Quote:
Originally Posted by DjfunkmasterG
Yeah there is that too.
Still though, why screw over a group because you can't engineer a damn motor to work both ways.
|
Who's getting screwed? There's a lot more to winning than the numbers game. Look at the actual track times. Autos and manuals are all in the same pack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeSS
the l99 engine is was defiantly a mistake by GM.. i mean its a good engine.. but they should have had a option where you can get a ls3 in a auto
|
All companies make mistakes. The L99 is simply not one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlingShot
GM does it so we don't have to pay gas guzzler tax .... After all the LS3 is available both ways on the Vette ...
|
The Corvette has some benefits, including weight and aerodynamics. Since the Camaro is designed to be more functional (heavier due to a back seat) and more affordable (less expensive materials), the Camaro will face different hurdles. In this case, a similarly equipped Corvette will have better fuel economy when driven the same way by the same driver in comparison to a Camaro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye
Different companies...different methods. To my knowledge, Ford does not have a displacement on demand feature available in its powertrains. Similarly, The LS-series engine is old. Certain efficiency innovations the Mustang's engine employs are not currently available in GM engines.
The L99/A6 combo was the brainchild of mpg goals. DoD was not compatible with manual transmissions, so it could only be paired with the automatic transmission. And the 'down tuning' is a side-effect of the fuel-saving feature. The lower-profile cam, mainly.
When you stop to think about it...25mpg hwy is better than some large cars...The V6 CTS only gets 26.  Ford was able to get similar numbers in their own way.
Hope that answered the question.  |
Look forward to the next generation of GM V8s.
