I think we may have our wires crossed on the definition of higher gearing. Numerically, a higher gear has a smaller number on the left of the ratio than the number left of the ratio on a lower gear. For example, a 4.00:1 gear ratio is lower than a 3.50:1 gear. The reason is that the 3.50:1 gear produces more RPM at the output of the gear than the 4.00:1 gear at the same input speed. Higher torque (and thus horsepower at a specific RPM) leads to the ability to run a higher gear which allows the engine to turn less RPM, thus saving fuel.

Most of the V8 engines on the market (and V6 for that matter) are starting to offer variable displacement, which is essentially the ability to shut off cylinders so that they don’t need to burn fuel. The inactive cylinders do add some reciprocating weight and the compression stroke still happens, so a 5.6L V8 running in 4-cylinder mode will have more parasitic losses as a 2.8L I4 engine, but that 2.8L I4 could never produce the power of that 5.6L V8 without turbo charging.

BTW, an American V8 uses a firing order that produces a naturally balanced engine at 90 degrees on the block bank. Running in 4 cylinder mode the math is the same for the angle, so there is no perceptible difference when running in 8-cylinder and 4-cylinder modes. A V6 has a natural angle of 60 degrees on the block bank, but when run in 4 cylinder mode the bank angle is wrong and the engine vibrates because it’s not harmonically balanced. This vibration typically is severe enough to upset the harmonics of the car and under certain circumstances can cause resonance. This is the reason that Honda and other companies that produce multiple displacement V6 engines use active noise cancellation.

The things that people don’t talk about that affect fuel economy the most are weight and drag. The reason pickups and SUV’s get crappy gas mileage is that they are heavy and as aerodynamic as a brick. The Corvette Z06 gets 27 MPG highway while producing more horsepower than any truck or SUV on the road. This is accomplished through an EXTREMELY tall overdrive gear and an EXTREMELY efficient engine combined with very low weight and very low drag. Most I4 powered family cars struggle to achieve 27 MPG highway.

More horsepower usually results in using more fuel. The more fuel, the more horsepower. However, if you can use the amount of fuel your consuming more efficiently, then your most likely producing more horsepower however the same fuel economy. Smaller engine using fuel more efficiently results in better horsepower numbers and usually that leads them to be “downgraded”, to use less fuel but to post the same hp numbers as before.

Higher gearing does not translate to better fuel economy. Usually, higher gearing results in worse fuel economy, as the engine often has to overwork itself to get up to speed. However, lower RPMS often translates to better fuel economy, as it will be using less fuel compared to higher rpms.

BTW, great site. I can see you don’t exactly like Obama. And that’s the first time I’ve ever heard about such a problem on an Accord… and the first time I’ve heard of a “active noise canceling feature”. Kinda scares me to think why they would need to use such a thing.

fromes… its also Cobalt SS numbers, so what does that say about the cayman?-A4 Haha never thought I’d see the day when a production Cobalt would be as quick or faster than a Porsche, but true…

If you knew anything about physics you’d understand that improving efficiency improves both power and fuel consumption. Driving at X MPH requires Y HP based on drag and weight of the vehicle. It doesn’t matter if the motor providing Y has a potential of 380 HP or 390 HP. If the 380 HP and 390 HP motors have the same displacement and offer the same gearing to produce Y HP at the same engine speed, then the more efficient motor wins (ie. the one producing 390 HP). Higher power allows for higher gearing which in turn provides even more fuel economy benefits by allowing the engines to run at a lower RPM to produce Y HP. This in turn now makes the more powerful engine the more fuel efficient solution.

I think Chevrolet will be the first to bank off from these power wars. Either Chevrolet or Ford, because Toyota is out there to make a new image, and Dodge is trying to cover the image they’ve created.

The Dakota got a major redesign quite a while ago, and a major update recently. I don’t think Chrysler’s gonna let the Dakota soil; they’ll probably make it bigger to go against the rumored F-100.

And there’s still no market for a small pick-up…

I hope the Ranger stays small.

13 mpg city? good god.

Every time I’m there he’s always under the hood because it’s not working properly, I’ve also ridden in it, and have seen the horrible interior, and I’ve never seen a truck after like 3 months start to have rubber seals break and little things start to wear and rust?

A truck that size stock doing under 60 in 6 is fast but I don’t care if it’s faster than a Ferrari, I’d never own a Dodge (well maybe unless it was a Viper…)