Just noticed how low the RPM's stay

[jstmike]

I just noticed that the SL with CVT stays under 2,000 RPM while driving around town up to around 60 MPH. Most of the time it is around 1,200 RPM.

Maybe instead of Miles Per Gallon we should measure it by Gallons Per Hours like an airplane.
Modified by jstmike at 10:32 AM 9/1/2006

[jstmike]

It's been awhile since algebra.

If (Miles Per Hour ÷ Gallons Per Hour = Miles Per Gallon)

I got this off: http://www.floscan.com/html/blue/mostimportant.php

Then is this right? (Miles Per Hour ÷ Miles Per Gallon = Gallons Per Hour)

If that is true then 60 MPH ÷ 36 MPG = 1.67 GPH

That would mean that you can go 7.78 hours on 13 gallons which works out to be 467 miles.

So if you want to look like a total nerd you can tell your friends that your car gets 1.67 Gallons per hour.

[philmcneal]

dang wish a 6spd and a cvt each had a scangauge so we can truly know if 1200 rpms CVT is getting better mpg than 1200 rpms in the highest gear possible with the 6spd...

oh answers i'll never get to know ;(

[BenDupre]

If you beleive the EPA ratings, the CVT is rated 2mpg higher highway. If you read the real-world posts on some forums, the manual seems to be getting the better mileage overall.

Ben

[philmcneal]

whic

If you beleive the EPA ratings, the CVT is rated 2mpg higher highway. If you read the real-world posts on some forums, the manual seems to be getting the better mileage overall.

Ben

which really makes me believe the CVT has a lot of power losses when transfering the momentum from the engine to the wheels.

I can see why the 6spd would be more efficent in this case, the power transfer from engine to wheels is way more direct, maybe that's why the gearing was made taller, to compensate the losses on the CVT while the 6spd can be milked for more accel with its shorter gearing.

6spd still the winner in my eyes when it comes to efficent driving