2019 Chevrolet Camaro: More Speeds, Fewer MPGs
![Steph Willems](https://cdn-fastly.thetruthaboutcars.com/media/profile/2022/07/20/1318305_1.jpg?size=91x91)
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]
![Steph Willems](https://cdn-fastly.thetruthaboutcars.com/media/profile/2022/07/20/1318305_1.jpg?size=91x91)
More by Steph Willems
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- 1995 SC Wife has a new Ridgeline and it came with 2 years so I don't have to think about it for a while.My FIAT needed a battery (the 12V...not the drive battery), a replacement steering column cover and I had to buy a Tesla Charging adapter to use the destination charger at one of the places I frequent. Also had to replace the charge cable because I am an idiot and ran the stock one over and destroyed the connector. Around 600 bucks all in there but 250 is because of the cable.The Thunderbird has needed much the past year. ABS Pump - 300. Master Cylinder 100. Tool to bleed ABS 350 (Welcome to pre OBD2 electronics), Amp for Stereo -250, Motor mounts 150, Injectors 300, Airbag Module - 15 at the u pull it, Belts and hoses, 100 - Plugs and wires 100, Trans fluid, filter and replacement pan, 150, ignition lock cylinder and rekey - 125, Cassette Player mechanism - 15 bucks at the U Pull it, and a ton of time to do things like replace the grease in the power seat motots (it was hard and the seats wouldn't move when cold), Rear pinion seal - 15 buckjs, Fix a million broken tabs in the dash surround, recap the ride control module and all. My wife would say more, but my Math has me around 2 grand. Still needs an exhaust manifold gasket and the drivers side window acts up from time to time. I do it all but if I were paying someone that would be rough. It's 30 this year though so I roll with it. You'll have times like these running old junk.
- 3-On-The-Tree Besides for the sake of emissions I don’t understand why the OEM’s went with small displacement twin turbo engines in heavy trucks. Like you guys stated above there really isn’t a MPG advantage. Plus that engine is under stress pulling that truck around then you hit it with turbos, more rpm’s , air, fuel, heat. My F-150 Ecoboost 3.5 went through one turbo replacement and the other was leaking. l’ll stick with my 2021 V8 Tundra.
- Syke What I'll never understand about economics reporting: $1.1 billion net income is a mark of failure? Anyone with half a brain recognizes that Tesla is slowly settling in to becoming just another EV manufacturer, now that the legacy manufacturers have gained a sense of reality and quit tripping over their own feet in converting their product lines. Who is stupid enough to believe that Tesla is going to remain 90% of the EV market for the next ten years?Or is it just cheap headlines to highlight another Tesla "problem"?
- Rna65689660 I had an AMG G-Wagon roar past me at night doing 90 - 100. What a glorious sound. This won’t get the same vibe.
- Marc Muskrat only said what he needed to say to make the stock pop. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.
Comments
Join the conversation
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...
S#!tbox