This is mostly to add fuel to the supercharger versus turbocharger fire.

By the new standards (current), here are the official fuel economy ratings of each powertrain in a coupe - Sedans are not listed as I don't personally care

2.2L Auto 22/31
2.2L Manual 24/33
2.4L Auto 22/31
2.4L Manual 22/32
2.0L SC (Manual Only) 23/29
2.0L TC (Manual Only) 22/30

Now, keep in mind the SC has a final drive of 4.04 while the TC has a final drive of 3.82 AND the TC has the ability for ultra lean burn due to its direct injection. Yet, the SC still has better city fuel economy and only misses out by 1 mpg highway. On the other hand, the TC does way approx 50 pounds more than the SC by manufacturer's estimates.

 

Fuel economywasn't the reason Chevy stated was killing the SC. They said the SC version could not meet the Government's emissions requirements.

 

I understand that, however, they never made any attempt to update the LSJ for emissions, either, so there is no reason to believe that a DI ecotec with a supercharger wouldn't have met emissions.

 

fuel economy has to do with how you drive and/or where you live. average means dick.

 

It was not current emissions requirements.. they were looking ahead to the future and the SC had NOTHING to do with it. They wanted a Direct injection engine.. either turbo or SC would have the same emissions... actually turbo's have a much harder time with emissions at startup because they run off heat.. and it takes a little while to build it up.

dont forget about the Variable Valve timing as well...

The LSJ is a Saab engine that they slapped a SC on... the LNF is an almost ground up Direct injection turbo design..

 

I'm really thinking about a htv1320 on the LNF longblock.....

 

heck i've gotten 38 on the trip to dallas thats average hand figured!!

 

Also... those SS/SC EPA numbers are innaccurate... those are pre-2008 EPA MPG average standards; those SS/TC numbers are post-2008 EPA MPG average standards. The difference being, that 2008 - and later have tougher MPG averages (supposedly more realistic) and therefor if you look at those numbers, the SS/TC will actually have ~2-3 mpg better in both city and highway. Interesting.

 

Actually it depends on production date, not model year, however the two do sometimes have a lot to do with eachother. I had thought that GM had updated the ratings on the SS/SC already. I guess not. I would have sworn that the original rating for highway was 30 or 31. Oh well.

Edit: Here's a comparison for the old versus new ratings on the SS/SC

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=20605

23/29 versus 20/27

 

^ that sounds about right

so 20/27 SS/SC vs 22/30 SS/TC.

I know I drive roughly 50% highway 50% city, all the time... and my avg (according to the DIC) stays around 24.5.

 

I tend to get an average of 25 -25.5 in similiar driving. But according to these numbers, we both should be getting less (average of 23.5).

 

my ss/sc always sees 29 mpg avg on new years for pburg nj [warren ct]to cape may island and back
avg 35.4 way better then i thought poss.

 

With an SS/SC STG 2, on the highway I get 6.7 L / 100 km or 35 MPG driving 120 km/h or 75 MPH. Of course that's on cruise control, but it's much higher than the 29 MPG as quoted above. Imagine if I were to drive at 60 MPH (100 km/h). I'd probably be near 40 MPG.

Oh well. I assume you guys get the same type of highway economy.

 

Ya i don't really care I just care about what I get under normal driving conditions... which is like I said, rougly 50/50 hwy/city and with slightly getting on it no grandma driving here! hehe

 

Anyone interested, here is the list with the updated 07 SS for comparison:
2.2L Auto 22/31
2.2L Manual 24/33

2.4L Auto 22/31
2.4L Manual 22/32

2.0L SC (Manual Only) 20/28
2.0L TC (Manual Only) 22/30

As long as the 2.0/TC numbers are accurate (I dont have a source for that) It is interesting to see how well the Direct Injection Technology and VVT improves efficiency almost to levels of that of the 2.2L Auto.

 

I'd like to see numbers for a VVT DI 2.0L NA engine with manual transmission.

 

DI like barely makes a diff for gas mileage it seems, just look at mazda's numbers. but I would agree it depends on the driver and location. My car gets high 30's in the summer but now that its winter I'm getting higher 20's even going 50-60 using cruise control :/ But mazda does have a new disi engine coming out they say has 20% (i think) better mileage

 

The '08 CTS with 3.6L DI makes 1 mpg better city and highway than the normal 3.6L, yet the 2.8L in the '07 Model had better fuel economy than both. Why not a 2.8L DI?

 

ss/tc can suck my nuts.

 

47.1mpg? HOW? Seriously.

 

tuning.

(btw, thats using 87 octane too )

 

My avg for the Cobalt always sucks, cuz I 1)let her warm up and the avg counter starts at ingnition, and 2) i only have a few lights i stop at, but when I do stop, its for a good ammount of time.

 

You can't be that vague. Jeez.

I assume you've got three or more tunes you use then (including swapping high octane to low, etc.).

 

SIMPLE: While cruising at 45 MPH select the AVG Fuel mileage and reset it by holding the reset button in. Then take a picture of the DIC when it starts out at 47 MPG...

 

no actually.
that was after a 60mile trip home from work, DIC reset in the parking lot.
set the cruise at about 57mph.



yes i have 3 tunes. a winter tune, a summer tune, and a track day tune.

the winter tune is a combination of extreme boost reduction, and extensive work in the timing tables.