Quote:
Originally Posted by serialk11r
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
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.