# Anyone had a G1 and went to a G2?



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

I have both, actually. Also manual. I'd recommend the G2 and the 9sp auto. I love the manual, but I've had a new DMF at 12k under warranty. It's a real concern, and there is no SMF conversion kit yet available.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## turboguy327 (Feb 24, 2019)

MRO1791 said:


> I have both, actually. Also manual. I'd recommend the G2 and the 9sp auto. I love the manual, but I've had a new DMF at 12k under warranty. It's a real concern, and there is no SMF conversion kit yet available.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


Yea, that’s my turn off for the M6. Idk why all the manufacturers insist on using DMF when they all fail. Thank you for your input.


----------



## DarylB (Feb 3, 2011)

There actually is some single mass flywheel setups outside of the US for the M32 Transmission but I'm not sure if they'll fit our diesel.


----------



## TDCruze (Sep 26, 2014)

I don't think there are enough high mileage G2 diesels out there to say how the longevity is vs G1. 
I generally prefer my G2 diesel over the G1. The only thing I miss a bit from the G1 is the slightly larger fuel tank.
The 9 speed auto is real smooth compared to the 6 speed on the G1. 
On the G2 the back seats have more leg room. You can get a spare tire. 
The G2 HVAC controls are in a better position as well as the lock/unlock buttons on the doors. Also, there is a trunk switch in the car. 
My MPG on the G1 was about 38 lifetime and my G2 is around 42. Been down lately with super cold weather for weeks.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

turboguy327 said:


> Yea, that’s my turn off for the M6. Idk why all the manufacturers insist on using DMF when they all fail. Thank you for your input.


I can tell you why. Think of it this way, since when does an OEM go with a more expensive part if there isn't a reason? The DMF is more expensive. Here is the reason: It allows use of higher power at lower RPM, which helps MPG. Much of what I they do is driven by mandates. Then there is the consumer expectations of a quiet low vibration drivetrain... Enter the DMF, and in most cases it's good enough to get the car beyond the warranty... And thus we have DMF. I converted my Cummins Dodge to SMF, I do have to run lower gears to prevent very loud transmission rattle, but to me it's worth not having a flywheel that can't last 50K miles. I hope that helps understand the situation. I did considerable reaserch on this issue. 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

DarylB said:


> There actually is some single mass flywheel setups outside of the US for the M32 Transmission but I'm not sure if they'll fit our diesel.


I don't think they do, the folks at ID Parts are on the lookout for a SMF kit, they know diesel cars.. they told me they was no after market SMF out there for Cruze. 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Also, no timing belt and water pump replacement at 97k for G2, it has a chain that should last the life of the engine. 

As to fuel tank, I find my highway MPG gain on G2 more than account for the smaller tank on driving range. 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## turboguy327 (Feb 24, 2019)

MRO1791 said:


> Also, no timing belt and water pump replacement at 97k for G2, it has a chain that should last the life of the engine.
> 
> As to fuel tank, I find my highway MPG gain on G2 more than account for the smaller tank on driving range.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


I’m mostly worried about the transmission longevity. 

I’ve owned 3 GMs in my life. 2 of them where basically brand new. 1 was brand new. Both failed a few times under warranty and it was always difficult to get repairs done, even under warranty. I had a volt with HVAC and body work problems. It took 7 visits to 2 different dealers to get that taken care of. Was also given quotes for HVAC repairs that should have been under warranty. Ended up fixing it myself, something totally different than the techs quoted me and over $1000 cheaper in parts alone. My camaro has a plethora of problems that ended up as a lemon law buyback. The other was a fiero, owner 20 years after it was made. Lol. 

So coming back to GM is a little hard for me but it seems to be a great car for me. I can do whatever needs to be done myself as I have GM scan tool access. But no belt to worry about is a plus. I can’t seem to find the 9AT trans code to see what other applications it’s used in. Anyone know?


