The main benefit with high HP and consequently high rev limits vs lower hp and lower rev limit engines is that they require less shifting assuming you didn't screw up the torque curve. I'm thinking that the primary reason for why these low revving engines which are undersquare are so slow to accelerate is because they have taller gearing in order to allow them to reach the same speeds as other engines that are high revving and can therefore have shorter gearing. One solution for them in order to increase acceleration speed is to give them more gears that are closer together, but the problem then becomes one of too much time spent shifting. So I'm thinking that the solution to low revving engines which are undersquare is for them to be matched with a CVT transmission, that way you can accelerate faster without having to rev to a high RPM and spend time shifting. Now the question becomes, do CVT transmissions behave like a tall and short transmission at the same or are they fixed to a certain amount of acceleration. I remember reading somewhere the specifications of a CVT transmission and it said it had infinite gear ratio for one thing but then like a final drive of 2.5:1 or something of the sort. Also was wondering if an engine experiences partial loads with a CVT all the time or for all but idle none of the time. Because it just feels like with a CVT, if you're going up a hill and you have the engine fixed at 2500rpm, you'll lose speed quickly despite you trying to maintain speed, so how would one maintain speed with a CVT without revving the engine higher? Finally, is there anything that could've been done differently to the CVT transmission in the '96 Civic HX in order for that car to boost its mileage figures? I'm not talking about efficiency improvements but instead doing changes like those that have been done to manuals and automatics where they make the transmission taller, giving better fuel economy numbers but not necessarily improving the efficiency of the transmission itself.