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

SS gas milage

Old Jun 26, 2008 | 01:28 PM
  #31  
ColeTrickle's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 06-26-2008
Posts: 164
From: Corona CA
08 SS 5spd (800 miles)

On my second tank of gas and I am averaging 27 mpg on my 60 mile round trip commute (42 mph average speed)

On level ground with the cruise at about 75-80 the car gets right at 32 mpg

The performance/MPG is hard to beat
Old Jul 3, 2008 | 02:55 PM
  #32  
jerSSey HHR's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 07-03-2008
Posts: 1,664
From: jerSSey, exit 5
Okay - here's a dumb question. If the 2.0 turbo gets such good gas mileage, why not replace all the V-6 engines that are getting similar HP and repalce them with the 2.0 turbo engines? Even the Solstice GXP gets better gas mileage than the base Solstice. It seems that with the Ecotec turbo you can get great power and fuel mileage. Is it because people don't want to pony up the extra money for the turbo version? Because many of the V6 cars are more expensive than the HHR SS.
Old Jul 3, 2008 | 03:19 PM
  #33  
Clevelandhhrss's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 03-31-2008
Posts: 772
From: CLEVELAND
Originally Posted by jerSSey HHR
Okay - here's a dumb question. If the 2.0 turbo gets such good gas mileage, why not replace all the V-6 engines that are getting similar HP and repalce them with the 2.0 turbo engines? Even the Solstice GXP gets better gas mileage than the base Solstice. It seems that with the Ecotec turbo you can get great power and fuel mileage. Is it because people don't want to pony up the extra money for the turbo version? Because many of the V6 cars are more expensive than the HHR SS.
A lot of it is just ignorance. People like cylinders, more=better....just like rims, and women...etc. I like efficiency, Period. That's what we have here, a gas sipping, powerful, large enough, small enough, 4 door, hatch, lightweight, well built thingomobobber.
Old Jul 3, 2008 | 05:36 PM
  #34  
XXL's Avatar
XXL
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-06-2008
Posts: 1,076
From: Over here
Originally Posted by Clevelandhhrss
A lot of it is just ignorance. People like cylinders, more=better....just like rims, and women...etc. I like efficiency, Period. That's what we have here, a gas sipping, powerful, large enough, small enough, 4 door, hatch, lightweight, well built thingomobobber.
There is also the mechanical issue of torque. A 5000# car doesn't get rolling from a dead stop as well as a 3500# car. More pistons/more displacement _generally_ gives you more torque at usable levels... so the big car gets the big motor to get it rolling.
Old Jul 3, 2008 | 06:53 PM
  #35  
Clevelandhhrss's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 03-31-2008
Posts: 772
From: CLEVELAND
Originally Posted by XXL
There is also the mechanical issue of torque. A 5000# car doesn't get rolling from a dead stop as well as a 3500# car. More pistons/more displacement _generally_ gives you more torque at usable levels... so the big car gets the big motor to get it rolling.
Or low gearing.....lol...like a rock cawler with 35inch tires. Both bad for mileage.....
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
puterfool
Problems/Service/Repairs
30
Aug 30, 2015 10:52 PM
Happy Jim
Fuel Economy - Hypermiling
35
Dec 30, 2010 09:01 AM
Mofo
Fuel Economy - Hypermiling
0
Jul 14, 2009 12:38 AM
dpoll995
HHR SS
2
Oct 3, 2008 11:15 AM
Kev1964
General HHR
9
Jul 13, 2008 05:56 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 PM.