2020 Gear Ratio Question

mjh · Sep 11, 2019

Micah said:
I often downshift all the way down to first when coming to a stop. It is a skill worth knowing.

Why, exactly? Is it a matter of using the brakes less? Or is there actual value to the transmission in downshifting all the way down to a stop? The only bit of ancient (probably bs) folk wisdom I seem to remember is "It's cheaper to replace brakes than a transmission." It doesn't appear to put any strain on the transmission to be rolling to a stop in neutral.

charleswrivers · Sep 11, 2019

mjh said:
I'm also surprised that they made an adjustment that lowers MPG without any increase in HP/Torque. It strikes me that the change would be pretty subtle to the layman, but I hope to be proven wrong

Well... it did increase wheel torque... so assuming you put the old gearing correction factor in 4th and did a pull, you'd see the extra 6%. Honda's deadset on keeping the Sis L15B7 at it's present power levels. I was secretly hoping they were saving a true TD03 and ditching the TD025 and bumping engine output up a smidge for the 10.5 gen Sis. As it is... I assume it will soldier on in this form until gen 11 hits. I was hoping for a bump... any bump in engine output as that'd show some Honda confidence in uprating their existing engine and in keeping the car competitive because numbers help sell cars. We'll just have to see what the instrumented tests show. I just don't think it'll be enough to hardly matter. We're still looking at a mid-high 14 second car. The beautify of mating a slightly larger turbo... or bumping boost targets up a couple pounds from the factory would have been it shouldn't have affected highway MPGs at all.

I really hope they've got something up their sleeve for gen 11's powertrain. As much as I like the car... I think a gen 11 Si will struggle to sell well if they stick with the existing powertrain. Since gen 11 will be in existence when the 2025 CAFE targets take effect... I wonder if there's going to be a last ditch push to meet them, assuming they don't get punted. We may see mild hybrid setup's, like what I know GM uses, across cars that were otherwise pure-ICE. While I like staying as light as possible... GMs idea of ditching a standard alternator for a unit with a motor controller which will either produce electricity or provide additional torque and allow start/stop (I think this is specifically a gimmick for the most part)... essentially as an accessory, with a miniscule battery... while providing nearly 50 extra ft-lbs off-the-line. It'd close the gap between city and highway MPGs a lot.

I'm very interested to see how fleets are going to reach their 54.5 average. There's been great strides made over the last decade... and Honda finally made some meaningful improvements with this car compared to the last few generations... but as one of their most economical pure-ICE cars and a volume seller... and a powertrain that's across the Civic, Accord and CRV... they're going to have to show their cards soon or start paying penalties. We may end up finally getting those super high, overdriven gears shortly. This is kind of one of the big reasons why I was surprised the gearing change was their card to play. They're going the wrong way... though gen 10 will have long folded by the time 2025 rolls around.

Micah · Sep 11, 2019

mjh said:
Why, exactly? Is it a matter of using the brakes less? Or is there actual value to the transmission in downshifting all the way down to a stop? The only bit of ancient (probably bs) folk wisdom I seem to remember is "It's cheaper to replace brakes than a transmission." It doesn't appear to put any strain on the transmission to be rolling to a stop in neutral.

Mainly because if I need to take off, I am already in a gear I can use. Second, because using the engine drag to slow the car down works better than the brakes on their own. Third, fuel economy is improved which is just an added bonus. I like getting 450 to 500 miles per tank, and occasionally a little over.

There is no strain to rolling to a stop out of gear, but there is definitely a delay in selecting a gear to take off when needed. My previously owned car list is in my sig, and I have had clutches last me a very long time. I doubt I will need to replace my clutch before 70k miles, maybe even after 100k miles. Hard to be sure but it feels perfectly fine with 30k+ miles.

Micah · Sep 11, 2019

charleswrivers said:
Well... it did increase wheel torque... so assuming you put the old gearing correction factor in 4th and did a pull, you'd see the extra 6%. Honda's deadset on keeping the Sis L15B7 at it's present power levels. I was secretly hoping they were saving a true TD03 and ditching the TD025 and bumping engine output up a smidge for the 10.5 gen Sis. As it is... I assume it will soldier on in this form until gen 11 hits. I was hoping for a bump... any bump in engine output as that'd show some Honda confidence in uprating their existing engine and in keeping the car competitive because numbers help sell cars. We'll just have to see what the instrumented tests show. I just don't think it'll be enough to hardly matter. We're still looking at a mid-high 14 second car. The beautify of mating a slightly larger turbo... or bumping boost targets up a couple pounds from the factory would have been it shouldn't have affected highway MPGs at all.

