[JimGnitecki]

Today, I drove 675 miles from Canada into Wyoming, in 11 hours, including all gas and bathroom stops, and it was almost all better than expected:

- No issues with the seats despite being in the driver's seat most of that time. Yes, I had the dealer add aftermarket lipstick red leather upholstery to replace the OEM gray, but I don't think changing the upholstery affected the comfort or support.

- PLENTY of power for passing on 2-lane segments, and yet very smooth and not loud unless I pressed the throttle with some vigor. I had my Magnuson 2650 kit installed by Davenport Motorpsorts, the Canadian distributor, and to my knowledge, the tune is the same one everyone else gets for an unmodified Camaro. I am mightily impressed with that everyday & toruing friendly tune, especially its tolerance for what fuel it is fed. I normally fill the tank with Mobil 94 (recently introduced into Alberta maybe 3 or 4 months ago). But in Montana and Wyoming, the best gas I could find was Exxon 91 octane, so I had to use that. The engine did not complain or feel different in this touring role with htis 91 ocatne fuel, and still responded like a rocket in 2-lane passing. (See also my fuel mileage comments below)

- because of applicable speed limits and 2 to 3 mph overages on average, the Alberta (Canada) segment was driven at 71 mph, while Montana and Wyoming, where speed limits are mostly 80 and 75, were mostly at 83, with some short segments at 78. The only problem with these speeds in the LT1 is that strong crosswinds (strong enough to extend flags FULLY) made the interior notably noisy. Headwinds or tailwinds hardly noisy at all. But, because the car is so LOW in overall height, crosswinds did NOT affect the handling at all.

- Despite the high speeds in these deserted areas, the fuel mileage AVERAGE was a bit over 25 MPG! I think that's pretty superb for a 650 crank hp hot rod.

- The suspension, which on my LT1 is bone stock, is a bit bouncy on pavement/concrete joints, and transmits a LOT of unwanted movement on pavement irregularities. Mind you, I am running the OEM Run-Flats in front, and 275 wide Nitto street drag radials in the rear, and neither these front or rear tires are anywhere near "touring" in their demeanor, so this may be something "that should be expected" when pushed into a touring role.

- While the trunk is small, and the trunk lid is ridiculously tiny, there was plenty of room for everything I could pissibly need or want for an 8-day vacation, AND there was enough room left over for my adult son to add his stuff when I pick him up tomorrow at Denver Airport for our vacation together. For a "sports car" I consider this adequate.

- Summers in western states result in bugs coating the front end of any car. The Camaro was no exception, and I had to wash off plenty of bugs today. BUT, that nicely sloped and not very high windshield

- It was over 90 degrees F outside in MT and WY today, but I was totally unaware of that until I got OUT of the car at gas and bathroom stops. The AC in the Camaro is VERY capable.

So overall, I was impressed by the car's behaviour today. I bought it for use primarily as a short-drive-at-a-time personal hot rod. But it passed my touring test just fine.

Oh, by the way, I am 72-1/2 years of age, so when I say the car was comfortable for a sports car, that REALLY means something. I am definitely not an "athletic, in-shape, limber bodied individual" at my age,

Jim G

[LT1gen6]

Great report, Jim. That's quite a vacation shuttle. Enjoy!

[FH212]

Sounds like a fun trip!

[JimGnitecki]

Turns out I was a little pessimistic on the fuel average for the entire 956 mile trip from home to the hotel in Denver. I filled the car up today shortly after arriving, and the dash panel shows that I averaged 26.2 MPG for the entire trip. Given the speeds I drove it, this is pretty impressive for a supercharged V8.

I used to be able to hit that kind of MPG with my 6-speed manual 2002 Corvette Z06, but that car's engine made "only" 405 crank hp, AND did not have the low end torque that the newer car has either, nor the always-in-the-powerband 10-speed automatic.

The gasoline fueled engine is being replaced by electric motors, but it is going out in style.

[LT4Greg]

Great write up Jim! Glad it worked out for you and you can tour in a ZL1 like that too!��

[SnakeEyeSS]

Sounds like you had a fun trip.
What color is it?

My Yellow Camaro is a bug magnet. I guess they think it's the sun or a light source. I can drive it 5 miles and have to clean bugs when I get home. The red one has 150 miles and I think I cleaned off one bug so far.

I imagine Shock might be even worse

[JimGnitecki]

Originally Posted by SnakeEyeSS

Sounds like you had a fun trip.
What color is it?

My Yellow Camaro is a bug magnet. I guess they think it's the sun or a light source. I can drive it 5 miles and have to clean bugs when I get home. The red one has 150 miles and I think I cleaned off one bug so far.

I imagine Shock might be even worse

Mine is white. Very bright white!

Jim G

[JimGnitecki]

The overall detailed statistics for the supercharged Camaro LT1 trip came out even more impressive:

Total length of the trip: 2296 miles in 7 days.

Broken down as:

956 mile drive from Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada to Denver Airport mostly at 78 MPH and 83 MPH: 11.5 hours, 26.2 MPG

383 miles driven in mountainous terrain between Denver & Vail, CO, mostly at 60 MPH: statistics not isolated

956 mile drive home from Denver Airport to Lethbridge mostly at 78 MPH and 83 MPH: 15.33 hours IN ONE DAY with only 90 minutes outside the car (!!), 27.9 MPG

The fuel mileage average for the entire trip - going out, driving in the Colorado mountains, and return - was 26.8 MPG for the 2296 miles driven.