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

turboguy327 said:


> I’m mostly worried about the transmission longevity.
> 
> I’ve owned 3 GMs in my life. 2 of them where basically brand new. 1 was brand new. Both failed a few times under warranty and it was always difficult to get repairs done, even under warranty. I had a volt with HVAC and body work problems. It took 7 visits to 2 different dealers to get that taken care of. Was also given quotes for HVAC repairs that should have been under warranty. Ended up fixing it myself, something totally different than the techs quoted me and over $1000 cheaper in parts alone. My camaro has a plethora of problems that ended up as a lemon law buyback. The other was a fiero, owner 20 years after it was made. Lol.
> 
> So coming back to GM is a little hard for me but it seems to be a great car for me. I can do whatever needs to be done myself as I have GM scan tool access. But no belt to worry about is a plus. I can’t seem to find the 9AT trans code to see what other applications it’s used in. Anyone know?


I think the Diesel Cruze is the only application. It was apparently a joint venture development with Ford, but Ford modified their version for 8sp thinking the 9 was too many. I believe it was originally going to go into the Equinox with the Diesel, but calculated MPG with the heavier vehicle with more drag didn't justify the extra gears and probably additional cost. 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## turboguy327 (Feb 24, 2019)

MRO1791 said:


> I think the Diesel Cruze is the only application. It was apparently a joint venture development with Ford, but Ford modified their version for 8sp thinking the 9 was too many. I believe it was originally going to go into the Equinox with the Diesel, but calculated MPG with the heavier vehicle with more drag didn't justify the extra gears and probably additional cost.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


Yea, I found that and hoped it would be used in other applications like many other transmissions. I found a YouTube video of a fluid change in a Volvo or Saab and the guy said it was very similar to the Cruze trans but the timeline didn’t seem to match up so I ignored it.


----------



## Rivergoer (Mar 30, 2017)

If you’re in the market for a diesel sedan under $30K, there’s really only the Cruze diesel...unless you’re considering a ‘new’ VW TDI (2015/16 new unsold stock with the EPA ‘fix’) which would be the only other new diesel sedan option under $30K.

There are other diesel sedans out there but all over $30K (BMW, Jaguar). There are also diesel SUVs (like the Equinox) but not price-competitive with the G2 Cruze diesel and worse fuel economy.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

turboguy327 said:


> Yea, I found that and hoped it would be used in other applications like many other transmissions. I found a YouTube video of a fluid change in a Volvo or Saab and the guy said it was very similar to the Cruze trans but the timeline didn’t seem to match up so I ignored it.


The Gen 1 6sp auto is a AF-40 T6 if I recall correctly. It is used on Saab, Toyota, Ford, and perhaps some others. It's a AISIN made in Japan transmission, that it probably what you saw with the fluid change. I've done that before on my formerly two Gen 1 cars. I still have one of them. The owners manual says lifetime fill, but there is really no such thing. Did it on both just before 50k and they definitely needed new fluid. 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## turboguy327 (Feb 24, 2019)

Rivergoer said:


> If you’re in the market for a diesel sedan under $30K, there’s really only the Cruze diesel...unless you’re considering a ‘new’ VW TDI (2015/16 new unsold stock with the EPA ‘fix’) which would be the only other new diesel sedan option under $30K.
> 
> There are other diesel sedans out there but all over $30K (BMW, Jaguar). There are also diesel SUVs (like the Equinox) but not price-competitive with the G2 Cruze diesel and worse fuel economy.


I just want something a little different/interesting with good MPG. I currently drive a FJ cruiser. Since I’m going for good MPG why not go for great MPG. Already had a volt, eh. After dealing with BS and loosing heat and GM not caring and having to fix it myself and the G2 colts being less reliable than G1 I’m good. No Kias or anything for me. And TD Cruze is super cheap so why not. I can almost trade my 12 year old Toyota straight up for one. Just add a week or 2s salary and I’m in.

No VAG products for me. Or BMW. Ugh. Nightmares to work on, and parts are huge $$.


----------



## Rivergoer (Mar 30, 2017)

The G2 Cruze diesel gets impressive fuel economy if that’s your thing (I know it’s mine). 

My G1 Cruze diesel has averaged 45.6 mpg over 50,000 miles...3.5 mpg BETTER than my 09 Jetta TDI. 

And I hear the G2 Cruze diesel mpg is insanely better. Some here have reported pushing 60 mpg and better with moderate driving patterns. 

Then there’s this report of a G2 Cruze diesel achieving 70 mpg.


