View Single Post
Old 02-07-2013, 11:24 AM   #9 (permalink)
PaleMelanesian
Hypermiler
 
PaleMelanesian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,321

PaleCivic (retired) - '96 Honda Civic DX Sedan
90 day: 69.2 mpg (US)

PaleFit - '09 Honda Fit Sport
Team Honda
Wagons
90 day: 44.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 611
Thanked 433 Times in 283 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialk11r View Post
Problem is 1ZZs exclusively came with 5 speed transmissions (horrendous garbage) in the US, while 2ZZs exclusively have 6 speed transmissions.

The 2ZZ has MMC liners, and exotic something else, and is a capable engine across the whole rev range, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it were more efficient across the board (maybe except at very low rpm) due to the friction reduction measures.
We have to compare gear ratios, not just number of gears. The 6-speed's 6th gear actually turns a few more rpm at speed than the 5-speed's top gear. I don't doubt the 6 is a better transmission, but it's not going to be any more fuel efficient.

C59 5-speed
5th: 0.815
Final: 3.941
Combined engine-wheel ratio: 3.212

C60 6-speed
6th: 0.725
Final: 4.529
Combined engine-wheel ratio: 3.284

source: 2004 Toyota Matrix Gear Ratios

Quote:
Originally Posted by aardvarcus View Post
One other notable 2ZZ feature as compared to the 1ZZ is an 11.5:1 compression ratio instead of the 10:1.

Also the Lift Cam doesn’t engage on the 2ZZ until roughly 6200 RPM, so for >99% of all driving it isn’t helping or hurting you.
Does that high compression require premium fuel? That's an added expense. I doubt the per-gallon savings outweigh the extra per-dollar cost.
__________________



11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
  Reply With Quote