2010 Chevrolet Camaro rated at 29 mpg highway

Now that the 2010 Chevy Camaro is finally ready to hit dealerships, details like the car's official EPA estimated fuel mileage and its estimated run to 60 mph are beginning to hit the interwebs. Good news: Both are impressive. According to The General, the 304-horsepower direct-injected 3.6-liter V6 engine that's standard in the LT and LS models will achieve 29 miles per gallon on the highway and 18 mpg in the city with the six-speed automatic, or 17 mpg with the six-speed stick. V8 models also perform more efficiently than expected, with figures of 16 city and 25 highway (24 with the automatic transmission).
Those numbers are better than what the Camaro's muscle car competition can muster across the board. Its eco-victory likely won't last long, however, as the new 2010 Ford Mustang offers carryover engines from the last model year that we expect will be replaced for the 2011 model year with more efficient powertrains, maybe even a twin-turbo, direct-inject EcoBoost V6.
| Muscle Cars Compared: Fuel Economy |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 Chevy Camaro | 2010 Ford Mustang* | 2010 Dodge Challenger |
|
| V6** |
18 city/29 hwy |
16 city/24 hwy |
17 city/25 hwy |
| V8** |
16 city/25 hwy |
17 city/23 hwy |
13 city/19 hwy |
| Trans - M |
six-speed |
five-speed |
six-speed |
| Trans - A |
six-speed |
five-speed |
four- and five-speed |
**Most powerful version of engine type offered with automatic transmission
As a performance car, we're obviously interested in more than just fuel mileage, and the 2010 Camaro SS doesn't disappoint with a (so far unverified) 0-60 mph run of just 4.7 seconds. Stay tuned for our initial driving impressions later in the week. For a full set of specifications and the accompanying press release, click on past the break.
Gallery: 2010 Chevy Camaro
Gallery: 2010 Chevy Camaro - Mechanicals
[Source: General Motors]
PRESS RELEASE
2010 CHEVY CAMARO'S PERFORMANCE BLENDS HORSEPOWER WITH EFFICIENCY
DETROIT – When it comes to performance, the 2010 Camaro delivers in unexpected ways. An advanced 3.6L direct-injected V-6 with variable valve timing is standard on LS and LT models. It offers power and efficiency, with 304 horsepower (227 kW) and EPA-rated 29 mpg in highway driving.
The performance-oriented Camaro SS offers a pair of 6.2L V-8s, including one with Active Fuel Management that helps improve fuel economy by shutting down four cylinders during certain light-load driving conditions. That model delivers 25 mpg in EPA-rated highway fuel economy.
Indeed, the surprising fuel economy of the new Camaro enhances the driving experience. LS and LT models are EPA-rated at 18 mpg in the city and 29 on the highway with an automatic transmission; and 17 city and 29 highway with the manual transmission. Camaro SS with an automatic is rated at 16 city and 25 highway; and 16 city/24 highway with the manual transmission. Notably, none of Camaro's models is subject to federal gas guzzler taxes.
For comparison, the more expensive 2009 Dodge Challenger SRT8 offers comparable horsepower to the Camaro SS with the manual transmission – 425 (317 kW) vs. 426 (318 kW) – and is EPA-rated at 14 city and 22 highway. When automatic-equipped models are compared, the Camaro wins again, with the Challenger SRT8 rated at 13 city and 19 highway.
All of Camaro's engines channel their power to a responsive chassis that features independent front and rear suspensions, large, four-wheel-disc brake systems with standard ABS and GM's StabiliTrak electronic stability control system.
3.6L direct injection V-6
Camaro's 3.6L direct injection (DI) V-6 delivers more power through increased efficiency, while maintaining fuel economy and lowering emissions – including a 25-percent drop in cold-start hydrocarbon emissions. Direct injection optimizes fuel delivery to the combustion chamber by introducing fuel closer to the combustion chamber. The fuel injectors are located beneath the intake ports and fuel is injected directly into the cylinder. The result is better efficiency in the combustion process leading to increased fuel efficiency at part and full throttle.
