AHTOXA wrote:V6 Camaro as an economy car? That would hardly make sense. The V6's fuel economy wasn't all that stellar and it isn't practical enough in other areas to justify that.
The 3800 is very efficient, the car isn't terribly heavy, the car is very aerodynamic, but I assume it was geared low to make up for lack of power...and driven by people who want the opposite of economy. I bet I'd get the same economy from a V8-geared 4th gen V6 as I get from my VW, and have plenty of power for my driving. As for practicality, my commute car just doesn't need much, and a horizontal hatch as on a Camaro would be easier for me than the vertical hatch on my Rabbit (which is awkward for me when I'm carrying stuff, as it opens out towards me).
2002 Camaro V6 manual EPA rating: 17/29.
2008 Rabbit manual EPA rating: 22/29.
I know it's a really odd idea, but I have odd priorities. It doesn't matter anyway, they're pretty hard to find at reasonable prices.
Rope-Pusher wrote:I believe that with cylinder deactivation, V8 fuel economy should be about the same as for the V6 (which doesn't have cylinder deactivation feature).
The 5th gen V8 auto has the L99 engine with cylinder deactivation. The V8 manual has the LS3 engine with more power but no cylinder deactivation. The V6, manual or auto, has the latest Direct Injection technology and is EPA rated for better fuel economy than the V8.
V-6 (304 hp, 273ft-lb - with a nearly flat torque chart)
Manual: 17/29 mpg
Automatic: 18/29 mpg
Manual (426 hp): 16/24 mpg
Automatic (400 hp): 16/25 mpg