09CVT vs. 04MT Fuel Economy Question
08-11-2008, 06:45 AM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 35
09CVT vs. 04MT Fuel Economy Question
Can anyone answer this...I don't get it.
My 2004 Maxima SE (manual 6 speed), has a window sticker of 20city/29highway. The in dash computer says I average 25.5 MPG which I think is pretty decent.
The 2009 CVT automatic offers a window sticker fuel economy rating of 19city/26highway.
How is this possible and why are people here raving about the 09's better fuel economy when my 2004 manual beats both?
We all know we can never reach (in real life) the fuel economy rated on the window sticker but I don't see how the CVT is doing anything to improve fuel economy. Yet people here think it's good.
Why is a newer car using more fuel?
With a rating of 26 highway (which I drive more highway miles), I would probably average 21MPG with the CVT. That's not good.
Wouldn't an 09 with a 6 speed manual get even better mileage than 19/26?
Another off question, why does the 09 have more drag then my 04.
We seem to be going backwards here.
Can someone enlighten me please?
My 2004 Maxima SE (manual 6 speed), has a window sticker of 20city/29highway. The in dash computer says I average 25.5 MPG which I think is pretty decent.
The 2009 CVT automatic offers a window sticker fuel economy rating of 19city/26highway.
How is this possible and why are people here raving about the 09's better fuel economy when my 2004 manual beats both?
We all know we can never reach (in real life) the fuel economy rated on the window sticker but I don't see how the CVT is doing anything to improve fuel economy. Yet people here think it's good.
Why is a newer car using more fuel?
With a rating of 26 highway (which I drive more highway miles), I would probably average 21MPG with the CVT. That's not good.
Wouldn't an 09 with a 6 speed manual get even better mileage than 19/26?
Another off question, why does the 09 have more drag then my 04.
We seem to be going backwards here.
Can someone enlighten me please?
08-11-2008, 07:25 AM
#2
Your not buying a Maxima for fuel efficiency, your buying it for the performance and luxury.
"Fuel economy is estimated to be 19 miles per gallon City, 26 miles per gallon Highway (final EPA figures to announced at a later date) – similar to that of the 2008 Maxima, despite the 2009 Maxima’s 35 additional horsepower."
Similar does not mean the same. With an additional 35 HP, it can easily drop a cars fuel efficiency by 2-3mpg.
And yes, you can achieve the fuel economy rated on the sticker on certain circumstances. There are even ways to pass it. Look around the forum for tips.
I don't have an 04 Maxima, but I do have an 00 and I can get almost 30mpg on the highway driving speed limit with cruise control on. It all depends on how you drive.
"Fuel economy is estimated to be 19 miles per gallon City, 26 miles per gallon Highway (final EPA figures to announced at a later date) – similar to that of the 2008 Maxima, despite the 2009 Maxima’s 35 additional horsepower."
Similar does not mean the same. With an additional 35 HP, it can easily drop a cars fuel efficiency by 2-3mpg.
And yes, you can achieve the fuel economy rated on the sticker on certain circumstances. There are even ways to pass it. Look around the forum for tips.
I don't have an 04 Maxima, but I do have an 00 and I can get almost 30mpg on the highway driving speed limit with cruise control on. It all depends on how you drive.
08-11-2008, 08:58 AM
#3
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 35
I agree Kevin319...I didn't buy a Maxima for the gas mileage...but today that's a different story, people are looking at that even closer, now more than ever.
From what I've read here, Nissan is sticking with the CVT because they can advertise/claim better gas mileage...BUT...they could also claim slightly more mileage with a manual. It's all in the wording and fine print in the commercial.
I'm not saying Nissan has to have manuals on every auto dealers lot (taking up space) but at least make it a special order option. I would sit and wait for what I wanted. I think almost all manual lovers would.
I have read tips to get better mileage here and applied them to my driving. Cruse control really does help.
From what I've read here, Nissan is sticking with the CVT because they can advertise/claim better gas mileage...BUT...they could also claim slightly more mileage with a manual. It's all in the wording and fine print in the commercial.
