2.0L Performance Tech 260hp (235hp auto) Turbocharged SS tuner version. 260 lb-ft of torque

MPG with Stage I

Old Feb 7, 2010 | 01:17 AM
  #11  
IgottaWoody's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-13-2008
Posts: 4,708
From: Washington State, where it rains
It doesn't take away anything..most reports have a small increase, something the engineers were surprised at....said it was unexpected....
Old Feb 7, 2010 | 01:17 AM
  #12  
HHRemi's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-18-2008
Posts: 157
From: Lake County, CA.
It matters to me. I'm quite happy with the power of my new SS auto, but do a lot of mpg-driving, too. I'm leaving it alone.
Old Feb 7, 2010 | 01:51 AM
  #13  
IgottaWoody's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-13-2008
Posts: 4,708
From: Washington State, where it rains
Then why did you answer....no matter what kind of power you have ,, its still regulated by the driver, so don't blame the car, or the parts.
Old Feb 7, 2010 | 03:07 AM
  #14  
probablecause's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 01-22-2010
Posts: 46
From: Acworth, GA
Originally Posted by camaro98z28
Foot to the floor, foot to the floor. Going real fast with your foot to the floor!!! :)
Nice!
Old Feb 7, 2010 | 03:09 AM
  #15  
HHRemi's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-18-2008
Posts: 157
From: Lake County, CA.
Originally Posted by IgottaWoody
Then why did you answer....no matter what kind of power you have ,, its still regulated by the driver, so don't blame the car, or the parts.
'Cause I'm bored, smart guy. The impression left by several members is that it's harder to mpg-drive with the added power, which leads me to believe that for the average driver, gas mileage would suffer with the kit.

Plus, after reading this forum for a long time, I see a bias towards 'needing' the kit for the car to have 'enough' power, and a 'who cares' attitude about mpg. So I chimed in. Sue me.
Old Feb 7, 2010 | 07:12 AM
  #16  
millerrdjr's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 02-29-2008
Posts: 110
From: Waterville, OH
before/after stage kit (turbo upgrade)

Winter BEFORE kit = 21.33mpg (9 consecutive fill ups) 21.3 ave on onboard computer.

Winter AFTER kit = 26.05mpg (9 consecutive fill ups) 25.6 ave on onboard computer.

I log EVERY fill up in a spreadsheet.
I believe I push the motor a bit harder after the stage kit.
The MPG results are amazing to me.
BTW, the onboard MPG is very accurate.
Old Feb 7, 2010 | 10:07 AM
  #17  
383L's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: 02-04-2010
Posts: 40
From: St. Louis, MO
Great Stuff! Thanks.

I care, but my wife really cares.

This is supposed to be my good gas mileage car, not my play car!
Old Feb 7, 2010 | 11:02 AM
  #18  
hyperv6's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-05-2008
Posts: 5,464
From: Akron Ohio
I have seen a increase of 1-2 MPG on average. In both highway and city. I see 23-24 in the summer city and 21-22 winter city. around 29-30 highway.

I neither hyperimile nor run the piss out of all the time. I drive normal and then hammer it once in a while. [I do have to see I can still get over 22 PSI once in a while.

The gains with this are reported by the engneers as unexpected and due possibly to being up to speed and off the gas more. Note once you lift off the gas in gear that the fuel is cut off. THis results in the highest mileage.

Bottom line is there is real gains in real driving.

As for driving the SS normal it's not really that hard. Just act like you have drven a fast car before.
Old Feb 7, 2010 | 12:26 PM
  #19  
CarlsSS's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 04-12-2008
Posts: 527
From: Cedarburg, WI
Originally Posted by terryk
On a side note, but wife's 2000 GTP would do 30 MPG running 70. I have no idea how they got a 3600lbs car to do that.
The 3.8L supercharged engine is one of GMs best ever in my opinion. I can get 28-30 mpg on the highway in my '98 Riv no problem. I gets up there in a hurry and settles in at a nice low RPM thanks to the gearing, not to mention that they are nice aerodynamic rides as well!

Great numbers millerrdjr! I can't believe you track that on a speadsheet! I too have seen about a 1-2 mpg increase i'd say, but my numbers are more off the cuff and informal. It is certaily more tempting to get your foot into the thing though as many have already said!
Old Feb 7, 2010 | 08:36 PM
  #20  
IgottaWoody's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-13-2008
Posts: 4,708
From: Washington State, where it rains
Originally Posted by HHRemi
'Cause I'm bored, smart guy. The impression left by several members is that it's harder to mpg-drive with the added power, which leads me to believe that for the average driver, gas mileage would suffer with the kit.

Plus, after reading this forum for a long time, I see a bias towards 'needing' the kit for the car to have 'enough' power, and a 'who cares' attitude about mpg. So I chimed in. Sue me.
LOL.... I see...heres another take cupcake
1) The ones that talk about the kit.. want it
2) The ones that don't have it...want it
3) Those who don't want it...don't comment about it
4) We all are a bunch of hot rodders..going fast is our goal(not speed, but quickness, anybody can go fast, even you)
5) MPG has its place and its practiced more then you realise, even WITH the kit
6) Those who don't have it, by choice, have tunes..or have both,,
7) You need to learn how to read forums and to learn when its fun or when its serious.....
8) Your post really had nothing to contribute, if your not interested why come on and slam it? You already have your answers, right?
Its already been posted about MPG...it was explained theres no difference, to an increase in MPG..its was stated its all up to the driver HOW he controls those functions..whats so hard to understand?
Oh yeah, I know,your a poser.................
And my apologies to the rest who had to put up with this.......

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:42 AM.