The 3.6L DI engine produces 304 horsepower (227 kW) at 5,900 rpm and 273 lb.-ft. of torque (370 Nm) at 5,200 rpm. Its 60-degree cylinder block and cylinder heads are cast aluminum to help reduce mass. A forged steel crankshaft provides optimal strength in the bottom end. The cylinder heads include four valves per cylinder, with a dual overhead camshaft design incorporating infinitely variable cam phasing.
A full dual exhaust system, with dual catalytic converters, helps reduce back pressure for optimum power. It also helps the engine reach operating temperature quicker to help burn off cold-start emissions. And despite a compression ratio of 11.3:1, the 3.6L DI engine is designed to run on regular gas.
Camaro SS's 6.2L powertrains
Two 6.2L V-8 engines are offered in the Camaro SS, including the new L99 on automatic-equipped vehicles and the LS3 on manual-equipped models. Both engines are derived from the LS3 that debuted on the 2008 Corvette.
The 90-degree V-8 includes an aluminum block (with cast iron cylinder liners) and aluminum cylinder heads. The bottom end of the engine includes a new structural cast aluminum oil pan, with an oil capacity of 8.9 quarts (8.5 liters), while the two-valve cylinder head design is based on race-proven airflow dynamics. The intake valves measure 2.16 inches (55 mm) and exhaust valves are 1.60 inches (40.5 mm) in diameter.
The 6.2L engines also use a roller lifter-style camshaft with 5-percent greater intake-side valve lift than the Corvette's LS3. It manages airflow that is channeled through an acoustically tuned intake manifold with a composite design that reduces runner-to-runner variation. The throttle bore diameter is 90 mm.
Horsepower for the L99 is 400 (298 kW) at 5,900 rpm and torque is 410 lb.-ft. (556 Nm) at 4,300 rpm. The LS3 develops 426 horsepower (318 kW) at 5,900 rpm and 420 lb.-ft. (569 Nm) at 4,600 rpm (all numbers are SAE certified). Output on the L99 is lower than the LS3 because of a slighter lower compression ratio (10.4:1 vs. 10.7:1) and design features of the Active Fuel Management System. The L99 is paired exclusively with an automatic transmission.
As with the 3.6L models, the SS models employ a full dual exhaust system, with two catalytic converters to reduce back pressure.
Transmissions
All Camaro models can be equipped with either a six-speed manual or six-speed automatic transmission. The availability of a six-speed automatic transmission is a first for Camaro.
Standard with the 3.6L engine is the Aisin AY6 six-speed manual. It features lower shift effort and shorter throws for easier shifting and "fun-to-drive" characteristics. A hydraulic clutch and self-adjusting mechanism eliminates the need for adjustments throughout the lifespan of the transmission.
The Hydra-Matic 6L50 six-speed automatic is optional with 3.6L-equipped models. It has an aggressive 4.07:1 first gear ratio that delivers strong launches, but also provides tall overdrive ratios that decrease engine rpm and provide better fuel efficiency. The 6L50 also includes driver shift control, with the driver taking control via paddle shifts located on the steering wheel after selecting the "M" mode on the console-mounted shifter.
Performance Algorithm Shifting (PAS) is included with the 6L50. It lets the electronic transmission controller override the automatic gear selection during high lateral acceleration maneuvers.
On SS models, the new Tremec TR 6060 six-speed manual is paired with the LS3. It is designed to handle the high torque characteristics of the engine, while providing shorter throws, smoother gear synchronization and greater overall shift feel with little or no vibration. Its specs include a solid 290 mm flywheel and single-plate clutch. The final drive ratio for LS3 vehicles is 3.45:1.
The highest-capacity automatic ever in a GM passenger car, the Hydra-Matic 6L80 six-speed automatic, is matched with the L99 engine. Like the 6L50 transmission, it features driver shift control and PAS. The final drive ratio on all automatic-equipped Camaro models is 3.27:1.