I really hope they've got something up their sleeve for gen 11's powertrain. As much as I like the car... I think a gen 11 Si will struggle to sell well if they stick with the existing powertrain. Since gen 11 will be in existence when the 2025 CAFE targets take effect... I wonder if there's going to be a last ditch push to meet them, assuming they don't get punted. We may see mild hybrid setup's, like what I know GM uses, across cars that were otherwise pure-ICE. While I like staying as light as possible... GMs idea of ditching a standard alternator for a unit with a motor controller which will either produce electricity or provide additional torque and allow start/stop (I think this is specifically a gimmick for the most part)... essentially as an accessory, with a miniscule battery... while providing nearly 50 extra ft-lbs off-the-line. It'd close the gap between city and highway MPGs a lot.

I'm very interested to see how fleets are going to reach their 54.5 average. There's been great strides made over the last decade... and Honda finally made some meaningful improvements with this car compared to the last few generations... but as one of their most economical pure-ICE cars and a volume seller... and a powertrain that's across the Civic, Accord and CRV... they're going to have to show their cards soon or start paying penalties. We may end up finally getting those super high, overdriven gears shortly. This is kind of one of the big reasons why I was surprised the gearing change was their card to play. They're going the wrong way... though gen 10 will have long folded by the time 2025 rolls around.

I like where your head is at. I know there are some new CVT's which essentially are 1+CVT where they have a fixed ratio gear for takeoff, then handoff to the CVT(if memory serves Toyota is doing this), so ... maybe a 1+CVT+OD or CVT+OD where they have a fixed gear output to make things severely overdriven. Replacing the standard alternator with an electric motor which can push torque, regen brake, and bump start the engine... probably doesn't net much weight gain and would seem to be well suited to benefit meeting the upcoming CAFE mpg targets.

As recently evidenced by diesel-gate, we know auto manufacturers are even more obviously willing to game the system. If they can keep the mpg low for a typical test of fuel economy, they'll hit the target.

charleswrivers · Sep 11, 2019

Micah said:
I like where your head is at. I know there are some new CVT's which essentially are 1+CVT where they have a fixed ratio gear for takeoff, then handoff to the CVT(if memory serves Toyota is doing this), so ... maybe a 1+CVT+OD or CVT+OD where they have a fixed gear output to make things severely overdriven. Replacing the standard alternator with an electric motor which can push torque, regen brake, and bump start the engine... probably doesn't net much weight gain and would seem to be well suited to benefit meeting the upcoming CAFE mpg targets.

As recently evidenced by diesel-gate, we know auto manufacturers are even more obviously willing to game the system. If they can keep the mpg low for a typical test of fuel economy, they'll hit the target.

Yeah... GM gets a lot of crap, and some of it is well deserved. I think they market their best stuff terribly and if they put a little more care in their products... I don't think they'd raise their production costs dramatically while putting out a great product.

That eAssist or whatever-they-call it was such a ingenious idea. It wasn't groundbreaking. It wasn't a reinvention of the ICE. It was just putting the minimum of cost and complexity of parts on existing technologies and making not only improvements to pave the way for at least trying to meet CAFE requirements... but, hell... I'd take an extra instant ~50 ft-lbs of torque off time line any day... along with 4 more city MPGs at a weight penalty of less than a passenger for the entire setup. That torque would go a long way of playing the NSX-trick of hiding turbo lag through instant torque of a hybrid system. Funny thing? GM markets the add-on at $500 as an option... at least for the few I've seen. I'd gladly pay $500 for what it gives. How much did the full-on hybrid system add to the NSXs sky high cost? I don't know... but it was well more than $500. It's also not just a little alternator that plays double duty as a motor where appropriate... but a lot of people have dismissed the NSX due to pricing itself out of it's original market.

At $55 penalty per deficient MPG... per vehicle... every extra MPG for a vehicle per million sold (and there have been more than a million Civics sold at this point) is saving 55 million in penalties. The Civic... as it is, would be on course to costing Honda a good billion dollars worth of penalties over the course of it's life it had been released in 2025 and not 2016. It's one of Hondas most efficient pure-ICE cars. They'll have to do better... or pay the price... likely passing about $1000 of penalties on to the consumer for a $20-20k car.

