2019 Chevrolet Camaro: More Speeds, Fewer MPGs
The EPA’s getting quite a few mentions on TTAC today, but it’s not because of the agency’s planned rollback of corporate average fuel economy standards. No, it’s because of odd fuel economy rollbacks seen among 2019 Chevrolet models.
We told you earlier about the yet-unexplained drop in city and combined fuel economy for the 2019 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon diesels. Now you can add the 2019 Chevrolet Camaro to the list of models with missing MPGs. It seems that in one area of performance, 10 speeds isn’t better.
First noticed by Motor Trend, the refreshed model doesn’t gain newfound fuel economy with the addition of a multi-cog automatic. In fact, it loses some. For 2019, V8-powered SS models trade the previous eight-speed automatic for a smooth 10-speed unit. Given that a greater number of cogs means a wider ratio spread and thus greater efficiency, you’d think the 2018 SS would go a little further between fill-ups.
Instead, the automatic-equipped 2019 Camaro SS keeps its 27 mpg and 20 mpg highway and combined ratings, but sees its city rating fall from 17 mpg to 16 mpg. Understandable, you say. After all, the GM 10-speed sees lower gearing in around-town gears — a first-gear ratio of 4.70:1 replaces the eight-speed’s 4.56:1 first gear, for example. You have to get up to seventh gear in the 10-speed to match the ratio of the eight-speed’s sixth gear, and, while the new tranny moves up through the gears at a quicker pace, it’s not enough to offset those lower ratios.
Fine, but that doesn’t explain the MPG discrepancies between the 2018 and 2019 Camaro V6 equipped with either an eight-speed auto or six-speed manual. The powertrains are carryovers for the new model year. With the automatic V6 model, city and highway economy stay at 19 mpg and 29 mpg, respectively, but combined economy drops from 23 mpg to 22 mpg.
With the manual V6, city and combined fuel economy remains at 16 mpg and 20 mpg, but highway economy falls 1 mpg to 27 mpg. Maybe the Camaro’s new face has something to do with this, but GM claims the model’s reworked visage is slipperier than before.
If the EPA tweaked its testing for the 2019 model year, we weren’t informed. Pouring cold water on that theory is the fact that the automatic and stick-shift 2.0-liter turbo models retain their previous EPA ratings for 2019. No change at all.
[Image: General Motors]
Join the conversation
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- SCE to AUX I charge at home 99% of the time, on a Level 2 charger I installed myself in 2012 for my Leaf. My house is 1967, 150-Amp service, gas dryer and furnace; everything else is electric with no problems. I switched from gas HW to electric HW last year, when my 18-year-old tank finally failed.I charge at a for-pay station maybe a couple times a year.I don't travel more than an hour each way in my Ioniq 1 EV, so I don't deal much with public chargers. Despite a big electric rate increase this year, my car remains ridiculously cheap to operate.
- ToolGuy 38:25 to 45:40 -- Let's all wait around for the stupid ugly helicopter. 😉The wheels and tires are cool, as in a) carbon fiber is a structural element not decoration and b) they have some sidewall.Also like the automatic fuel adjustment (gasoline vs. ethanol).(Anyone know why it's more powerful on E85? Huh? Huh?)
- Ja-GTI So, seems like you have to own a house before you can own a BEV.
- Kwik_Shift Good thing for fossil fuels to keep the EVs going.
- Carlson Fan Meh, never cared for this car because I was never a big fan of the Gen 1 Camaro. The Gen 1 Firebird looked better inside and out and you could get it with the 400.The Gen 2 for my eyes was peak Camaro as far as styling w/those sexy split bumpers! They should have modeled the 6th Gen after that.
I was getting an oil change in the Civic last week, and the lady next to me was having her 10-speed AT Odyssey serviced, and while I know dealership service centers should be renamed profit centers, the guy writing her up for service told her that she needed to flush and fill the AT, I think she said the vehicle had about 20k on it. The dude told her, “yes, it’s a great transmission, but it uses a more expensive fluid and needs to be changed more often”. I’m wondering, has anyone else heard that? Keep in mind the service dude on my left was trying to sell a remanufactured alternator for $900...