

I haven't driven the turbo 4 camaro, so I can not speak from experience, but after driving that V-6, I can't imagine going with the 4. The 4 may get an extra mpg or two, but I doubt it. The 4 likely does have a taste for high octane. The V-6 is happy on 87. It really is a world class engine. The mustang 3.7 V-6 is a decent enough engine, but the chevy puts it to shame. Smoother, with more linear power delivery. As much as the chevy LS is an awesome engine despite its prehistoric valvetrain, I would like to see chevy tack a few more pots onto the 3.6. It would be an amazing engine.

Hersbird 06-08-2017 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete c (Post 542233)
I haven't driven the turbo 4 camaro, so I can not speak from experience, but after driving that V-6, I can't imagine going with the 4. The 4 may get an extra mpg or two, but I doubt it. The 4 likely does have a taste for high octane. The V-6 is happy on 87. It really is a world class engine. The mustang 3.7 V-6 is a decent enough engine, but the chevy puts it to shame. Smoother, with more linear power delivery. As much as the chevy LS is an awesome engine despite its prehistoric valvetrain, I would like to see chevy tack a few more pots onto the 3.6. It would be an amazing engine.

Actually they do have a twin trubo version the LF3, just not in the Camaro. That would definitely steal sales from the V8 model as would the 3.5 Raptor engine put in a Mustang. Probably why they don't do it.

ProDigit 06-08-2017 01:27 PM

The Camaro is about the same weight as a Cruze, both about 3300LBS.

I know when I have an itch for something, all I have to do, is be patient. In a few years, I'll have more $$$, and be able to buy something, that won't depreciate as much.

Btw, I'm 6'4", so I don't think the doors would be in my way.
I thought heir seats go up/down?

ksa8907 06-08-2017 06:19 PM

I agree 100% with pete c. I test drove a 2010 camaro with the v6 and 6 speed manual because i thought thats what i wanted. You can't see **** out of it. I didn't even feel comfortable parking it when i got back to the lot. It was quite fun though, plenty of power.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com