Whenever an automaker introduces a redesigned model or makes some significant mechanical changes, usually the fuel economy go slightly up. But there are cases where those numbers remain the same or worse, go down.

The New York Daily News reports that certain versions of the 2019 Chevrolet Camaro see a slight drop in fuel economy.

• 2019 Camaro V6: 1 mpg drop on highway with the manual (27 vs. 28 on the 2018 model), 1 mpg drop in combined with the 8-speed automatic (22 vs. 23)
• 2019 Camaro V8: 1 mpg drop on highway with the manual (24 vs. 25), 1 mpg drop in city with the 10-speed automatic (16 vs. 17)
• 2019 Camaro ZL1: 1 mpg drop in combined with the 10-speed automatic (15 vs. 16)

Other Camaros, such as those equipped with the 2.0L turbo-four remain unchanged in their fuel economy figures.

This is bit bizarre, especially on models equipped with the new 10-speed transmission. Some think it could be the Camaro's new face, which has received mixed reactions could be less aerodynamic than before. But if this was case, wouldn't all of the Camaro variants see some sort of drop?

Source: New York Daily News

View full article

A 1 mpg drop barely matters to the typical Camaro buyer.  Few will actually notice.

Meh, Who Cares, 1 MPG in real world driving, no one is going to notice except some idiot zealot out there who is only looking for a reason to sue GM.

Did weight go up?

14 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Did weight go up?

Looking at the Edmunds site for the 2018 ZL1 V8 comes in at 3883 lbs

USA Today story says the 2019 ZL1 V8 comes in at 3933 lbs

https://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/camaro/2018/zl1/features-specs/

http://www.uscartoday.com/2019-chevrolet-camaro-zl1-specs-and-price/ 

So it would seem that if the ZL1 gained weight, so would the others I am thinking as to why they have lost 1MPG.

100 lbs is certainly enough to tip the rounding up.

i can see why people are not happy about the new front end, but i am getting used to it.  The thing for me about it is the headlights are so small.  I think the squinty eyed look is getting tired...already.

Not sure the Folks that drive these really care anyways....

They added to the standard equipment right?

the 10 speed is supposed to fit in the same sized case as the old GM 8 and Ford 6 speeds and weight like only 6 lbs more of I remembers....

8 hours ago, Suaviloquent said:

They added to the standard equipment right?

the 10 speed is supposed to fit in the same sized case as the old GM 8 and Ford 6 speeds and weight like only 6 lbs more of I remembers....

Yeah, the weight has to be coming from somewhere else. 

17 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

100 lbs is certainly enough to tip the rounding up.

Is 50lbs though? That ws the difference in what @dfelt showed.

Edited August 9, 20186 yr by ccap41

1 minute ago, ccap41 said:

Is 50lbs though? That ws the difference in what @dfelt showed.

dyslexia strikes again. 

I suppose if it was just on the cusp it could cause the rounding issue. 

Perhaps we are at peak gear ratios where adding more speeds over 8 isn't going to gain much in mpg. 

37 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

dyslexia strikes again. 

I suppose if it was just on the cusp it could cause the rounding issue. 

Perhaps we are at peak gear ratios where adding more speeds over 8 isn't going to gain much in mpg. 

It happens to me as well..lol

Yeah I think this is why CVT's are growing in popularity. They offer the versatility that a fixed ratio transmission just can't. 

CVTs are cheap, that's why they're popular with manufacturers.

30 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

CVTs are cheap, that's why they're popular with manufacturers.

Do they not put the engine in its optimal rpm range for fuel economy though? 

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Do they not put the engine in its optimal rpm range for fuel economy though? 

Only when driven in an optimal way... which is to say... the opposite of the way most people drive.

It is possible in a Maxima, because I've done it, to bring the engine up to about 1700 rpm and hold it there and the car will accelerate to 60 mph in a normal rate of speed. 

No one ever drives like that.  I did it just to experiment.

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Do they not put the engine in its optimal rpm range for fuel economy though? 

Yes if as Drew stated driven in an optimal manner which goes against human nature.

Worst part is the CVTs over the long haul just do not keep up the strength. Auto's with them might as well move right to a Plug=in hybrid design with ICE generator as a superior powertrain than go to the CVT.

I want to know why - the new face doesn't look as sharp as the old one, so it is not worth losing 1 mpg over - one concern with the new trans is are they as durable as the old ones - if I am losing 1 mpg over a trans, and it is not as durable either - bring back the old - main thing I want what I pay for - currently I am driving a 99 Mustang six auto, 176000 miles on original six, original trans, no major problems. I have kept it well maintained - and did go one size wider on the existing tires -

54 minutes ago, Dennis Faulkner said:

I want to know why - the new face doesn't look as sharp as the old one, so it is not worth losing 1 mpg over - one concern with the new trans is are they as durable as the old ones - if I am losing 1 mpg over a trans, and it is not as durable either - bring back the old - main thing I want what I pay for - currently I am driving a 99 Mustang six auto, 176000 miles on original six, original trans, no major problems. I have kept it well maintained - and did go one size wider on the existing tires -

Welcome Dennis, great to have you here. Please in the New member thread introduce yourself to everyone. We love to hear about your auto interests and passions.

I agree, they need to address the drop in MPG for better understanding.