[JyRO]

QUOTE (Cruzin10 @ Oct 20 2010, 10:18 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=365045

Very interesting thread. I do not understand how some of the 2010 models have different rpms than those of the same year. It just doesn't make sense; inconsistency. Don't get me wrong, I am very happy with the car, but this is rubbing me a bit.
Well, 3rd tank of gas and the results are in.... 32mpg, now that is with half of the tank being after 1200 miles so I was going between 55-60mph on the highway and the other half 65-70 on highway. City as well throughout the tank.

I am reasonable happy with 32, but I have a gut feeling it is going to be lower with my next tank. I'm going to wait for that tank, I'm leaving Sunday for week for work.

Some of you did not write if you have a M/T or Auto, this is important info, so I would appreciate if you let us know

Cruzin10 - I have determined that all the vehicles with lower rpm combined with a manual trans, these are the BLUE Accents. Or Canadia's version of the BLUE.

The rest of the manual transmissions have the rpm as posted in the first post.

And ... my auto transmission rpm is a bit lower than the BLUE's rpm. However, I don't think the auto / slushbox is as efficient as a clutch so I think the BLUE is more efficient than the auto trans.

For MPG:
Manual - Good
Auto - Better
BLUE - Best

 

[JyRO]

QUOTE (RoosterSauce @ Oct 23 2010, 04:21 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=365725

I like running 3500 rpm @ 70 mph. There is no need to downshift to pass or go up hill, and the short gears are nice and sporty. That means more to me than a bit of noise and perhaps couple MPG's on the highway. The only acceptable fix for me would be a 6th gear.

I prefer lower rpm and torque. :banana: