Pontiac Solstice Forum banner
1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Any guesses on the aproximate MPG on the Solstice? I really have no clue, but would expect it to be better than the 4.3 in my S-10.
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Yeah, the fuel economy will be better than your S-10! :lol

The Ecotec is a fairly economical engine, and I would guess it will be somewhere in the mid 20's city. Maybe 25? The 2.0L Supercharged Ecotec is 23-29 in the Ion Redline, and the 2.2? N/A engine is a couple MPG better in both categories. I would imagine the 2.4L will split the difference, but be closer to the 2.2L than the 2.0L S/C.

PS, that SC is also requires high octane (91+). But those are still very good economy numbers for a boosted engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
Check out the numbers Brentil came up with in " Wouldn't you just Love it if GM surprized...".

From those, my guess is 23 city/31 hwy. But right now it's like guessing the number of jellybeans in a jar. All we know is the weight (or their target weight) and tire diameter. Unknown is gearing, drag numbers, engine performance, etc. I expect those 18" rims are going to hurt more than than the lighter weight will help. In the battle between CAFE vs what sells, GM kind of boxed itself in a corner with those. They'll hurt more in the city cycle of EPA testing. Highway will be hampered by the aero drag related with having the wind wip through your hair (but actual hair drag rate may vary). ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
DreamerDave said:
Check out the numbers Brentil came up with in " Wouldn't you just Love it if GM surprized...".

From those, my guess is 23 city/31 hwy. But right now it's like guessing the number of jellybeans in a jar. All we know is the weight (or their target weight) and tire diameter. Unknown is gearing, drag numbers, engine performance, etc. I expect those 18" rims are going to hurt more than than the lighter weight will help. In the battle between CAFE vs what sells, GM kind of boxed itself in a corner with those. They'll hurt more in the city cycle of EPA testing. Highway will be hampered by the aero drag related with having the wind wip through your hair (but actual hair drag rate may vary). ;)
Those sound like reasonable numbers. You're right about the wheels, we're going to pay at the pump for those looks. The thing to do with your hair is grow it long, use a lot of gel and make it into a fairing for the back of your head. :jester
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
Damn, you beat me to posting my own info :D I've added the 2.2L 8v Sunfire engine for a better comparison. Your guess came really close to my calculated numbers bellow too.
  1. Sunfire 2.4L 16v (87 octane) 14 gallons with 22/32 mpg (5-speed manual)
  2. Sunfire 2.2L 8v (87 octane) 14 gallons with 23/33 mpg (5-speed manual)
  3. ION 2.2L (87 octane) 13 gallons with 26/35 mpg (5-speed manual)
  4. ION RedLine 2.0L SuperCharged (91 or greater octane required) 13 gallons with 23/29 mpg (5-speed manual)
  1. 308/448 miles per tank
  2. 322/462 miles per tank
  3. 338/455 miles per tank
  4. 299/377 miles per tank

For just being 0.2L less in size the new ECOTEC with VVT seems to get much better gas mileage numbers then the older 2.4L. It's amasing what the addition of the second CAM on the older engine did for performance and fuel economy.

[hypothetical]If it were a linear comparison that means the 2.4L is 8.33% greater in size then the 2.2L. Meaning it consumes 8.33% more fuel per combustion cycle. Giving a value of 23.833/32.0833 MPG for the 2.4L engine. If there existed a 2.2L SuperCharged L850 it would be 9.09% over the 2.0L SuperCharged engine. Giving values of 20.1/26.4 MPG.[/hypothetical]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
as long as it's better than the 12/17 i get in my '79 Camaro i'll be happy! lol
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
I wanted to make a couple corrections to my information.
  1. I've been referring to the 2.4L engine as the L850. I had read this somewhere, and thought that's what it was. Well doing some more research I've realised I had it wrong. The 2.4L with VVT is actually the LE5 it seems (someone else should look this up to make sure I'm not wrong again :D).
  2. The LE5 is actually the first ECOTEC to have VVT. I think I had refered to the other 2.2L as having it as well and the SuperCharged 2.0L, apparently they don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks for the info guys. I was affraid it might actually get bad MPG like my friends 1980 Fiat SPider.... man that thingy uses a lot of gas.

I really cant complain about my S-10's MPG... better than some but not as goood as other... anthing that gets better MPG would make me very happy.