----------



## CMStover (Feb 16, 2019)

I just went from a 2000 tdi at 50mpg to the 19 cruze hatch. I've got around 1000 miles on it and avg 43mpg as per the computer. . Commuting I see 46 to 50. On a snow day doing 45mph on I5 Salem north to Portland, computer showed 60 mpg. Once I have a few tanks in and manually calculate miless n fuel tanks, hoping I see good numbers. 50?


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

CMStover said:


> I just went from a 2000 tdi at 50mpg to the 19 cruze hatch. I've got around 1000 miles on it and avg 43mpg as per the computer. . Commuting I see 46 to 50. On a snow day doing 45mph on I5 Salem north to Portland, computer showed 60 mpg. Once I have a few tanks in and manually calculate miless n fuel tanks, hoping I see good numbers. 50?


The hatch gets less than the sedan due to drag. But I get well over 50 on my Gen 2s, both auto and manual sedans Overall averages are statistically the same for manual and 9sp auto. The auto actually has a lower final drive ratio. I have also noted, unlike most car computer displays, when I calculate by miles and gallons at fill ups, the actual MPG is generally 1to 2 MPG better than the computer. 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## Taxman (Aug 10, 2017)

Rivergoer said:


> Then there’s this report of a G2 Cruze diesel achieving 70 mpg.


When the weather gets up around 60-70° I want to drive my 2016 up to visit my great niece and try to replicate that. 
It'll make a 300 mile day at 55mph. As near as I can tell, my car gets closer to 53mpg than to 70mpg at that speed. But that was pre-tune, haven't driven it in warm weather since I went BNR in December.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

Taxman said:


> When the weather gets up around 60-70° I want to drive my 2016 up to visit my great niece and try to replicate that.
> It'll make a 300 mile day at 55mph. As near as I can tell, my car gets closer to 53mpg than to 70mpg at that speed. But that was pre-tune, haven't driven it in warm weather since I went BNR in December.


2016? There was no diesel option in 2016...

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

GM's 9AT is used quite a bit in the lineup now. 2.0T Malibus, Equinoxes and Terrains. Blazer, Regal, Enclave/Traverse, etc.

The M3D RPO code for the CTD's 9AT is also used on the 2.5L Blazers, 2.0T Equinox/Terrain, and FWD non-GS Regals.


----------



## turboguy327 (Feb 24, 2019)

MP81 said:


> GM's 9AT is used quite a bit in the lineup now. 2.0T Malibus, Equinoxes and Terrains. Blazer, Regal, Enclave/Traverse, etc.
> 
> The M3D RPO code for the CTD's 9AT is also used on the 2.5L Blazers, 2.0T Equinox/Terrain, and FWD non-GS Regals.


I was hoping for something older to see how they hold up. Not that I drive crazy for no reason but in general. I add miles slowly as I mainly drive my rig and just want something that works when I’m home.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Ah, yes - I think the CTD may have been one of the first cars to use the transmission, actually. I think the Malibu 2.0T was the first.


----------



## turboguy327 (Feb 24, 2019)

Well, I guess the hunt for a 9AT begins. Hoping to find a loaded hatch but will settle for a sedan if it comes to it.


----------



## TDCruze (Sep 26, 2014)

turboguy327 said:


> Well, I guess the hunt for a 9AT begins. Hoping to find a loaded hatch but will settle for a sedan if it comes to it.


Definitely take a look at both, see which would be a better fit for you. 

I never did look at a hatch up close. I noticed they were shorter than the sedans and I needed storage space so sedan it was.
I do like the sporty look of the hatch's better though.


----------



## Taxman (Aug 10, 2017)

MRO1791 said:


> 2016? There was no diesel option in 2016...


We know a diesel automatic sedan can get 70mpg at 55mph (but I wish the guy hadn't driven through town and had just used the ramps to turn around).
I'd like to know what a 1.4 automatic sedan can do for comparison. 55mph on a seemingly flat road gets me about 53mpg instantaneous on the DIC.


----------



## turboguy327 (Feb 24, 2019)

TDCruze said:


> Definitely take a look at both, see which would be a better fit for you.
> 
> I never did look at a hatch up close. I noticed they were shorter than the sedans and I needed storage space so sedan it was.
> I do like the sporty look of the hatch's better though.


