I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If you accelerate in 6th at 40mph ur probably not getting as good gas mileage as you think. Cruising at 40 sure but ur putting in more gas to move forward at 40 in 6th than 5th. And if u moved 6th out 500-1000 rpm around 55-60 ur gas mileage would be better. Having closer 1-4 gears would give u better stop and go mileage because it makes it easier to accelerate, which is where the most gas is used. 5th staying the same will serve as an in between for town and highway, while 6th further out will give u better highway.
If I die, bury me in my truck, because it's never been in a hole it can't get out of!
I guess we will. For accelerating in 6th, it completely depends on how fast you want to accelerate, and to and from what speeds. I'd bet the fuel difference between accelerating 40-45 or 50 in 6th versus downshifting to fifth and doing the same is incredibly negligible at best. More of a difference than that and I'm sure you're correct-that's why I don't go 40-70mph in 6th alone.
"Closer 1-4" is too vague to say much-it depends on what gears are getting how much taller/shorter to accomplish that. First gear could definitely stand to be shorter, but if fourth gets any taller you're going to shorten the usable speed, likely costing MPG as well.
Leaving fifth is still going to cost you city MPG over 40mph, which is probably pretty close to average for normal city driving (not heavy rush-hour, etc). That's just a fact. The 1-4 changes will affect the net difference, hence why I made the detailed comment I did earlier about how they should be spaced, imo.
Huh. I would have thought he was correct. Having closer spaced gears improves fuel economy (the more gears you have, the more likely you are to be in the "correct" band of the engine's efficiency curve - if you get enough gears you eventually wind up with the same ratios as a cvt).
The other question as to whether you use more gas trying to accelerate way at the bottom of a gear vs. down shifting... I'm not sure. But I'm not sure it's incorrect either.
Your basic premise is correct, and that's exactly why CVTS do so well in that regard. You would get better economy with closer 1-4 spacing, but anytime you cruise or lightly accel in 5th at or above 40mph you'd be losing compared to the current 6th, no matter what.
If you're wayyyy in the bottom of a gear, it would definitely cost you. Anytime you feel the engine "lugging" or close to it, you're risking or losing economy. 40mph is not that far down-but less and I would agree.
I remember that Volvo, maybe 20 years ago, announced that accelerating briskly to cruising speed was more efficient than accelerating slowly.
When done appropriately, I entirely believe that. The other thing to remember is it's a pretty different ball game with turbo motors- if you get into a low-efficiency area of the compressor map, odds are you'll start paying for it pretty quickly. Although it is Volvo, 20 years ago I doubt that study was focused around FI motors.
On that note, does anybody know of an actual compressor map for our turbo, or do we just have close ones from similar turbos in the (GT14? I forget) family?
I love my Sonic
