Project V6 Firebird
05-04-2011, 12:39 PM
#141
I owned one........don't tell me to stop....I know bs when I hear it.
Funny thing is I really liked the car but the mileage and performance was so poor i had to sell it.
My wife hated the thing, every time she started it annd heard the exhaust she wooood ask me how such a beautiful car could sound so bad! So after one month and 1k in parts and oils etc I lost 5k and traded the "thing" In.
Funny thing is I really liked the car but the mileage and performance was so poor i had to sell it.
My wife hated the thing, every time she started it annd heard the exhaust she wooood ask me how such a beautiful car could sound so bad! So after one month and 1k in parts and oils etc I lost 5k and traded the "thing" In.
You lost $5,000 on a v6 and we are the idiots? I wouldn't pay that much to begin with let alone ever lose that much.
05-04-2011, 12:57 PM
#143
Its called v6 mass hysteria gas mileage bsing...........BUt i do believe the 97 v6 gas mileage stated above, I don't believe it for the 2000 up. I,ve dealt with too many, they get terrible fuel mileage.
05-04-2011, 12:59 PM
#144
It's funny we all three say we get about the same.. My old 99 firebird also got right in there. at the time I had a heavy foot so not quite that good but had nothing to with the car.
He's an idiot that thinks he has a plethora of knowledge. He just wont get it.
He's an idiot that thinks he has a plethora of knowledge. He just wont get it.
05-04-2011, 01:24 PM
#147
This is really just laughable.
The person presenting absolutely no facts, just experience with his car, is calling everybody else a liar. What differences are there between the '97 and the '2000? You said it's a completely different car under the hood....aren't they all the L36? The only difference AFAIK is the electronic throttle control, and I can't see that taking 10 mpg's away from the car.
Please support your claims with some facts rather than "I've delt with them....terrible fuel mileage".
The person presenting absolutely no facts, just experience with his car, is calling everybody else a liar. What differences are there between the '97 and the '2000? You said it's a completely different car under the hood....aren't they all the L36? The only difference AFAIK is the electronic throttle control, and I can't see that taking 10 mpg's away from the car.
Please support your claims with some facts rather than "I've delt with them....terrible fuel mileage".
05-04-2011, 01:26 PM
#148
However, it has nothing to do the V6, which is the entire point of this thread. Actually, the point of this thread was someone showing his build
05-04-2011, 02:00 PM
#149
Yes, the LS1's get good fuel economy. I got about 27.4 mpg's on a trip that was around 250 miles through hilly country, in and out of towns, etc....
However, it has nothing to do the V6, which is the entire point of this thread. Actually, the point of this thread was someone showing his build
However, it has nothing to do the V6, which is the entire point of this thread. Actually, the point of this thread was someone showing his build
05-04-2011, 02:03 PM
#150
You are wrong, deal with It. Yours may very well have crap gas mileage but there was obviously something wrong. I have gave you epa numbers as well as many testimonials.. You so they suck performance wise, I showed you one making an 8 second pass.
Cool story.
05-04-2011, 02:54 PM
#151
Launching!
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had 2 3.8 V6 Camaros, a '96 and a '00. Both always averaged mid 20's in fuel economy.
If you're having people come in to your place of business with abysmal gas mileage and you're not trying to fix that problem, you're not doing your job.
If you're having people come in to your place of business with abysmal gas mileage and you're not trying to fix that problem, you're not doing your job.
05-04-2011, 03:39 PM
#152
Sure you did hoss...sure you did.......
05-04-2011, 04:25 PM
#154
I've averaged in the lower 20's with my car consistently with city driving with this build.
Only time I got 16mpg on the new setup was with the first time I got it fired up and drove it around it was adding fuel like a madman.
Only way I got below 20mpg before my build and was all stock was because I was lead footing it around or driving at work 3 blocks at a time and shutting it off. Those two driving habits will ruin MPG in a large way.
I wouldn't be lying about this, I don't have anything to hide. It's not like I'm trying to pull off saying my car gets 30mpg city driving because that would be absurd and absolute BS. If you saw how I drive my car, you might understand it a little better. I'm ginger with the throttle, and easy on the brakes. I pay attention to the lights and traffic flow, minimizing the amount of energy I waste while driving and making it easier on the car.
