[California98Civic]

Originally Posted by Mista Bone

...these folks like to argue about lugging the engine even though You, Aquafina, and I have gotten insane MPG by spinning these little motors at higher rpms. Close ratio ZC trans getting 48 mpg for example. ...

48 is pretty good. Congrats. But is that tank-to-tank? And do you have a fuel log?

I think sometimes you close ratio, high RPM, guys have forgotten what lugging an engine means. We don't lug these engines. We operate them at their more efficient RPMs. And the lower RPMs are associated with better FE all else being equal. Here is a test I did ("quick and dirty") a few years ago and posted in my modding thread at the time:

My stock 1998 DX tranmission had almost the same rpm/speed in 5th gear as my current 1993 CX transmission has in 4th gear. So I did a quick and dirty test just now, out of curiosity. In the below list, 4th gear is what my old DX transmission would have produced in fifth gear, while the displayed 5th gear number are for the super-tall 1993 CX (also VX) gearing that I now have. I welcome any ideas for a more rigorous test. I do not have cruise control on this car.

4th: 34.9 %Engine load, 2031rpm, approx 50mph, 59.5mpg
5th: 37.6 %Engine load, 1639rpm, approx 50mph, 66.8mpg

4th: 37.6 %Ld, 1891rpm, approx 45mph, 51.0mpg
5th: 47.5 %Ld, 1568rpm, approx 45mph, 53.3mpg

4th: 42.7 Ld, 2090rpm, 50mph, 48.0mpg
5th: 45.5 Ld, 1710rpm, 50mph, 56.3mpg

3: 37.3 ld, 2579rpm, 50mph, 45.7mpg
4: 35.7 ld, 2080rpm, 50mph, 58.3mpg
5: 34.1 ld, 1708rpm, 50mph, 75.1mpg

3: 36.5 ld, 2547rpm, 50mph, 45.9mpg
4: 40.5 ld, 2074rpm, 50mph, 48.9mpg
5: 47.5 ld, 1723rpm, 50mph, 55.8mpg