It’s just a commuter car. I very much prefer the hatch looks and the dog will like it more so hatch it is.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

TDCruze said:


> Definitely take a look at both, see which would be a better fit for you.
> 
> I never did look at a hatch up close. I noticed they were shorter than the sedans and I needed storage space so sedan it was.
> I do like the sporty look of the hatch's better though.


The hatch has more storage space...

Sedan has 13.9-14.8 cubic feet in the trunk, while the hatch has 22.7 cubic feet.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

MP81 said:


> The hatch has more storage space...
> 
> Sedan has 13.9-14.8 cubic feet in the trunk, while the hatch has 22.7 cubic feet.


Only when you don't have people in the back seat! I can have my family of 5 in the sedan with luggage for a weekend trip... Can't do that with the hatch. If you don't need more than 2 people seats, and have pets, sure the hatch is a great option.. but it only gets the storage number by folding down the back seat.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

What? The hatch has 22.7 cubic feet _behind the rear seat_ whereas the sedan only has 13.9-14.8 cubic feet. The hatch has 47.2 cubic feet with the rear seats folded.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

MP81 said:


> What? The hatch has 22.7 cubic feet _behind the rear seat_ whereas the sedan only has 13.9-14.8 cubic feet. The hatch has 47.2 cubic feet with the rear seats folded.


Impossible. Go look at one. There is maybe 12-13 inches from back seat to the hatch.. the math doesn't make that work, until you fold the seats. 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

MRO1791 said:


> Impossible. Go look at one. There is maybe 12-13 inches from back seat to the hatch.. the math doesn't make that work, until you fold the seats.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


It's measured three-dimensionally. Higher roof = more cu ft. Same reason people love crossovers these days.

Our family's Jeep Liberty has an absolutely useless rear load floor with the seats up - good for a couple grocery bags or 2 suitcases side by side, but you can stack stuff!

Of course, then you can't see out the rear window, so there's that.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

MRO1791 said:


> Impossible. Go look at one. There is maybe 12-13 inches from back seat to the hatch.. the math doesn't make that work, until you fold the seats.


These are the numbers GM has officially released.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/wp-cont...Chevrolet-Cruze-Hatch-NAIAS-2016-Live-019.jpg

12-13 inches? Are you drunk? There are FEET there, buddy.


----------



## firehawk618 (Feb 24, 2013)

MRO1791 said:


> I think the Diesel Cruze is the only application. It was apparently a joint venture development with Ford, but Ford modified their version for 8sp thinking the 9 was too many. I believe it was originally going to go into the Equinox with the Diesel, but calculated MPG with the heavier vehicle with more drag didn't justify the extra gears and probably additional cost.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk



Honestly I think Ford made the right decision. I have monitored the gear my car is in with my scan gauge and unless under WOT it only uses 8 of the 9 gears.

I believe it skips 2nd *or was it 3rd* every time under normal driving. 

What's the point of 9 speed if it's going to use 8 the vast majority of the time?

Our cars are light enough and produce enough torque that even under WOT I feel certain that 8 gears would be fine.

What makes the 8 speed vs 9 speed? Is it simply software or are there extra hard parts in the trans? If it's the latter then I really believe Ford made the right call in not using the 9 speed.

I'll have to take a look at an exploded diagram of our transmissions some time to satisfy my curiosity.


----------



## firehawk618 (Feb 24, 2013)

turboguy327 said:


> Well, I guess the hunt for a 9AT begins. Hoping to find a loaded hatch but will settle for a sedan if it comes to it.



If you didn't already know you can NOT get a Premium Hatchback diesel. You can get one step below that basically.

My 2018 is a diesel, auto, RS, color DIC, bigger infotainment screen, leather *or pleather?* heated seats, sunroof, etc etc.

It does NOT have express up drivers window, auto HVAC nor auto dimming rear view mirror.

My car was the highest option you could get with a diesel.

Unless they changed the way they bundle the diesels for 2019 then that's as high as you can get.

I retrofitted express up drivers window and I will say that it's impossible to do it properly. I got mine working by using a vin from a gas premium cruze and a little hacking of the BCM.