2010 CHEVROLET CAMARO SPECIFICATIONS
Overview
|
Models: |
Chevrolet Camaro LS, LT and SS |
|
Body style / driveline: |
four-passenger, front-engine, rear-drive coupe |
|
Construction: |
unitized body frame, one- and two-sided galvanized steel |
|
EPA vehicle class: |
coupe |
|
Manufacturing location: |
Oshawa, Ontario, Canada |
|
Key competitors: |
Dodge Challenger, Ford Mustang, Nissan 370Z |
Engines
|
|
3.6L V-6 DI VVT (LLT) |
6.2L V-8 (LS3, L99) |
|
Application: |
LS, LT |
SS |
|
Type: |
3.6L V-6 |
6.2L V-8 |
|
Displacement (cu in / cc): |
217 / 3564 |
376 / 6162 |
|
Bore & stroke (in / mm): |
3.70 x 3.37 / 94 x 85.6 |
4.06 x 3.62 / 103.25 x 92 |
|
Block material: |
cast aluminum w/ cast-in-place iron bore liners |
cast aluminum w/ cast-in-place iron bore liners |
|
Cylinder head material: |
aluminum |
aluminum |
|
Valvetrain: |
dual overhead camshafts, four valves per cylinder, continuously variable valve timing |
valve-in-head; two valves per cylinder; roller lifters; Active Fuel Management (L99) |
|
Ignition system: |
electronic individual coil-on-plug; individual cylinder knock control and extended-life platinum-tipped spark plugs |
high-energy distributorless ignition; solid state direct-fire ignition w/ coil near plug and integrated ignition |
|
Fuel delivery: |
direct high-pressure fuel injection |
returnless, multi-port fuel injection |
|
Compression ratio: |
11.3:1 |
10.7:1 (LS3); 10.4:1 (L99) |
|
Horsepower (hp / kW @ rpm): |
304 / 227 @ 6400 |
426 / 318 @ 5900 (LS3) |
|
Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ rpm): |
273 / 370 @ 5200* |
420 / 569 @ 4600 (LS3)* |
|
Recommended fuel: |
regular unleaded |
premium recommended |
|
Maximum engine speed (rpm): |
7000 |
6000 (L99) |
|
Emissions controls: |
evaporative system, close-coupled catalytic converter, equal-length exhaust, single underfloor catalytic converter, positive crankcase ventilation, intake and exhaust cam phasers, electronic throttle control |
evaporative system, close-coupled catalytic converters, positive crankcase ventilation, electronic throttle control |
|
Estimated fuel economy |
18 / 29 – auto |
16 / 25 – auto |
Transmissions
|
|
Hydra-Matic 6L50 six-speed automatic (LS, LT) w/ TAPshift |
Hydra-Matic 6L80 six-speed automatic (SS) w/ TAPshift |
Aisin AY6 six-speed manual (LS, LT) |
Tremec TR6060 six-speed manual (SS) |
|
Gear ratios (:1): |
|
|
|
|
|
First: |
4.07 |
4.03 |
4.48 |
3.01 |
|
Second: |
2.37 |
2.36 |
2.58 |
2.07 |
|
Third: |
1.55 |
1.53 |
1.63 |
1.43 |
|
Fourth: |
1.16 |
1.15 |
1.19 |
1.00 |
|
Fifth: |
0.85 |
0.85 |
1.00 |
0.84 |
|
Sixth: |
0.67 |
0.67 |
0.75 |
0.57 |
|
Reverse: |
3.06 |
3.06 |
3.67 |
3.28 |
|
Final drive ratio: |
3.27 |
3.27 |
3.27 |
3.45 |
Chassis/Suspension
|
Front: |
double-ball-joint, multi-link strut; direct-acting stabilizer bar; progressive-rate coil springs; fully adjustable camber, caster and toe |
|
Rear: |
4.5-link independent; progressive-rate coil springs over shocks; stabilizer bar; fully adjustable camber and toe |
|
Steering type: |
variable-ratio rack-and-pinion |
|
Steering ratio: |
16.1:1 |
|
Steering wheel turns, lock-to-lock: |
2.5 |
|
Turning circle, curb-to-curb (ft / m): |
37.7/11.5 |
Brakes
|
Type: |
four-wheel disc w/ ABS; ventilated front and rear rotors; single-piston front calipers and single-piston alloy rear calipers (LS, LT); four-piston fixed Brembo aluminum front and rear calipers (SS) |
|
Rotor diameter, front (in / mm): |
LS, LT: 12.64 / 321 |
|
Rotor diameter, rear (in / mm): |
LS, LT: 12.4 / 315 |
|
Rotor thickness, front (in / mm): |
