I've thought about that. Which is why I would only do this if I could find a larger wheel/tire setup without a marked difference in weight. I would assume backspacing could also play a (minimal) role here as well, even if the tire/wheel weights were to differ. Anyway, isn't this only REALLY a valid argument when referring to stoping & going (overcoming that inertia)? Once you've achieved your driving speed I would think that amount of rotating mass would tend to work more for you, rather than against. (Such is the case for flywheels....any why NOT to get a flywheel that's too light, right?) Calling all engineers/Physics geeks?????? "help"
Great! Your from my (weekend) homeland...sort of. I drive from VA Beach to Monmouth Cty, NJ every weekend. Anyway, I don't know a whole lot about transmissions...and never cracked one open. What's the deal with the final drive? I sure wish I had my old '91 HF...now THAT was the tranny/gearing to have. Instead I've got this crappy gearing that makes me work like hell just to obtain 47MPG. I used to get 50-55 MPG in that old '91. Okay, what's my solution?? I'd love to go 6-speed...but somehow I don't see that as feasible. **Are you a Honda head? If so I've got more questions for you (FE questions).
maybe the california engine sucks also? i'm getting almost 50mpg out of my hf with si tranny, though i do drive slower, and accelerate slower than i did with my hf tranny.
what exactly is the difference other than poorer mileage with the california models, and why did california need a poorer performing car?