I think the difference on fuel mileage between going out and returning was due to wind. There were strong, noisy crosswinds on the trip to Denver, and rather mild, quiet winds on the return trip.

The 78 and 83 MPH speeds were possible because both Montana and Wyoming have open highway speeds of either 75 or 80 MPH most of the time, with 65 MPH speeds limited to only a few areas (like Interstates through the cities, and narrower than typical highways), other than of course actually passing through small towns, of which there were a LOT because I took the "shortcut" US Hwy 87 route versus interstate route through much of Montana. Those small towns were typically posted at 30 to 45 mph but were VERY brief.

That also means that my average speed while actually driving (15.33 hr minus 90 minutes = 13.83 hours) was 956 miles / 13.83 hours = 69 MPH. This of course was only possible because of the high speed limits in all 3 states, except for cities and towns. The cities, towns, construction zones, and slow moving big rig and RV vehicles all contributed to the average speed getting so low despite my pushing the high speed limits by 3 mph using cruise control (ready to plead “speedometer built-in conservative error but knew it would likely be unnecessary in these western states). Passing required the application of lots of power, as the mountainous terrain in both Wyoming and Montana really limits the length of “good visibility” sections of road, and the construction segments, and the truckers’ use of the same US 87 shortcut as I was using, made the big rigs constant slow blockers that needed to be passed very quickly.

Note that I was able to sit in the car on the return trip for all but 90 minutes during the entire 15.33 hour trip. THAT’s how comfortable the seating and driving positions are in this “sports car”. Even for a driver who is 72 years of age. The only discomfort at ALL came about 10 hours into the return drive, and was NOT due to the car. Rather, the top backs of my new shoes started to hurt the tops of my heels, because my 28” inseam requires an unfortunate forward position to reach the pedals, and when my right foot is OFF the accelerator, which is most of the time when using cruise control, the right foot has to be far enough rearward that the rear tops of the shoes dig into my heels. After I changed to my running shoes, that issue went away.

The car impressed me in this “touring" usage with both its ergonomics and the fuel mileage from the non-stock supercharged engine.


Jim G

[haggler]

I got 26.5 MPG with my 6 speed driving from LA to Vegas, and that is not exactly flat terrain. I also tried to save fuel but didnt hyper mile or anything, plenty of power to pass people and there was some traffic. I have the same FE3 suspension, and it was very comfortable. If I had the auto, it would probably closer to 30. The fuel economy is impressive if you try.

[PostalLDMC]

I love the drive you did.. But my problem was my right knee hitting the plastic knee pad. I got it fixed with my padded knee pads. Now 2 more drag race then a long run to Internation Falls head west to Devils Lake see the 4 heads and then head home. I can only hope for the fun drive like you did.

[GAOLDGUY]

Jim,

This is a fantastic writeup and stands as a great testimony to the Maggy 2650. If you don't mind me asking, you indicated that you had 650 crank hp. On the Magnuson website I thought they indicated their tune was good for 588 hp. I assume that is the 50 state emissions tune that they are trying to get passed by California.

You car is completely stock except for Maggy?
Did they dyno your car after the install?
Did they do a baseline before the install?

[302crossram]

I have the A10 and can easily hit 30mpg with 93 octane corn free gas

thats WITH the range device plugged in

[JimGnitecki]

Originally Posted by GAOLDGUY

Jim,

This is a fantastic writeup and stands as a great testimony to the Maggy 2650. If you don't mind me asking, you indicated that you had 650 crank hp. On the Magnuson website I thought they indicated their tune was good for 588 hp. I assume that is the 50 state emissions tune that they are trying to get passed by California.

You car is completely stock except for Maggy?
Did they dyno your car after the install?
Did they do a baseline before the install?

The car is completely stock except for the Magnuson kit, and the Nitto 555R2 tires that the Magnuson installation made necessary (with the OEM tires, the ECU engaged traction control any time WOT was applied, and kept the TC on even at th ehighest speeds I have ever taken the car to - about 85 - 90 mph).

Yes, Davenport dynoed the car after the installation, and the rear wheel hp corresponded to 650 crank hp. The 588 hp you apparently saw at the Magnuson website was likely the rwhp for a car equipped with the MANUAL transmission versus the 10-speed automatic. That represents about a 10% manual tranny driveline loss, which is about right for a manual. The 10-speed is slightly less efficient (I think around 560 rwhp so a 14% driveline loss). The automatic transmissions that preceded the 10-speed were far less efficient. The 10-speed is notably quicker in the 1/4 mile than the manual though, because it has more gears, and can shift quicker than the manual.

I cannot remember if they did a baseline run, but most shops do just to make sure they are working on a healthy car.

The tune I got is apparently a "standard" Magnuson tune for the Gen 6 Camaro, and is so conservative that I have zero worries about reliability or durability. That is what I wanted.

Jim G

Jim G

[JimGnitecki]

Originally Posted by 302crossram

I have the A10 and can easily hit 30mpg with 93 octane corn free gas

thats WITH the range device plugged in

Yes, this last generation of the Chevy V8 is a pretty incredible package. The internal combustion engine is going out with a big splash!

Jim G