I'm not saying Nissan has to have manuals on every auto dealers lot (taking up space) but at least make it a special order option. I would sit and wait for what I wanted. I think almost all manual lovers would.
I have read tips to get better mileage here and applied them to my driving. Cruse control really does help.
08-11-2008, 11:02 AM
#4
The EPA changed the way MPG estimates were published on cars, rating MPG has now become stricter. So look at this way: if the 09 were rated under the old guidelines, it'd have a rating of 20/30. In 2006, the 6th gens MPG was changed to 19/25 officially.
08-11-2008, 11:11 AM
#5
I agree with the special order options. Nissan should have a "Enthusiast Edition/Series" for the 09 Maxima, they don't have to mass product it, just limit it to like 3000 or something and I am sure it will be a sell out.
08-11-2008, 11:17 AM
#6
We all want good gas mileage but the 09 Maxima as well as many cars that get similar gas mileage do well except for the high gas prices, if it was not for the price of gas this question would not be repeatedly asked.
If someone is truly concerned with high mileage then some of the smaller eco cars may need to be looked at.
If someone is truly concerned with high mileage then some of the smaller eco cars may need to be looked at.
08-11-2008, 11:40 AM
#8
NINE-time Maxima Owner
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 680
Driven "normally", I average 23 without ever seeing a highway. This is nearly 10% better than I averaged (same engine, driver, style, roads) with my '03 4AT... a more apt comparison indicating that the CVT is responsible for improving mileage, not hurting it.
Last edited by jcalabria; 08-11-2008 at 11:45 AM.
08-11-2008, 11:51 AM
#10
NINE-time Maxima Owner
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 680
I do it both ways on a regular basis... very surprisingly the '07s trip computer has been spot on with the old fashioned way. Couldn't say the same about the '03s trip computer ... it was typically 20% optimistic on the fuel mileage.
08-11-2008, 01:53 PM
#11
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Beantown
Posts: 52
Hey Guys, here's a cool little tool i found a while back on an EPA's sister website. It might help for little debates about fuel economy on pre 2008 vehicles. The website also has a decent amount of info on the changes that were made to the ratings system. All cars 2008 and forward have the new ratings systems. Enjoy
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=19796
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=19796
08-11-2008, 06:09 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
Some folks will never care for the CVT, and nobody ever said it was more fun to drive,
BUT:
THE '09 MAXIMA WITH CVT GETS BETTER MPG THAN ANY MAXIMA EVER MADE.
WHEN, WHEN, WHEN are we going to stop comparing those falsely optimistic old formula '04 EPA MPG numbers with the '07 and later numbers, which were adjusted DOWNWARD by revised EPA formulas in 2007/08 to be more realistic?
And when are we going to stop floating numbers from the on-board computer, which we all know is at best, a WAG (wild a___d guess). Even manually measured MPGs are not extremely accurate, as there are dozens of variables (listed on the ORG at times in the past) that can't be controlled in measuring that way. Any measurement covering less than three or four tankfuls is particularly suspect.
So we go by EPA measurements.
Under the '04 formula, the very efficient '09 CVT would be rated either 29 or 30 MPG highway (the '04 was 26). We have already had a few '09 owners get 30 and 32 on long freeway trips. My '04 usually gets between 26 and 29 on long freeway trips , which is representative of many other '04s whose owners have posted on the ORG.
THANKS TO THE NEW EFFICIENT CVT, when we use the same formula for all Maximas, the '09 actually has a higher MPG rating than any previous Maxima ever made, even though this '09 has (by what I consider to be a significant margin) the most powerful engine of any Maxima ever made, and is heavier than all but the last few Maximas (over 100 pounds heavier than my '04).
No, the CVT is not understood by some folks, and not appreciated by others. But it is the most efficient tranny to ever appear in a Maxima. Basic laws of physics tell us a tranny that can always be at optimum RPMs for the situation with no pause for shifting will give both better accelleration and better fuel economy than any tranny that shifts. As the software is prefected, we will see even more of an advantage with the CVT.
So keep in mind: Urban rumors or agenda-driven sputum to the contrary, THE '09 GETS THE BEST MPG OF ANY MAXIMA EVER MADE.