LS, LT: 1.18 / 30 |
|
Rotor thickness, rear (in / mm): |
LS, LT: 0.9 / 23 |
Wheels/Tires
|
|
LS |
LT |
SS |
|
Wheel size and type: |
18 x 7.5-inch steel
|
18 x 7.5-inch aluminum 19 x 8-inch aluminum |
20 x 8-inch aluminum (front) |
|
Tires: |
P245/55R18 all-season |
P245/55R18 all-season P245/50R19 all-season |
P245/45ZR20 summer (front) |
Dimensions
Exterior
|
Wheelbase (in / mm): |
112.3 / 2852 |
|
Overall length (in / mm): |
190.4 / 4836 |
|
Overall width (in / mm): |
75.5 / 1918 |
|
Overall height (in / mm): |
54.2 / 1376 |
|
Track, front (in / mm): |
63.7 / 1618 |
|
Track, rear (in / mm): |
64.1 / 1628 (LS, LT) |
|
Curb weight (lb / kg): |
3769 / 1713 – LS w/ automatic |
|
Weight balance (% front / rear): |
52 / 48 |
|
Coefficient of drag: |
0.37 (LS, LT); 0.35 (SS) |
Interior
|
Seating capacity (front / rear): |
2 / 2 |
|
Headroom (in / mm): |
front: 37.4 / 950 |
|
Legroom (in / mm): |
front: 42.4 / 1077 |
|
Shoulder room (in / mm): |
front: 56.9 / 1444 |
Capacities
|
Cargo volume (cu ft / L): |
11.3 / 320 |
|
Fuel tank (gal / L): |
19 / 71.9 |
|
Engine oil (qt / L): |
3.6L: 7.6 / 7.2 |
*SAE certified.
Note: Information shown is current at time of publication.













Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
Luis 12:40PM (3/16/2009)
That's what a 6-speed automatic will do.
Reply
larry a 12:48PM (3/16/2009)
and long gears
MikeW 1:03PM (3/16/2009)
and direct injection & variable valve timing.
jv2k 3:05PM (3/16/2009)
And people say american cars get bad fuel economy.
SimbaDogg 4:48PM (3/16/2009)
holy shiiiiiet...i'm surprised the v6 only takes regular unleaded. i was thinking to myspace, wow...29 mpg thats pretty damn good. but 29 mpg, plus saving 30 cents (compared to preimum, at least here in cali) per gallon is a hell of a deal.
D_X 10:40AM (3/17/2009)
What may I ask is "thinking to myspace"?
why not the LS2LS7? 12:42PM (3/16/2009)
An EcoBoost V6 isn't likely to give the Mustang the fuel economy upper hand. Despite the name, the primary thing the EcoBoost brings is more power, not more fuel economy. It's a very efficient 360HP motor. But unless they play some gearing trickery, it shouldn't be able to outdo a NA 300HP V6 on economy. Especially with the weight of AWD.
Reply
adam 12:44PM (3/16/2009)
actually thats where your wrong. ecoboost does bring more power but it gets equal to slightly better FE than the naturally aspirated v6. but it has the same or more power than a v8 but far better FE.
zamafir 12:45PM (3/16/2009)
yup, and given it's bi turbo, i'd assume it'll need premium petrol, vs the camaro v6 using regular. What an awesome bang for the buck in terms of fuel economy and performance. Very well done.
BigMcLargeHuge 12:52PM (3/16/2009)
zamafir,
I believe they are testing the ecoboost to run on RUG.
It's direct injection, making it easier to manage pre-detonation.
Arumage 12:57PM (3/16/2009)
Ecoboost uses regular unleaded. I'll be interested to see what kind of mpg it can make. The only application we have numbers on is the Lincoln MKS, which is a 4300 lbs. AWD behemoth. I would imagine it would get much better numbers in a 3600 lbs. RWD application.
why not the LS2LS7? 1:01PM (3/16/2009)
adam:
No.
All other things being equal (most notably gearing), A turbocharged V6 isn't going to match a similar regular V6 on fuel economy, because they have similar internal friction and the turbocharged engine has lower compression ration and more weight to carry around. And the V6 here isn't even similar, it's smaller (in size and displacement).