My wife can't emulate how I drive and she gets worse MPG city driving with her Mazda3.
Oh and 02Form, just FYI, the 99+ all have the same style engine with DBW and straight TB, 98-earlier had angled TB and cable driven. They adjusted the PCM settings to decrease throttle lag on the electric TB on the '99 Firebird GT's and it came standard on the '00 up V6's. 2000+ had tubular exhaust manifolds while before that they had more restrictive log style manifolds.
I'm also not sure what elevation you are living at as well as what the landscape is like. It's flatland mashing around here all the time.
Only time I got 16mpg on the new setup was with the first time I got it fired up and drove it around it was adding fuel like a madman.
Only way I got below 20mpg before my build and was all stock was because I was lead footing it around or driving at work 3 blocks at a time and shutting it off. Those two driving habits will ruin MPG in a large way.
I wouldn't be lying about this, I don't have anything to hide. It's not like I'm trying to pull off saying my car gets 30mpg city driving because that would be absurd and absolute BS. If you saw how I drive my car, you might understand it a little better. I'm ginger with the throttle, and easy on the brakes. I pay attention to the lights and traffic flow, minimizing the amount of energy I waste while driving and making it easier on the car.
My wife can't emulate how I drive and she gets worse MPG city driving with her Mazda3.
Oh and 02Form, just FYI, the 99+ all have the same style engine with DBW and straight TB, 98-earlier had angled TB and cable driven. They adjusted the PCM settings to decrease throttle lag on the electric TB on the '99 Firebird GT's and it came standard on the '00 up V6's. 2000+ had tubular exhaust manifolds while before that they had more restrictive log style manifolds.
I'm also not sure what elevation you are living at as well as what the landscape is like. It's flatland mashing around here all the time.
05-04-2011, 05:20 PM
#155
Launching!
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I'm not going to bother any more. This is a case of ignorance being bliss, and you just can't reason with ignorance. I'll let OP have his thread back and I'll keep watching for updates.
Last edited by AwsmGy; 05-04-2011 at 05:25 PM.
05-04-2011, 06:47 PM
#156
Staging Lane
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chesterfield, VA
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it a requirement to be a douche nozzle in order to be a manager of any kind? That's just what I've gathered through my experiences including this thread.
05-04-2011, 06:52 PM
#157
Originally Posted by O2Form
>ramblings<
My 98 Camaro V6 auto would do around 22 city typically. One time I decided to see how low it would go and was very heavy on the throttle, got it down to 18 that time.
After a 3.42 gear swap, a lid, and a tune, I was doing 32mpg at 70mph on the interstate. Not just once, but consistently every time if I drove highway. My normal driving while I still had that car was 80-85% highway, rest city, and would average 28-29mpg.
Oh, being a 98 it still had cable-driven throttle by the way, not DBW. I do prefer cable driven over DBW. My Trailblazer has DBW and it annoys me. But other than that, and the arguably less restrictive straight throttle body on the 99+, all 3.8L fbody engines are the same darn thing.
Just saying. Enough of that now
Last edited by SparkyJJO; 05-04-2011 at 06:59 PM.
05-04-2011, 07:45 PM
#159
Staging Lane
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pensacola, Fl
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive had my 97 V6 for 6 years now and it has been the following: bolt on car, turbo'd car, and is now a heads/cam/stall car. Bolts ons I got 21mpg, turbo I got 20mpg, and now H/C I get about 18-21. I got 28mpg on the highway with bolt ons, 27ish with the turbo, and 26ish with the cam.
Now, 02form, get this through your head: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 99+ AND 96-98 BESIDES THE DBW TB's!!! Being a GM tech really doesnt mean much to me because I will gaurantee you I know these engines better than you, ask anyone from FTV6 (where I happen to be a mod)...
Now, 02form, get this through your head: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 99+ AND 96-98 BESIDES THE DBW TB's!!! Being a GM tech really doesnt mean much to me because I will gaurantee you I know these engines better than you, ask anyone from FTV6 (where I happen to be a mod)...
