Sts-v Mpg Yikes!
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
I have a theory! If I wanted good MPG I would'a bought a Honda!CVP33 said:
If you can't take the heat get a girlieman car with a V6! I don't drive no stinking 6cyl cars! (Unless it's my wife's) :banana:
My V runs 10 in town, 19 on long, long hwy runs. The EPA rating is BS.
http://www.gmbuypower.com/vehicleList.bp?make=Cadillac&model=All&modelId=all&makeId=006&identifyThumbnail=showAllMake&
Link as requested. I'm getting 15 in the V when I'm on it. 22-24 on the hwy. My quess is the STS-V will be in the 12 range. :hmm:
Link as requested. I'm getting 15 in the V when I'm on it. 22-24 on the hwy. My quess is the STS-V will be in the 12 range. :hmm:
I was hoping that the 6th gear would heelp with mileage a little.
I will bet money that if thecar is retested next year that mileage will be higher.
Especially the hwy number.
A lot of times the ratings are a calculation based on many factors.
I have seen the 3800 Impala go from 30mpg hwy down to 29mpg hwy and back up to 30mpg hwy.
My '99 Intrigue was rated at 27mpg hwy and would get 29mpg.
By the time the car was killed of the hwy rating was 28 or 29 mpg.
I will bet money that if thecar is retested next year that mileage will be higher.
Especially the hwy number.
A lot of times the ratings are a calculation based on many factors.
I have seen the 3800 Impala go from 30mpg hwy down to 29mpg hwy and back up to 30mpg hwy.
My '99 Intrigue was rated at 27mpg hwy and would get 29mpg.
By the time the car was killed of the hwy rating was 28 or 29 mpg.
b4z,
I think you may be on to something there. It just so happens the fuel ratings match the Escalade EXT. Hard to belive that the little S/C 4.4 liter is more thirsty than a 6.0 liter, 5,000 lb. behemoth.
I think you may be on to something there. It just so happens the fuel ratings match the Escalade EXT. Hard to belive that the little S/C 4.4 liter is more thirsty than a 6.0 liter, 5,000 lb. behemoth.
For comparison sakes:
2006 BMW M5
MSRP: $81,200
City Mileage: 12 mpg Hwy Mileage: 18 mpg
2006 Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG
MSRP: $80,800 - $82,600
City Mileage: 15 mpg Hwy Mileage: 21 mpg
2006 Chrysler 300C SRT-8
MSRP: $39,370 - $39,920
City Mileage: 14 mpg Hwy Mileage: 20 mpg
Who would have thought the fastest car would be the most fuel efficient?!
2006 BMW M5
MSRP: $81,200
City Mileage: 12 mpg Hwy Mileage: 18 mpg
2006 Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG
MSRP: $80,800 - $82,600
City Mileage: 15 mpg Hwy Mileage: 21 mpg
2006 Chrysler 300C SRT-8
MSRP: $39,370 - $39,920
City Mileage: 14 mpg Hwy Mileage: 20 mpg
Who would have thought the fastest car would be the most fuel efficient?!
Joined
·
466 Posts
That why they went with 4.4 vs 4.6, MPG would probably have been even worse with 4.6...
To think GM took away 0.2L to produce less power is illogical. They could have just detuned the 4.6 to the same HP as the current 4.4. Actually, it is easier to get the same HP from a larger engine (4.6) than a smaller one (4.4). The engine is heavily modified from the stock motor anyway, so 4.6, 4.4 or even 4.2 would not be an issue anyway. GM could make a 4.6 based on the 4.4 with the same HP but it would EAT more FUEL.
Imagine that the 4.6 was on the borderline of going one less MPG, a BIG deal by any means. Thus by going to 4.4, they could have just squeaked by not having to post a lower EPA MPG...
SYROB
To think GM took away 0.2L to produce less power is illogical. They could have just detuned the 4.6 to the same HP as the current 4.4. Actually, it is easier to get the same HP from a larger engine (4.6) than a smaller one (4.4). The engine is heavily modified from the stock motor anyway, so 4.6, 4.4 or even 4.2 would not be an issue anyway. GM could make a 4.6 based on the 4.4 with the same HP but it would EAT more FUEL.
Imagine that the 4.6 was on the borderline of going one less MPG, a BIG deal by any means. Thus by going to 4.4, they could have just squeaked by not having to post a lower EPA MPG...
SYROB
I bet the reason it is 4.4 vs 4.6 is they destroked the motor to handle the supercharger. Ever see a supercharged motor puke a connecting rod out of the block? I have many times. It is usually one of the weakest links. I don't think it has anything to do with mpg. Put a pulley and a rich tune on that new motor, and watch the mpg fall even further.
Joined
·
466 Posts
What are the strokes of the two anyway? Usually with a superchanrger they reduce the stroke to reduce pressure in the cylinder, detonation. Going to a smaller BORE with the same HP means higher pressure...Bartlett_2 said:
SYROB
Both the 4.6 and 4.4 liter Northstar engines have the exact same stroke of 84 mm.
The difference in displacement is due to a slight decrease in the bore.
If the 4.4 supercharged engine is making more power than the normally aspirated 4.6 liter engine is HAS to have much higher cylinder pressures. This affects the load on the conn rods similarily regardless of bore (or stroke) changes. Someone thought of this and changed the metallurgy of the rods and the rod bolts to make the supercharged version conn rods much stronger.
The difference in displacement is due to a slight decrease in the bore.
If the 4.4 supercharged engine is making more power than the normally aspirated 4.6 liter engine is HAS to have much higher cylinder pressures. This affects the load on the conn rods similarily regardless of bore (or stroke) changes. Someone thought of this and changed the metallurgy of the rods and the rod bolts to make the supercharged version conn rods much stronger.
Actually, the bore is smaller not the stroke. The piston walls most likely need to be more sturdy with a SC on the top.Bartlett_2 said:
People that are willing to spend $75k on a car probably don't care about how much gas it uses. 17mpg is pretty pitiful for a car that doesn't beat its $30k cheaper brother in performance or efficiency though.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
