View Single Post
Old 05-30-2012, 10:49 PM   #27
serialk11r
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Drives: '06 AM V8V Coupe
Location: United States of America
Posts: 5,279
Thanks: 285
Thanked 1,074 Times in 759 Posts
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotLavaMan View Post
Well in theory you could on the MT get the same mileage as the AT which would move it from 30 to 34 or about 13% (EPA estimates of course). I don't think it's going to be that high as the total gear ratio will still be shorter than the AT even with the 3.727. But 10% might be within reach.
Naw, 3.727 is 10% lower than 4.1, you won't see 10% fuel economy increase from that. The MT revving 30% higher than the AT in 6th is likely worth 10-15% fuel economy depending on speed. 5% would be pretty good already.
serialk11r is offline   Reply With Quote