By on August 29, 2008

Mullet-mania redux? (courtesy"If you're sick of high gas prices, one remedy may be the V6 version of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro." Oh for Pete's sake; AutoWeek [print] is pimping a Chevy that's half a year away from the showrooms. In that sense, Greg Migliore's "Camaro Cure" is re-volting. "Ultimately, the V6 is expected to make up 70 percent of the car's 100,000 sales," Greg unquestioningly reports. "And General Motors says that fuel efficiency– just as much as raw power– will be a key selling point. The V6 Camaro is expected to deliver 26mpg on the highway." It's one thing when a manufacturer quotes highway mileage in an attempt to draw attention away from gas-piggery. It's another when a car mag does so on its behalf, and makes that some kind of lame-ass "talking point." The rest of the article is pretty much as expected, save "…overall the car feels more nimble than Dodge Challengers we've driven." File that one under "invidious distinctions." 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!


24 Comments on “AutoWeek: Fuel-sipping V6 Camaro Rocks! Theoretically....”

  • avatar

    All first drives are this way which is why I don’t read them. They are worthless and don’t generally tell us the good, the bad and the ugly about the car. In the Camaro’s case GM invited the media out to drive the V6 prototype and not the final production car, why bother?.

    Still, you can’t blame GM.

    They are pushing the V6 model out there first to get it in people’s minds. When release approaches they will do the same with the SS, which they are keeping the lid on so they have something to keep the car buzzworthy and in the forefront when it starts production.

    As impressive as the V6 looks on paper it’s still going to get smoked by the current Mustang GT and it’s projected price doesn’t make the V6 Camaro a whole lot cheaper either. I also doubt it will return “fuel-sipping” economy as it doesn’t do this in the CTS (overall mpg city and hwy) and neither does the standard variant in the G8. It’s really no different than the stellar V8s GM already makes. Edmunds also mentioned it doesn’t sound great, I’ll pass.

    The fact remains that if you want a car like this it’s all about the V8 experience and the style. Do yourselves a favor and get the SS.

  • avatar

    26 MPG highway? Wow, that’s amazing, that’s only 3 MPG LESS than the 2002 V6 Camaro (29 HWY under the new standards, 31 under the old). Yes it had less power, but it also didn’t have direct injection, dual overhead cams, variable valve timing, etc.

    Actually, the old V8 Camaro got 26 MPG HWY (under the new standards).

    The current 430 HP Corvette also gets 26 MPG HWY.

    Anyway, manufacturers need to start quoting combined mileage or stating both city and highway mileage, this highway mileage game is getting tiresome.

  • avatar

    I really don’t get buying a V6 Camaro or Mustang.

    Get the V8 or buy a normal car.

  • avatar

    Sorry, but a velvety smooth 300 HP V6 has a lot of appeal. I realize that for the gold-chain, peen-extender crowd that the V8 is essential, but I find it hard to knock a RWD coupe with 300 horses under the hood (stick shift only, of course).

    Also, are you guys really arguing over 3 highway MPG? Wow. Sounds like you might be interested in a nice Scion tC…

  • avatar

    no aregument over 3 mpg.. the arguement is over the fact that cars wonderful safty features make it so heavy that it can’t outperform its older brother from 6 years ago 2 years from now. The v8 stang is the the performance value of the three when it comes to cheap potential

  • avatar

    Crappy reporting and vegan editorials are why I decided to let my subscription to AutoWeek lapse. They reported the ambiguous “$700 EcoBoost premium” without saying premium over what.

    Their magazine is nothing but a bunch of packaged press releases.

  • avatar

    If the V6 can perform, there is nothing wrong with it, although depending on the economy and price differences, I would just as well go for the V8 for the sound and knowing I had the better one, even if I would never use it to its full extent.

    26 MPG isn’t bad for a 300hp vehicle by any means, and I see no problem with advertising highway MPG. Everyone has their own blend of highway/city driving (two years ago I was 95% highway, 5% city, now it has swung to about 20% highway, 80% city, but that could change anytime) so why not advertise your number that is the best? As long as everyone is advertising the same number at least things are somewhat comparable.

    The economy quotes I’ve never seen a point for are the ones in the auto mags that show ‘observed fuel economy’ which is almost always lower than or equal to city fuel economy. Well no wonder, after you’ve just spent the review telling us how you flogged the car and then give us test track numbers to prove it. Anyone who drives like that with any regularity (and would therefore care about that observed economy) obviously doesn’t care a whole lot about economy in the first place.

  • avatar

    Don’t be too hard on Autoweek. It has 3 things going for it that keep me subscribing

    1. It’s cheap, less than $.50 per issue.
    2. It comes out every week.
    3. You can read it in the bathroom.

  • avatar

    The truth about a new model will only be written about in Autoweek (or most of the other rags) when they are reviewing the NEXT generation. Look up any generation of Corvette or Jeep Wrangler review for examples. Almost invariably it is filled with hyperbole about the feats of engineering that were achieved and what a fantastic vehicle it is…until the first review of the next generation is written. At that point the previous generation is written off as being practically the crudest cart ever to be pushed off onto the public.

