|
|
08-31-2006, 11:29 AM
|
#21
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
|
Oh, surely, you're not, but the HF is already very long on gearing and reducing the inertia and rolling resistance of the tires, I think, is worth it.
__________________
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 11:39 AM
|
#22
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 171
Country: United States
|
I've thought about that. Which is why I would only do this if I could find a larger wheel/tire setup without a marked difference in weight. I would assume backspacing could also play a (minimal) role here as well, even if the tire/wheel weights were to differ. Anyway, isn't this only REALLY a valid argument when referring to stoping & going (overcoming that inertia)? Once you've achieved your driving speed I would think that amount of rotating mass would tend to work more for you, rather than against. (Such is the case for flywheels....any why NOT to get a flywheel that's too light, right?) Calling all engineers/Physics geeks?????? "help"
__________________
__________________
GAS GSLR
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 01:18 PM
|
#23
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
|
Yeah, intertia and such doesn't matter so much when rolling already except mehbe in friction, but dan did gain ~3 mpg going from his 15s to his HX with LRRs.
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 03:51 PM
|
#24
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,480
Country: United States
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
|
Yes, MPG on the highway but also I went from 185 to 165 wide in addition to the LRR. Who knows if less weight had to do with it. I suspect not.
__________________
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 04:01 PM
|
#25
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
|
Oh, I'm not saying about weight, just that large rims aren't always better.
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 06:02 PM
|
#26
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 125
Country: United States
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian D.
Great! Your from my (weekend) homeland...sort of. I drive from VA Beach to Monmouth Cty, NJ every weekend. Anyway, I don't know a whole lot about transmissions...and never cracked one open. What's the deal with the final drive? I sure wish I had my old '91 HF...now THAT was the tranny/gearing to have. Instead I've got this crappy gearing that makes me work like hell just to obtain 47MPG. I used to get 50-55 MPG in that old '91. Okay, what's my solution?? I'd love to go 6-speed...but somehow I don't see that as feasible. **Are you a Honda head? If so I've got more questions for you (FE questions).
|
maybe the california engine sucks also? i'm getting almost 50mpg out of my hf with si tranny, though i do drive slower, and accelerate slower than i did with my hf tranny.
what exactly is the difference other than poorer mileage with the california models, and why did california need a poorer performing car?
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 06:04 PM
|
#27
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
|
If anything it's not the engine, it's the ECU.
But anyway, they have stricter emissions, that's about all there is to it.
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 06:09 PM
|
#28
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 125
Country: United States
|
yes but wouldn't better gas mileage = lower emissions? according to the government site the california car emmits 4.1tons vs 3.7 for the regular. or was california going after a certian pollutant?
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 06:16 PM
|
#29
|
*shrug*
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
|
I'm sure there's something about the lower RPM. They also don't allow lean burn on the VX. Same with canada.
|
|
|
08-31-2006, 09:01 PM
|
#30
|
Registered Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,223
Country: United States
|
CDN VX's lean burn.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Car Talk & Chit Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
» Fuelly iOS Apps |
|
|
|
» Fuelly Android Apps |
No Threads to Display.
|
|