Yeah, a turbo V6 might be able to beat a NA V8 of similar power. However, in this case the EcoBoost better hope DI carries the day, because at a similar physical size to the LS3 and so much more valve gear to operating, it's going to need to do a lot just to try to catch up.
BigMcLargeHuge 1:19PM (3/16/2009)
LS7,
What evidence is there that the Mustang will come with AWD?
Also, all of that is only true in theory. But the gearing and platforms will not be the same. Nor will any part of the engine.
The ecoboost is also supposed to be very light and well packaged. And since engines are getting more efficient with each successive generation, its really hard to say how much resistance their cylinder walls or valving will have.
I'm not saying either/or is true with any certainty, just that its hard to predict. Fortunately for GM, thats not an issue while Ford takes their sweet time with the ecoboost.
zamafir 1:31PM (3/16/2009)
BigMcLargeHuge, since bi turbo engines, and direct injection are not new to the industry (though Ford's hopping on the band wagon now) and have been used for a few years now (in the case of direct injection) and over a decade (in the case of bi turbo applications in volume production cars) would you mind highlighting a few examples running regular (87) fuel? If that becomes a difficult task, could you explain why it is that Ford will not need to run premium fuel while using a bi turbo direct injected powerplant? I’m not saying it’s not possible, just counter intuitive to all the applications we’ve already seen.
akboss302 1:35PM (3/16/2009)
As if anybody that drives a Camaro is going to see 29 MPG. Chances are, they aren't the drivers oriented to frugality. For most drivers, the city number is the only one that's applicable, unless of course you drive at 85 km/h in a straight line without braking on purely level and straight asphalt roads with an outside temp of 20 degrees for an entire tank of gas, all the time.
henrykrinkle 1:42PM (3/16/2009)
@why not the LS2LS7?:
No.
EcoBoost gets better fuel economy with much more power.
EcoBoost MKS AWD expected to get 16/25mpg (from Ford press release).
2009 3.7 (NA) MKS AWD gets 16/23.
You are consistently one of the biggest critics of EcoBoost. What part of these numbers don't you understand?
BigMcLargeHuge 1:50PM (3/16/2009)
zamafir,
The two technologies can exist separately, but combined are greater than the sum of their parts. Its not counter-intuitive, its just anti-conventional.
By injecting fuel when the piston is top-dead center and already charged with intake air (rather than charging an air-fuel mixture as the piston is on its up-stroke), pre-detonation is highly unlikely, if not impossible. Therefore, you could use any octane fuel you liked if the compression and ignition timing were set to match.
If this is difficult to understand in words, you could look up any of the resources Ford has set aside, including interviews with magazines to explain the process. There are even a few diagrams.
MikeW 1:54PM (3/16/2009)
It won't be the engine that increases the mileage on the '11 Mustang, it will be the transmission.
Bye-bye 5 speed stick & automatic. Welcome 6 speed auto/stick.
Ecoboost takes premium. It should make the same power with reduced mileage on regular.
The compression ratio is 10:1, only marginally off the 10.3 in the 3.5/3.7
That is still better than the 4.0-9.7:1, 4.6-9.8:1
Speed up, the mileage at 85kph is going to be the same as 90kph. The revs are too low at 85kph, 1400rpm.
why not the LS2LS7? 1:57PM (3/16/2009)
Big:
EcoBoost includes AWD. That's what Ford says. That's my only evidence. I can't rule out that they would change their policies, but right now I have to assume they won't.
henrykrinkle:
The 3.7L is not direct injected. Did you happen to notice the efficiency gains DI brings? Take a look at the Porsche 911 for an example.
I said all other things being equal.
I don't think the EcoBoost engine with DI is going to beat the GM HF DI V6 on economy. It'll beat it on power, that's for sure. But unless they play gearing games it's going to probably lose on mpg. I stuck that probably in that last sentence because I hadn't considered until now that the Mustang is lighter than the Camaro. But I still don't think it can carry the day.
MikeW 2:06PM (3/16/2009)
The Mustang isn't going to come with Haldex [well somebody could make a one-off for exhibition] it doesn't need to be more front heavy.
The 3.7 MKS Haldex has a 3.39 axle ratio, the 3.5TT has 2.77 22+% difference. There is the highway difference. [23.4 vs 24.5 rounding up vs rounding down]