I just hope it has decent pick-up like my S-10.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
555 Posts
1. 496/721 km per tank
2.518/744 km per tank
3. 544/732 km per tank
4. 481/607 km per tank
Not bad milage my bonne gets about 500/740 km per tank
brentil said:
Damn, you beat me to posting my own info :D I've added the 2.2L 8v Sunfire engine for a better comparison. Your guess came really close to my calculated numbers bellow too.
  1. Sunfire 2.4L 16v (87 octane) 14 gallons with 22/32 mpg (5-speed manual)
  2. Sunfire 2.2L 8v (87 octane) 14 gallons with 23/33 mpg (5-speed manual)
  3. ION 2.2L (87 octane) 13 gallons with 26/35 mpg (5-speed manual)
  4. ION RedLine 2.0L SuperCharged (91 or greater octane required) 13 gallons with 23/29 mpg (5-speed manual)
  1. 308/448 miles per tank
  2. 322/462 miles per tank
  3. 338/455 miles per tank
  4. 299/377 miles per tank

For just being 0.2L less in size the new ECOTEC with VVT seems to get much better gas mileage numbers then the older 2.4L. It's amasing what the addition of the second CAM on the older engine did for performance and fuel economy.

[hypothetical]If it were a linear comparison that means the 2.4L is 8.33% greater in size then the 2.2L. Meaning it consumes 8.33% more fuel per combustion cycle. Giving a value of 23.833/32.0833 MPG for the 2.4L engine. If there existed a 2.2L SuperCharged L850 it would be 9.09% over the 2.0L SuperCharged engine. Giving values of 20.1/26.4 MPG.[/hypothetical]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
I found where I got the L850 name from [HERE]. It's the official VX Lightning spec page at vauxhall.co.uk page. They refer to the modified 2.2L SuperCharged 240HP engine as the L850.

Powertrain

Engine: modified, supercharged ECOTEC L850 2.2L 4-cylinderEngine displacement (cu. in/cc):134/2200Max. horsepower (hp/kW):240/179Max. torque (lb.ft/Nm):225/305
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I really cant complain about my S-10's MPG... better than some but not as goood as other... anthing that gets better MPG would make me very happy.

I just hope it has decent pick-up like my S-10.[/QUOTE]



i hear ya on that one southpole...i have an s-10 too, and that is one thirsty truck. i had a K&N airtake installed, and swamped out my exhaust, and that helped a little in MPG. it wasn't anything major, i mean it is a truck, but it did help a little. i have the ZR2 package, and let me tell you...it is one fun truck!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
Thinking about it more now, I think there's a good chance we could get MPG closer to the 2.2L engine then the 2.0L Supercharged. For example, looking at the new 3 valve VVT 2005 Mustang engines we get a good example.

  • 2004 Mustang GT SOHC 4.6L 16V 260HP/302 lb-ft 17/25 MPG
  • 2004 Mach 1 DOHC 4.6L 32V 305HP/320 lb-ft 17/25 MPG
  • 2005 Mustang GT DOHC 4.6L 24V 300HP/320 lb-ft 17/25 MPG

Adding 2 more valves per piston did a great job of increasing power while maintaining MPG. Taking and removing a valve on the 2005 model, but adding VVT allowed it to maintain the same power level and MPG level as the Mach 1 engine. It also makes for better looking power curves I believe reading as well.
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Do you have the gearing handy for those Mustangs? Gearing can have a couple MPG impact too, which could make up for some of the difference on those 'Stangs. The Pontiac G6 gets better mileage than the G6 GT, with the only difference being the gearing. Still, it was a good job by Ford to be able to keep the MGP up while adding 40 more HP to the mod motor!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
2005 Mustang GT 5-speed manual
Transmission gear ratio (1st) 3.34
Transmission gear ratio (2nd) 2.00
Transmission gear ratio (3rd) 1.32
Transmission gear ratio (4th) 1.00
Transmission gear ratio (5th) .67
Transmission gear ratio (reverse) 3.38

