^^ Only ppl with a scangauge can comment on that, but for city driving I wouldn't go to the high rpms and then soon press on the brakes at th next red stop light.
Do any of our cars have these gauges? This is the first car I've had in years that doesn't.
Still, comparing engines and their characteristics, the closest I've had recently is the Volvo 2.8 litre 5 cylinder. Lower rev limit than the Honda with a little more low down torque.
Driving that at low revs in the top two gears at 60kph (40mph)(1500- 2000rpm) gave fuel readings of around 15- 20 litres per 100 kilometres.
Driving in 2nd and 3rd at the same speeds @ 2500-3000rpm gave readings of 7-10 litres per 100 kilometres.
Given that the Honda engine is built to rev, I would hazzard a guess that pulling that weight at low revs in a high gear is not doing your fuel usage any favours. Nor is it doing the engine any good. you can feel the harshness under 2000 revs.
You just can't drive them like a 4 litre V8.
A small engine with a 7-8k rev limit isn't happy idling around.
I now tend to use the manual mode a lot more. For 60kph (40mph) and under, I keep it in 2nd or third gear. The manual mode works quite well, and for slower city work, keeping it in the lower gears means I have more engine braking too as well as better response when accellerating to change lane or get ahead of the idiots, so it's certainly not a case of having to jam the brakes on all the time.
It uses the engine for the way it was designed, and it's actually smoother than relying on the auto to jump all over the place.
Works for me anyway.