Would I do it again? Nope. Simply not worth it.


----------



## turboguy327 (Feb 24, 2019)

firehawk618 said:


> If you didn't already know you can NOT get a Premium Hatchback diesel. You can get one step below that basically.
> 
> My 2018 is a diesel, auto, RS, color DIC, bigger infotainment screen, leather *or pleather?* heated seats, sunroof, etc etc.
> 
> ...


My main concerns are heated seats, bigger screen and RS package.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

All 2019s get the 7" screen, though it is the newest Infotainment 3.0, which is very slick. I found it odd they pulled the larger screen, even in the higher-end Cruze trim levels.

But yup, heated leatherette (for 2019 - leather for '16-18) is available, as is a heated steering wheel, and the RS package.


----------



## firehawk618 (Feb 24, 2013)

Whaat? They quit offering the larger screen?

Whoever comes up with this garbage at GM should be moved to another department.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

firehawk618 said:


> Whaat? They quit offering the larger screen?
> 
> Whoever comes up with this garbage at GM should be moved to another department.


GM is great at trying to make a car irrelevant long before they actually stop selling large numbers of that model.

They'd like to force you into something higher up their pricing list - say, one of the 23489723984 SUVs they currently have in the lineup, or a Buick/Cadillac. In reality, they really just force interested buyers into other brands for options they could have easily made STANDARD on lower tier models.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Yup - it's really a bizarre strategy. 

Here is my handy-dandy list of what GM *removed* for their "facelift", instead of adding features:

https://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-general-discussion/237423-2019-lost-features.html



firehawk618 said:


> Whoever comes up with this garbage at GM should be moved to another department.


They should have been one of the first to be fired, because they're an asshat.


----------



## TDCruze (Sep 26, 2014)

MP81 said:


> The hatch has more storage space...
> 
> Sedan has 13.9-14.8 cubic feet in the trunk, while the hatch has 22.7 cubic feet.


I assume that is stacked to the ceiling which is usually impractical.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

MP81 said:


> These are the numbers GM has officially released.
> 
> http://gmauthority.com/blog/wp-cont...Chevrolet-Cruze-Hatch-NAIAS-2016-Live-019.jpg
> 
> 12-13 inches? Are you drunk? There are FEET there, buddy.


Feet? Ok, maybe close to 2 feet.. maybe.. 

Ok, apparently GM did some fuzzy math on the specifications between the hatch and sedan! I’ll go with some rough numbers here, because I can believe what I can actually see. I don’t know how they calculate the 22 sq feet for the hatch, but here we go:
I’m going to use the following estimates on the hatch: Length (front to back) 20” (being generous), width: 50”, and height 30” (Generous, as much of that is not useable with the angle of the glass).
That calculated to 17.36 cu feet! Quite a bit less than the odd 22 cu feet they advertise...

In comparison, Sedan: length: 48”, width 48”, Height 20”
This calculates to 27 cu feet!

I have no idea where GM gets the 14.8 number from!

Here is a picture from the Chevrolet site showing the hatch with a seat down and a small bag in the cargo area… And I’ll add some overall dimensions, the Hatch is 8.4” shorter overall, and that is all cut out of the cargo area (same wheelbase).. the rear seat head rests almost touch the back glass. 

I like the hatchback concept, but I felt the cargo area with seats not folded was way too small for my needs, but if you don’t need the seat up, it’s fine.. and if you have cargo above the rear seat, and not tied down, that is very dangerous in a crash!


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

TDCruze said:


> I assume that is stacked to the ceiling which is usually impractical.


Yes, and dangerous in a crash when that cargo takes your head off.


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

firehawk618 said:


> Honestly I think Ford made the right decision. I have monitored the gear my car is in with my scan gauge and unless under WOT it only uses 8 of the 9 gears.
> 
> I believe it skips 2nd *or was it 3rd* every time under normal driving.
> 
> ...


It will only hold 9th gear above about 45MPH under light load, but get up in the higher speeds and it will spend plenty of time in 9th, or at least my 2 cars do. Can't speak about all the lower gears and skips, I don't monitor for each, but it does shift smoothly.