BUT:
THE '09 MAXIMA WITH CVT GETS BETTER MPG THAN ANY MAXIMA EVER MADE.
WHEN, WHEN, WHEN are we going to stop comparing those falsely optimistic old formula '04 EPA MPG numbers with the '07 and later numbers, which were adjusted DOWNWARD by revised EPA formulas in 2007/08 to be more realistic?
And when are we going to stop floating numbers from the on-board computer, which we all know is at best, a WAG (wild a___d guess). Even manually measured MPGs are not extremely accurate, as there are dozens of variables (listed on the ORG at times in the past) that can't be controlled in measuring that way. Any measurement covering less than three or four tankfuls is particularly suspect.
So we go by EPA measurements.
Under the '04 formula, the very efficient '09 CVT would be rated either 29 or 30 MPG highway (the '04 was 26). We have already had a few '09 owners get 30 and 32 on long freeway trips. My '04 usually gets between 26 and 29 on long freeway trips , which is representative of many other '04s whose owners have posted on the ORG.
THANKS TO THE NEW EFFICIENT CVT, when we use the same formula for all Maximas, the '09 actually has a higher MPG rating than any previous Maxima ever made, even though this '09 has (by what I consider to be a significant margin) the most powerful engine of any Maxima ever made, and is heavier than all but the last few Maximas (over 100 pounds heavier than my '04).
No, the CVT is not understood by some folks, and not appreciated by others. But it is the most efficient tranny to ever appear in a Maxima. Basic laws of physics tell us a tranny that can always be at optimum RPMs for the situation with no pause for shifting will give both better accelleration and better fuel economy than any tranny that shifts. As the software is prefected, we will see even more of an advantage with the CVT.
So keep in mind: Urban rumors or agenda-driven sputum to the contrary, THE '09 GETS THE BEST MPG OF ANY MAXIMA EVER MADE.
08-11-2008, 06:49 PM
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 607
Light is right.
Also, note that a CVT is the preferred tranny in more fuel efficient cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid. So there is something about the CVT that makes a number of auto manufacturers to prefer it over conventional AT or MT when it comes to fuel efficiency. I think, Nissan is on the right path.
However, I had hoped with the 09 Maxima (19/26), Nissan would be able to touch, if not surpass, the city/hwy mpg of the Accord V6 (19/29) and Avalon (19/28), both being larger sedans than the 09 Maxima. Unfortunately, it couldn't and I am disappointed.
Also, note that a CVT is the preferred tranny in more fuel efficient cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid. So there is something about the CVT that makes a number of auto manufacturers to prefer it over conventional AT or MT when it comes to fuel efficiency. I think, Nissan is on the right path.
However, I had hoped with the 09 Maxima (19/26), Nissan would be able to touch, if not surpass, the city/hwy mpg of the Accord V6 (19/29) and Avalon (19/28), both being larger sedans than the 09 Maxima. Unfortunately, it couldn't and I am disappointed.
08-11-2008, 07:08 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
Light is right.
Also, note that a CVT is the preferred tranny in more fuel efficient cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid. So there is something about the CVT that makes a number of auto manufacturers to prefer it over conventional AT or MT when it comes to fuel efficiency. I think, Nissan is on the right path.
However, I had hoped with the 09 Maxima (19/26), Nissan would be able to touch, if not surpass, the city/hwy mpg of the Accord V6 (19/29) and Avalon (19/28), both being larger sedans than the 09 Maxima. Unfortunately, it couldn't and I am disappointed.
Also, note that a CVT is the preferred tranny in more fuel efficient cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid. So there is something about the CVT that makes a number of auto manufacturers to prefer it over conventional AT or MT when it comes to fuel efficiency. I think, Nissan is on the right path.
However, I had hoped with the 09 Maxima (19/26), Nissan would be able to touch, if not surpass, the city/hwy mpg of the Accord V6 (19/29) and Avalon (19/28), both being larger sedans than the 09 Maxima. Unfortunately, it couldn't and I am disappointed.