2004 Mustang GT 5-speed manual AND 2004 Mustang Mach 1 5-speed manual
Transmission gear ratio (1st) 3.37
Transmission gear ratio (2nd) 1.99
Transmission gear ratio (3rd) 1.33
Transmission gear ratio (4th) 1.00
Transmission gear ratio (5th) .67
Transmission gear ratio (reverse) 3.22

and just for comparison 2004 Mustang Cobra 6-speed manual
Transmission gear ratio (1st) 2.66
Transmission gear ratio (2nd) 1.78
Transmission gear ratio (3rd) 1.30
Transmission gear ratio (4th) 1.00
Transmission gear ratio (5th) .80
Transmission gear ratio (6th) .63
Transmission gear ratio (reverse) 2.90
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
Well, the '04 and '05 have very similar gearing. Do you know if the axle ratios are also similar on those two? I assume they would be, but maybe not.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,901 Posts
Nope, I do not.

However I did notice one other difference too. The compression ratios for each engine.

  • 2005 Mustang GT 9.80:1 (87 Octane)
  • 2004 Mustang GT 9.40:1 (87 Octane)
  • 2004 Mustang Mach 1 10.10:1 (Premium Gas)
  • 2004 Mustang Cobra 8.50:1 (Supercharged, 91+ Octane)

I also want to note the Mach 1 uses Premium gas with a higher compression ratio, where the 2005 VVT engine does the same power, but on 87 octane and 0.30 lower compression.

So with VVT on this engine, they were able to go from 4 to 3 valves, 10.10:1 to 9.80:1 compression, and I think most important of all 87 octane gas. Yet they were able to maintain the power level. SO you get Mach 1 performance for GT price levels.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
My guess?

An MPG less than a Miata EPA ratings. Miata is 23/28 - so my guess is 22/27.

POOMA, but taking into account the larger frontal area, similar power:weight ratio, etc. I'd bet this isn't far off.

Your actual mileage may vary. :jester
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
According to Car and Driver we're looking at 22 city/28 highway. That sounds good to me

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=8119


2006 PONTIAC SOLSTICE
Vehicle type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 2-passenger, 2-door roadster
Estimated base price: $20,000
Engine type: DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, port fuel injection
Displacement: 145 cu in, 2384cc
Power (SAE net): 170 bhp @ 6400 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 170 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

Transmission: 5-speed manual
Wheelbase: 95.1 in
Length/width/height: 157.2/71.6/50.2 in
Curb weight: 2850 lb
C/D-estimated performance:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.5 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 15.6 sec
Projected fuel economy:
EPA city driving (C/D est): 22 mpg
EPA highway driving (C/D est): 28 mpg
 

·
Mod Emeritus
Joined
·
7,468 Posts
brentil said:
Nope, I do not.

However I did notice one other difference too. The compression ratios for each engine.

  • 2005 Mustang GT 9.80:1 (87 Octane)
  • 2004 Mustang GT 9.40:1 (87 Octane)
  • 2004 Mustang Mach 1 10.10:1 (Premium Gas)
  • 2004 Mustang Cobra 8.50:1 (Supercharged, 91+ Octane)

I also want to note the Mach 1 uses Premium gas with a higher compression ratio, where the 2005 VVT engine does the same power, but on 87 octane and 0.30 lower compression.

So with VVT on this engine, they were able to go from 4 to 3 valves, 10.10:1 to 9.80:1 compression, and I think most important of all 87 octane gas. Yet they were able to maintain the power level. SO you get Mach 1 performance for GT price levels.
They definitely have made a big accomplishment with the ’05 GT motor compared to the ’04 mach 1. Keeping the power up while being able to go from premium fuel to regular, and keeping the mileage up is a nice accomplishment.

For an engine that was criticized by Mustang faithful when it first appeared, Ford has done a great job at updating and improving their modular V8. I am very interested to see what they do with the next Cobra, and other specialty Mustangs (like the Mach 1).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,570 Posts
There are definately good things going on at Ford too. I am not really a brand loyalist, just a sort of American car loyalist to a degree. (In recent times the domestic offerings have been so poor that my family has bought some foreign cars.:( ) However, until the last two years I have gravitated more towards Ford products, and think they have been doing a fair job at getting their car business out of the crapper. So I like to see all the domestics do better (Chrysler as well, even with the hostile Mercedes take over.:banghead ), but I gotta say, the Solstice is just what I was looking for, and blows me away, so GM it is after a very long hiatus, even with the scars of my Saturn experience still in mind. Way to go Bob! Keep it up! :cheers
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top