----------



## TDCruze (Sep 26, 2014)

firehawk618 said:


> Honestly I think Ford made the right decision. I have monitored the gear my car is in with my scan gauge and unless under WOT it only uses 8 of the 9 gears.
> 
> I believe it skips 2nd *or was it 3rd* every time under normal driving.
> 
> ...


The 9T50 only has 2 Overdrive gears, 8 : 0.75 and 9 : 0.62 . I have never ran a scan gauge to confirm, but I am pretty certain I am always in 9th while highway cruising. I am at ~1850 RPM at 70MPH. Using a quick online calculator for the 9th gear ratio I get 1856 RPM in 9th gear at 70 MPH.


----------



## firehawk618 (Feb 24, 2013)

The car will not shift into 9th until 58 mph at a minimum. It will stay in 9th down to 56 mph at most.

It will use 8th most of the time until highway speeds. It has the broadest range of speed. 





MRO1791 said:


> firehawk618 said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly I think Ford made the right decision. I have monitored the gear my car is in with my scan gauge and unless under WOT it only uses 8 of the 9 gears.
> ...


----------



## firehawk618 (Feb 24, 2013)

My car skip 2nd or 3rd, can't remember which at the moment. 

It does this consistently unless wot



TDCruze said:


> firehawk618 said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly I think Ford made the right decision. I have monitored the gear my car is in with my scan gauge and unless under WOT it only uses 8 of the 9 gears.
> ...


----------



## firehawk618 (Feb 24, 2013)

Proof it skips 3rd gear under light acceleration AND wide open throttle. It simply isn't used. It's so close to 2nd ratio wise that it's a complete waste of time.

Don't believe me? Go wot and manually shift 1,2,3,4,5. You'll see 2nd to 3rd might as well not exist.

Here's 2 videos. 

One is WOT and the other is light acceleration.

Tonight I will record the same data with an advanced scan tool to confirm.

WOT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpguiEBbUR4


Light acceleration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOq6eVtz0_Q


----------



## MRO1791 (Sep 2, 2016)

firehawk618 said:


> The car will not shift into 9th until 58 mph at a minimum. It will stay in 9th down to 56 mph at most.
> 
> It will use 8th most of the time until highway speeds. It has the broadest range of speed.


Well, I'll now have to verify. I was pretty sure it was lower than 58, but you could be correct. Speed limit is generally 60, and I know it's in 9th at 60. Perhaps I'm mixing up numbers, the 6sp manual won't indicate a shift (shift indicator) into 6th until about 45MPH for sure...


----------



## TDCruze (Sep 26, 2014)

I am going to have to experiment now too. 
Assuming torque converter is locked.

I have figured out that it will run 8th gear at 40MPH @ 1283 RPM

At 50 MPH 9th would be @ 1326 RPM
At 55 MPH 9th would be @ 1459 RPM
At 58 MPH 9th would be @ 1538 RPM
At 60 MPH 9th would be @ 1591 RPM


----------



## firehawk618 (Feb 24, 2013)

You guys can verify but I can assure you the car will not up shift to 9th gear at any speed less than 58 mph. It will hold 9th down to about 55 at best.

One of my complaints about the transmission is that I feel like it should go into 9th sooner and hold it longer under light acceleration before dropping back to 8th.

Also for what it's worth the torque converter is almost always locked. About the only time it unlocks is for gear changes. This is a good strategy.

You are exactly right on the 8th gear at 40 mph. 




TDCruze said:


> I am going to have to experiment now too.
> Assuming torque converter is locked.
> 
> I have figured out that it will run 8th gear at 40MPH @ 1283 RPM
> ...


----------



## TDCruze (Sep 26, 2014)

firehawk618 said:


> You guys can verify but I can assure you the car will not up shift to 9th gear at any speed less than 58 mph. It will hold 9th down to about 55 at best.
> 
> One of my complaints about the transmission is that I feel like it should go into 9th sooner and hold it longer under light acceleration before dropping back to 8th.
> 
> ...


One would think that as low of an RPM it runs 8th in, it would allow a 9th gear shift at a similar RPM. Which would be ~50 MPH.

It is about -12F this afternoon with a wind chill of -38F and I refuse to leave the house, so the experiments will have to wait!


----------