Like bb700092, I had a little tinge of disappointment that this new '09 couldn't have had an EPA highway MPG rating a tad higher. But hopefully that will rise with the half-gen in two years? At least several here who have taken longer freeway trips with the '09 are recording such numbers as 30 and 32 MPG, so maybe the '09 will do better than its numbers. At least we can hope.
08-12-2008, 07:35 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 122
Light is right.
Also, note that a CVT is the preferred tranny in more fuel efficient cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid. So there is something about the CVT that makes a number of auto manufacturers to prefer it over conventional AT or MT when it comes to fuel efficiency. I think, Nissan is on the right path.
However, I had hoped with the 09 Maxima (19/26), Nissan would be able to touch, if not surpass, the city/hwy mpg of the Accord V6 (19/29) and Avalon (19/28), both being larger sedans than the 09 Maxima. Unfortunately, it couldn't and I am disappointed.
Also, note that a CVT is the preferred tranny in more fuel efficient cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid. So there is something about the CVT that makes a number of auto manufacturers to prefer it over conventional AT or MT when it comes to fuel efficiency. I think, Nissan is on the right path.
However, I had hoped with the 09 Maxima (19/26), Nissan would be able to touch, if not surpass, the city/hwy mpg of the Accord V6 (19/29) and Avalon (19/28), both being larger sedans than the 09 Maxima. Unfortunately, it couldn't and I am disappointed.
08-12-2008, 11:45 PM
#19
Light is right.
Also, note that a CVT is the preferred tranny in more fuel efficient cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid. So there is something about the CVT that makes a number of auto manufacturers to prefer it over conventional AT or MT when it comes to fuel efficiency. I think, Nissan is on the right path.
However, I had hoped with the 09 Maxima (19/26), Nissan would be able to touch, if not surpass, the city/hwy mpg of the Accord V6 (19/29) and Avalon (19/28), both being larger sedans than the 09 Maxima. Unfortunately, it couldn't and I am disappointed.
Also, note that a CVT is the preferred tranny in more fuel efficient cars like the Prius and Civic Hybrid. So there is something about the CVT that makes a number of auto manufacturers to prefer it over conventional AT or MT when it comes to fuel efficiency. I think, Nissan is on the right path.
However, I had hoped with the 09 Maxima (19/26), Nissan would be able to touch, if not surpass, the city/hwy mpg of the Accord V6 (19/29) and Avalon (19/28), both being larger sedans than the 09 Maxima. Unfortunately, it couldn't and I am disappointed.
I think that the VQ30/35DE engines are very efficient. I get 29.6 avg MPG on my 3.5 in mixed driving, and if the new Max gets 32 as reported, I'd say these are great numbers. There are MANY smaller, lighter, less powerful and less efficient cars out there with 4 bangers that get considerably less MPG than the Max's I have been around. Heck, my wife's 2008 Impreza 2.5i can't get any better than 25.4 MPG. 2.5 liter, 170 HP. It may be AWD, but still, my 255 HP Max shouldn't be getting so much better MPGs!
12-13-2008, 09:00 PM
#21
Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 34
maybe, this thread is too old so no one would answer this but,,,
i'm kinda shocked about fuel efficiency,too. why do new cars consume much more gas? i live in canada, so i don't know about mpg... anyways,,, fuel efficiency is much less than what it 's advertising... like much less... say it says 10.9 liter for 100km but on computer panel, it's giving me 15 liter for 100km... this is not right
i'm kinda shocked about fuel efficiency,too. why do new cars consume much more gas? i live in canada, so i don't know about mpg... anyways,,, fuel efficiency is much less than what it 's advertising... like much less... say it says 10.9 liter for 100km but on computer panel, it's giving me 15 liter for 100km... this is not right
12-14-2008, 12:42 AM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
maybe, this thread is too old so no one would answer this but,,,
i'm kinda shocked about fuel efficiency,too. why do new cars consume much more gas? i live in canada, so i don't know about mpg... anyways,,, fuel efficiency is much less than what it 's advertising... like much less... say it says 10.9 liter for 100km but on computer panel, it's giving me 15 liter for 100km... this is not right
i'm kinda shocked about fuel efficiency,too. why do new cars consume much more gas? i live in canada, so i don't know about mpg... anyways,,, fuel efficiency is much less than what it 's advertising... like much less... say it says 10.9 liter for 100km but on computer panel, it's giving me 15 liter for 100km... this is not right
We have to remember that the 2nd gen Maxima weighed around 3,000 pounds and had around 170 HP. We now have a Maxima that weighs 3600+ pounds, and has 290 HP. And yet the MPG of the '09 is no worse than what I got on both my 1985 Maximas.
Restricting this to a more recent situation, the '09 Maxima raised the HP from 255 to 290, yet the EPA rated gas mileage actually went up one MPG, and two '09 drivers here have already gotten 30 and 32 MPG on long freeway trips.
Steve, city/local driving MPG will vary greatly by driver and conditions. 16 to 18 MPG is not unusual in these situations. I hope you will find a way to take a moderately long freeway trip and get a good feel for your freeway MPG. If it is less than 27/28 after your car is broken in, you may have a problem with your car.
12-14-2008, 06:49 AM
#24
Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 86
We have to remember that the 2nd gen Maxima weighed around 3,000 pounds and had around 170 HP. We now have a Maxima that weighs 3600+ pounds, and has 290 HP. And yet the MPG of the '09 is no worse than what I got on both my 1985 Maximas.
Restricting this to a more recent situation, the '09 Maxima raised the HP from 255 to 290, yet the EPA rated gas mileage actually went up one MPG, and two '09 drivers here have already gotten 30 and 32 MPG on long freeway trips.
Steve, city/local driving MPG will vary greatly by driver and conditions. 16 to 18 MPG is not unusual in these situations. I hope you will find a way to take a moderately long freeway trip and get a good feel for your freeway MPG. If it is less than 27/28 after your car is broken in, you may have a problem with your car.
Restricting this to a more recent situation, the '09 Maxima raised the HP from 255 to 290, yet the EPA rated gas mileage actually went up one MPG, and two '09 drivers here have already gotten 30 and 32 MPG on long freeway trips.
Steve, city/local driving MPG will vary greatly by driver and conditions. 16 to 18 MPG is not unusual in these situations. I hope you will find a way to take a moderately long freeway trip and get a good feel for your freeway MPG. If it is less than 27/28 after your car is broken in, you may have a problem with your car.
Lightonthehill - do you have new Max or are you still negotiating?
12-14-2008, 04:52 PM
#26
I am right there with you mls277, I just got rid of my 2006 Dodge Ram HEMI Quad Cab 4X4 V-8 Gas guzzler......When gas was at it's peak of $4.00 and a 34 gallon tank it would cost me in excess of $120 just to fill it up and with most gas stations the pump wouild shut off after $100.00 and I would just stop there. Even when I got my 09 MAX my gas consumption literally dropped by half with a 20 gallon tank getting 25 MPG average versus the 13 I was getting in my truck I doubled my output in miles and filled up every two weeks instead of every 9 days!!!!!
I love my new MAX and I just love driving knowing that I am getting so much more bang for my dollar!!!
12-15-2008, 12:29 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
Rkurlander - Still negotiating. We spent a week out of town on vacation in late November, then another week out of town in early December, and now I have a rotten cold, dozens of Chrismas cards to write, and presents to buy and wrap.
I decided a few weeks ago to aim for the grand end-of-year clearout, where dealers are trying to meet weekly, monthly, quarterly and yearly quotas, and know any car still on their lot after the first few days of January will have to have an obnoxious state inventory tax paid on it. Really great time to buy.
Thanks for asking.
12-15-2008, 08:55 PM
#28
Can anyone answer this...I don't get it.
My 2004 Maxima SE (manual 6 speed), has a window sticker of 20city/29highway. The in dash computer says I average 25.5 MPG which I think is pretty decent.
The 2009 CVT automatic offers a window sticker fuel economy rating of 19city/26highway.
How is this possible and why are people here raving about the 09's better fuel economy when my 2004 manual beats both?
We all know we can never reach (in real life) the fuel economy rated on the window sticker but I don't see how the CVT is doing anything to improve fuel economy. Yet people here think it's good.
