Hank: if merely reducing your rpm always results in better gas mileage,then help me figure out my mileage in this example:
I come to a stop at an intersection. I have my foot on the brake and am not moving. I am idling at 650rpm (you can't get the rpm's much lower than that huh?) and I sit there not moving for exactly one hour(thus making the math easy for you). Calculate my mpg for that hour.(hint: it rhymes with "hero")
If all it takes to get better gas milage is using taller and taller gears to reduce the rpm, then why are we not seeing auto manufacturers utilizing 1.56 rear gears or better yet, 1.13 gears or for that matter seeing the likes of a 1:1 final drive ratio?? Hank you would love it. Think of how
quite oops..I mean quiet that would be!
Tom: It has been my contention all along that by using very tall gearing you wind up having to step into the gas more than you would with shorter gears in order to maintain your desired speed and wind up getting into the power stage of the carb . Thus ruining the mpg. This sounds to me like what you might have been running up against.
Using somewhat shorter gears would mean you don't have to step into the gas so much, thereby staying out of the power stage of the carb. This could potentially get you better gas mileage AND give more get-up-n-go than 2.56 gears supply. As you and I most most others realize, the Earth is not flat.
Real life has headwinds and uphill climbs and is far from ideal.
Glad you had fun at the Convention, I wish I coulda gone!
fasteddie