    Nobody is ever going to buy the Camaro as a fuel efficient vehicle. Completely different demographics. If you care about fuel economy, there is no good reason to look at anything larger than a 4cylinder. Style and perceived image might (maybe) sell a V6 Camaro, but not fuel efficiency.

  • avatar

    True, my 1997 Camaro (200HP V6, 5-Speed) used to turn around 28-30 on the highway and around 21-24 in “suburban” driving, but it “only” weighed 3300 pounds. Also, that platform seemed to have the edge aerodynamically as well.
    Given the extra 300lbs and “retro” front end, I’d expect around 17/25 “real world” from this car.
    Not bad, by any means, especially with the extra 100 horses, but just think what they could have had is they’d kept the weight down and had a front end that was less “brick-like”.
    But, that the price of the “retro-look”, I suppose.

  • avatar

    Ever since the SN95 Mustang, the fastest V6 Camaro (manual tranny coupe) and the slowest V8 Mustang (automatic convertible) have usually produced similiar performance numbers. It would appear that Chevrolet is trying to continue that tradition.

  • avatar
    Matthew Potena

    I saw that vegan editorial last week and was shocked? Was I reading a car magazine or a Sierra Club brochure? Autoweek should be ashamed of itself for that column.

  • avatar

    WalterRohrl – are you the rally driver who drove the first gen Quattros in Germany? Prior that you probably drove an Ascona 400? Or are you his fan? Sorry. Just curious.

  • avatar

    let`s compare prev gen Camaro with the new one and their origin.
    1.Camaro 1993 2. Camaro 2008
    1.Engine- american 2.engine- american and

    1.gearbox-american 2.gearbox- japanese and

    1.platform -american 2.platform- german
    derivative from australia
    1.interior stamping and
    engineering – US 2. interior stamping and engineering- korea, Germany assembly-Canada Assembly – canada
    woolalala, and quality has arrived :))

  • avatar

    I doubt a V6 Camaro is going to be as fast as an auto Mustang GT vert… since the auto will run 0-60 in 5.5 seconds easily.

  • avatar

    Um, the Camaro isn’t nearly a year away. It’s supposed to go into production in February, and be on sale the month afterwards.

  • avatar


    See what happens when you take time off? JJ’s been whacked forty times with a wet noodle.

    Text amended.

  • avatar


    Nobody bats a thousand, and I give +1 respect to those who man up.

    My God, the Camaro is almost here. I’ll take one in yellow, with black Z/28 stripes painted on, and I’ll call it Bumblebee. ^_^

  • avatar

    If I’m buying a 6-cylinder Camaro, it will be a ’68, with a good old fashioned INLINE six.

    Come to think of it, why doesn’t the new Camaro use the I-6 from the Colorado??

  • avatar

    They don’t use the I-6 from the Colorado because they don’t have one. The Colorado uses an I-4 and an I-5.

  • avatar
    John Williams

    Not only does GM NOT have an I6 available, it would also be a bit hard to package within the confines of the engine bay, considering the V6 and V8 engines are a bit shorter than their inline counterparts.

  • avatar

    Qusus: “I doubt a V6 Camaro is going to be as fast as an auto Mustang GT vert… since the auto will run 0-60 in 5.5 seconds easily.”It’s highly unlikely that a stock SN95 auto ‘vert had a 0-60 time of 5.5 seconds. Back in the nineties, the SN95 Mustang GT was well-known to be a stone (especially when compared with the 5.7L V8 GM f-bodies of the day). A period DOHC Neon (as well as an f-body with the 3.8 V6) could nearly keep up with the slowest, heaviest SN95 V8 (the auto ‘vert).

  • avatar

    Conslaw said: “Don’t be too hard on Autoweek. It has 3 things going for it that keep me subscribing

    1. It’s cheap, less than $.50 per issue.
    2. It comes out every week.
    3. You can read it in the bathroom.”

    But, the Canadian Tire flyer is better. It:
    1. Is free
    2. Comes out every week
    3. I can read it in the bathroom
    4. Actually has things in it that I care about.

    So, if you want some good, informative reading, get a Canadian Tire flyer.

  • avatar

    qa :
    August 30th, 2008 at 10:04 am

    WalterRohrl – are you the rally driver who drove the first gen Quattros in Germany? Prior that you probably drove an Ascona 400? Or are you his fan? Sorry. Just curious.

    Just a fan, just a fan. But your memory is good (or you’re an Urq fan like me). Somehow I doubt Walter would be commenting on (or even reading) anything relating to a V6 Camaro :-)

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • SaulTigh: I haven’t lost a heater core since my ’90 Taurus, and that made me never want to lose another,...
  • BigOldChryslers: “a modern wrap would be cheaper and more practical than vinyl today” Car wraps ARE vinyl...
  • Ricky Spanish: Competitiveness at national level autocross.
  • I_like_stuff: Good. The more competition the better.
  • BigOldChryslers: 1971 Imperial burgundy vinyl roof. Google “mod top imperial” and it’s the first...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote


  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States