Why is a newer car using more fuel?
With a rating of 26 highway (which I drive more highway miles), I would probably average 21MPG with the CVT. That's not good.
Wouldn't an 09 with a 6 speed manual get even better mileage than 19/26?
Another off question, why does the 09 have more drag then my 04.
We seem to be going backwards here.
Can someone enlighten me please?
My 2004 Maxima SE (manual 6 speed), has a window sticker of 20city/29highway. The in dash computer says I average 25.5 MPG which I think is pretty decent.
The 2009 CVT automatic offers a window sticker fuel economy rating of 19city/26highway.
How is this possible and why are people here raving about the 09's better fuel economy when my 2004 manual beats both?
We all know we can never reach (in real life) the fuel economy rated on the window sticker but I don't see how the CVT is doing anything to improve fuel economy. Yet people here think it's good.
Why is a newer car using more fuel?
With a rating of 26 highway (which I drive more highway miles), I would probably average 21MPG with the CVT. That's not good.
Wouldn't an 09 with a 6 speed manual get even better mileage than 19/26?
Another off question, why does the 09 have more drag then my 04.
We seem to be going backwards here.
Can someone enlighten me please?
as far as CVTs... i've heard they have a broader range of gear ratios than a fixed-ratio transmission, and if TC is locked up, you can probably get a decently low cruising RPM and good highway MPG.
Last edited by CapedCadaver; 12-15-2008 at 08:58 PM.
12-15-2008, 11:06 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
i kinda have to disagree with that. i have an 18-year-old turd gen (VG30E, 5spd) and drove 496 miles on one highway tank (75-80mph), for an average of 31.2mpg based on how much i filled up with. I'm rated for 18/24. I'd even gotten 27mpg combined. So it's entirely possible to whoop the EPA's butt, even with an old car.
as far as CVTs... i've heard they have a broader range of gear ratios than a fixed-ratio transmission, and if TC is locked up, you can probably get a decently low cruising RPM and good highway MPG.
as far as CVTs... i've heard they have a broader range of gear ratios than a fixed-ratio transmission, and if TC is locked up, you can probably get a decently low cruising RPM and good highway MPG.
Cadaver is right. Even though the EPA ratings on 2004 cars were under the old rating system, and unrealistically high, a carefully driven Maxima could sometimes beat those numbers. And he is also correct that the 'infinite' gears of the CVT offer good highway MPG.
Now that we have had all EPA numbers lowered by a complete change in the fuel rating system at the end of the 2007 model year, the '09 Maxima still has decent EPA readings of 19/26, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARLY HIGHER UNDER THE RATING SYSTEM IN USE IN 2004. And we already have posters here that got 30 and 32 MPG on long freeway trips in their new '09s.
So, despite adding 35 HP, the '09 Maxima can beat its EPA highway rating by up to four to six MPG. That is actually rather fantastic, and tells me very clearly that the '09 CVT is more fuel-efficient than any auto or manual would be in this car.
Of course basic physics told Nissan engineers years ago the CVT definitely had the potential to give better fuel efficiency and better accelleration, and that is why Nissan has worked so hard to perfect it.
12-16-2008, 06:53 PM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,323
i kinda have to disagree with that. i have an 18-year-old turd gen (VG30E, 5spd) and drove 496 miles on one highway tank (75-80mph), for an average of 31.2mpg based on how much i filled up with. I'm rated for 18/24. I'd even gotten 27mpg combined. So it's entirely possible to whoop the EPA's butt, even with an old car.
as far as CVTs... i've heard they have a broader range of gear ratios than a fixed-ratio transmission, and if TC is locked up, you can probably get a decently low cruising RPM and good highway MPG.
as far as CVTs... i've heard they have a broader range of gear ratios than a fixed-ratio transmission, and if TC is locked up, you can probably get a decently low cruising RPM and good highway MPG.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...olumn=1&id=281
and I get like 30 driving at 75 going across the desert
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
aminus21
4th Generation Classifieds (1995-1999)
6
09-12-2015 04:53 PM