Extra gears: Not always better for FE

[theholycow]

Oh, that would do it. Fueleconomy.gov and a couple car specifications sites didn't mention two engines, but that makes more sense.

[dkjones96]

I'm trying to find an instance where the transmission gear ratios reduce for an increase in mileage but the only ones I can find either get worse mileage with the same engine or a different engine gets better. Like the Omni, 1.6l 4 speed gets 26/36 while the 2.2 5 speed gets 22/33

[dkjones96]

I found one!!! The 1985 2.2L Dodge Aries got 23/30 with the 4 speed and 22/30 with the 5 speed.

The Cali models don't do it but the 49 state version does.

[theclencher]

First year ('84) Tempo/Topaz had a "Fuel Saver" 4-speed which featured a higher final drive ratio than the 5-speed. Can't put my finger on fe figures but I think the 4-speed was rated higher.

[GasSavers_Pete]

Originally Posted by BEEF

I was thinking the same thing. maybe they put a different differential gear ratio in it (not sure what you call the front wheel drive version of this).

It is still called a diff ratio regardless of which end of the vehicle it is fitted to.

I agree with the comments about the larger engined cars (GM , Ford etc) using taller gears but it is worthwhile to remember the additional torque generated by the engines can easily manage to shift the vehicle even with the taller ratios.

I drove my brother's Subaru and kept wondering when it was going to change into "top" on the freeway.
It WAS is top but still turning a lot more revs than I was used to.

Cheers , Pete.

[thisisntjared]

Originally Posted by Pete

It is still called a diff ratio regardless of which end of the vehicle it is fitted to.

I agree with the comments about the larger engined cars (GM , Ford etc) using taller gears but it is worthwhile to remember the additional torque generated by the engines can easily manage to shift the vehicle even with the taller ratios.

I drove my brother's Subaru and kept wondering when it was going to change into "top" on the freeway.
It WAS is top but still turning a lot more revs than I was used to.

Cheers , Pete.

the really funny thing about that is that subarus are pretty long for 4 cylinders hahaha.

[IndyFetch]

Originally Posted by dkjones96

It isn't the transmission that made the difference, it was the engine.

The 4-speed was paired with the base 1.5L 3E-E SOHC 3-valve, fuel injected 4 cylinder while the 5-speed was paired with the 1.5L 5E-FE DOHC 4-valve, fuel injected 4 cylinder.

By 1995, both the 4-speed and 5-speed had the 93-hp, 16v engine. The 4-speed is rated 28/35 on the 2008+ ratings (31/36 on the sticker) while the 5-speed is rated 27/35 on the 2008+ ratings (30/34 on the sticker).

This is significant in that (1) the 4-speed is still rated higher, and (2) the 5-speed is actually rated HIGHER on the 2008 highway rating than on the 1995 rating.

[IndyFetch]

Originally Posted by Pete

It is still called a diff ratio regardless of which end of the vehicle it is fitted to.

I agree with the comments about the larger engined cars (GM , Ford etc) using taller gears but it is worthwhile to remember the additional torque generated by the engines can easily manage to shift the vehicle even with the taller ratios.

I drove my brother's Subaru and kept wondering when it was going to change into "top" on the freeway.
It WAS is top but still turning a lot more revs than I was used to.

Cheers , Pete.

I call it the "rear end gear" in a rear-drive car, and the "final drive ratio" in a front-drive car. I know they're all the same thing... I just grew up saying it that way.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Fetch

By 1995, both the 4-speed and 5-speed had the 93-hp, 16v engine.

What about 1992? The specifications site I found shows one engine for all models of 1992 Tercel.

[dkjones96]

1995 is a different generation. It's the 5th generation and has the 93HP OBD2 equipped 5E-FE.

In 1992(4th gen) they had the 82HP 3E-E and the 100HP 5E-FE. The 3E was discontinued in 94 and the 5E continued to like 98.