In the end... as much as I'd actually like to see cars get more efficient... I think the 2025 standards are going to get delayed, for no reason other than to prevent consumers from shouldering manufacturer's inability or unwillingness to reach the new goals.

lowrysam · Sep 11, 2019

EdwinDrn said:
In all seriousness, I do this all the time. Fourth to neutral if I am approaching a red light. Excuse my ignorance, but in all seriousness am I doing something wrong? I know engine breaking is probably the right way, but until I learn, its what I do..

This is my first manual btw,

I've been driving manual since I bought my new S2000 back in 2006. Have owned a 2014 Si and my 2018 Si now. I have always just put the car into neutral when approaching a light. If the light changes before I come to a complete stop, I just blip the accelerator and shift into the appropriate gear for my speed. I've never had any issue. To each their own.

lowrysam · Sep 11, 2019

REBELXSi said:
You should learn to properly engine brake. The less time you're rolling in neutral, the better.

Honest question...Why? I've always just had in the back of my head that this stress was not good for the engine. I also live around hills so I feel like going downhill while engine braking is bad when the engine gets to around 3000RPM. Is there better gas mileage when not in neutral, as I have heard?

EDIT:
I see that Micah has said he gets better gas mileage with the downshift method. (450-500 miles per tank). I'm getting 380 on a good tank. I think I will try this for my next tank and see if there are any improvements. I'll let you know.

Micah · Sep 11, 2019

lowrysam said:
Honest question...Why? I've always just had in the back of my head that this stress was not good for the engine. I also live around hills so I feel like going downhill while engine braking is bad when the engine gets to around 3000RPM. Is there better gas mileage when not in neutral, as I have heard?

EDIT:
I see that Micah has said he gets better gas mileage with the downshift method. (450-500 miles per tank). I'm getting 380 on a good tank. I think I will try this for my next tank and see if there are any improvements. I'll let you know.

I get pretty solid fuel economy. Stay between 1.5-2k rpms until 6th gear. Stand on it when needed but only as long as needed. Have your fun, then get back into the efficient area of the rev range. Don't bother looking at the boost, look at the fuel economy indicator.

Honda Civic 10th gen 2020 Gear Ratio Question 20190828_074217

lowrysam · Sep 11, 2019

Micah said:
I get pretty solid fuel economy. Stay between 1.5-2k rpms until 6th gear. Stand on it when needed but only as long as needed. Have your fun, then get back into the efficient area of the rev range. Don't bother looking at the boost, look at the fuel economy indicator.

I try to stay above 2k so that I don't stress the clutch if I have to make a quick acceleration. I'll have to try this.

Also, and off topic, what is that indication on your screen (45.3%, 14.4v)? I've never seen it in my car. Looks like a phone charging thing. And on that note, what is the little "v" with the circle?

Finally, It seems that your screen keeps all of the correct information on previous drives. My car does not. See here for a post about it: https://www.civicx.com/threads/error-on-info-screen.20316/#post-457388 It looks like it's not everyone who has this problem like I thought. Damn.

Micah · Sep 11, 2019

I have Hondahack loaded - it allows me to display CPU load and Volts on the top, that's the 45.3% and 14.4v. The "V" is Viper4Android which is a great app to give EQ control to android auto and other natively running android apps (doesn't work on AM/FM/SAT radio). I take pictures of the previous drives screen kinda often, probably often enough to link back months of consecutive fill ups since buying the car. There is a setting to have it reset Trip A on each fill up, and that seems to result in the previous drives recording tank history for the past 3 fill ups. It's never given me any strange behavior.

REBELXSi · Sep 11, 2019

lowrysam said:
Honest question...Why? I've always just had in the back of my head that this stress was not good for the engine. I also live around hills so I feel like going downhill while engine braking is bad when the engine gets to around 3000RPM. Is there better gas mileage when not in neutral, as I have heard?

EDIT:
I see that Micah has said he gets better gas mileage with the downshift method. (450-500 miles per tank). I'm getting 380 on a good tank. I think I will try this for my next tank and see if there are any improvements. I'll let you know.

Living in an area with hills is all the more reason to use engine braking. You save wear on your actual brakes and maintain control of the vehicle.

Why would you worry about being at 3k during engine braking if driving at 3k is just fine? There's even less load on the engine so there's no problem.

Just takes a bit of practice to get it right and when you do you'll see how much sense it makes.

... And yes, you use less fuel while you're in gear.

Micah · Sep 11, 2019

REBELXSi said:
Living in an area with hills is all the more reason to use engine braking. You save wear on your actual brakes and maintain control of the vehicle.

Why would you worry about being at 3k during engine braking if driving at 3k is just fine? There's even less load on the engine so there's no problem.

Just takes a bit of practice to get it right and when you do you'll see how much sense it makes.

... And yes, you use less fuel while you're in gear.

Yep. Plus it really screws with tailgaters.

charleswrivers · Sep 11, 2019

lowrysam said:
Is there better gas mileage when not in neutral, as I have heard?

The car is obviously using fuel to keep the engine running while idling. I think most cars, when coasting and in gear, do not use fuel at all until you get to a crawl to attempt to keep the engine from stalling... which will work in 1st or 2nd so long as you're noting going up a decent grade. You can obviously coast further in neutral vs in gear due to the lack of engine braking... but I don't see how you'd actually consume less fuel.

I tend to engine brake here and there to assist in slowing and to use the brakes a little less. If I'm down down a decent grade... I'd do it to not ride the brakes constantly. I do like blipping the throttle to rev match in the process. It makes think a little about what RPM I ought to be at in a certain gear while minimizing slipping the clutch on shifts and wear. It's one of the little 'engagement' things I like to do when driving a manual.

You don't have to intentionally downshift... but it hurts nothing to coast down in the existing gear a bit and let the engine aid in slowing you and coming out of gear to neutral as you see fit but before your RPMs drop out.

Royal_Purple_Oil_Filter · Sep 11, 2019

MattyNice said:
I believe the ratio was shortened so at any given speed, the rpms will be higher in the 2020 as compared to ours in each gear. So, less mpg and probably more aggravating at highway speed. Cause you to reach for the the shift to 7th.

Agreed. My calculation is for the 2020 Si is that on 6th gear, you'll be at about 48mph at 2000rpm compared to the 52mph at 2000rpm for earlier years.

So at 60mph cruise, the 2020 Si is less fuel efficient.

Micah · Sep 11, 2019

charleswrivers said:
The car is obviously using fuel to keep the engine running while idling. I think most cars, when coasting and in gear, do not use fuel at all until you get to a crawl to attempt to keep the engine from stalling... which will work in 1st or 2nd so long as you're noting going up a decent grade. You can obviously coast further in neutral vs in gear due to the lack of engine braking... but I don't see how you'd actually consume less fuel.

I tend to engine brake here and there to assist in slowing and to use the brakes a little less. If I'm down down a decent grade... I'd do it to not ride the brakes constantly. I do like blipping the throttle to rev match in the process. It makes think a little about what RPM I ought to be at in a certain gear while minimizing slipping the clutch on shifts and wear. It's one of the little 'engagement' things I like to do when driving a manual.

You don't have to intentionally downshift... but it hurts nothing to coast down in the existing gear a bit and let the engine aid in slowing you and coming out of gear to neutral as you see fit but before your RPMs drop out.

I've watched the injector values with Tunerview and can tell you they are higher when coasting out of gear than they are when coasting in gear at low speeds in 1st and 2nd where I'm not touching the throttle at all.

I only blip the throttle if I am looking to accelerate, otherwise I simply slip the clutch and let the revs catch up. Been doing this for years and it seems the wear on the clutch, flywheel, etc is pretty minimal as I get very long clutch lifespans.

Note - I don't do it everytime. Coasting in neutral/out of gear is a lousy habit and I do it probably a little less than half the time. Living in the NJ shore area - there are a LOT of drunk drivers and distracted drivers. They can come flying out of nowhere. Being able to get out of the way ASAP is pretty damned important. Being in gear helps.

2020 Gear Ratio Question

mjh

Senior Member

charleswrivers

Senior Member

Micah

Senior Member

Micah

Senior Member

charleswrivers

Senior Member

lowrysam

Senior Member

lowrysam

Senior Member

Micah

Senior Member

lowrysam

Senior Member

Micah

Senior Member

REBELXSi

Señor Member

Micah

Senior Member

charleswrivers

Senior Member

Royal_Purple_Oil_Filter

Senior Member

Micah

Senior Member

Similar threads