__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 62.4 mpg (US) ... 26.5 km/L ... 3.8 L/100 km ... 74.9 mpg (Imp)
just wanted to share... not the hatch but its bigger brother, Mirage G4 on a 150km fuel economy run with the MT having better mileage than the CVT.
I think the winning team has a weight advantage with only three person in the car.
http://www.carguide.ph/2014/01/the-b...ishi.html#more
Thanks, jojoR!
I'll post a summary of the entire fuel economy run in a separate thread tomorrow, but it's worth noting here:
Also notable: the 22.2 km/L manual average was dragged down by one team in what looks like a "let's see if we can score the WORST mileage in this competition!" effort.What’s even more surprising is that the remaining 8 teams all managed to average ...
- 18.9 km/L [44.5 mpg US = 5.3 L/100 km] for the CVT [5 teams] and
- 22.2 km/L [52.2 mpg US = 4.5 L/100 km] for the manual [4 teams],
... consistent with Mitsubishi’s own 21 km/L, figures achieved in test conditions.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 62.4 mpg (US) ... 26.5 km/L ... 3.8 L/100 km ... 74.9 mpg (Imp)
One thing not mentioned here is the additional cost of changing the CVT fluid over a manual transmission. More fluid, more frequently. Not changing CVT fluid frequently has been a disaster with Hondas.
Isn't a CVT Fluid change at a Nissan dealer $400?
CVTs in general are pretty disastrous. Especially JATCO (Nissan) CVTs. The JATCO CVT is going to be the Oldsmobile 350 diesel of transmissions. I can deal with the awkwardness, but the shear unreliability of them is something I won't tolerate for my vehicle. They only last about 50-70K miles and can't be rebuilt. Maybe in something light like a Mirage they will hold up - but in vehicles that are heavy and have any torque at all, they just don't last. Look at the new Infiniti/Pathfinder SUV; already having CVT problems and it is brand new.
Nissan is offering 120K CVT Warranties. I have a bad feeling that's going to cost Nissan a lot in the long run - as will Mitsubishi.
One of the reason I am attracted to this segment is the price and simplicity of the vehicles. Replacing a $7000 CVT at 70,000 miles kind of ruins cheap.
Toyota is making CVTs now. If *ANYONE* can make the CVT work, reliably, in an automotive application, it will be Aisin (Toyota). No doubt they make the best automatic transmissions on the planet.
I understand that they are more efficient - but at what cost?
DSG style transmissions aren't that great (look at the Fiesta / Focus). I think the ideal transmission, for efficiency, is the style that Honda uses. Manual transmission with clutch packs on the synchronizer. I have been able to get great mileage out of Honda automatics. They shift early, but don't lug the engine (though, that's a function of their excellent engines) and the torque converter locks in 2nd gear. Because it's a manual transmission with a torque converter, they have a grade logic system of sorts that really acts like a manual transmission when you let your foot of the gas; the car slows down and it enables DFCO.
Until someone can figure something out, I'll stick with manual transmission or Aisin units. (or until I can't buy any more Cherokees)
I have the CVT and if you check out my fuel economy log I have two in a row above 45 mpg. This is actual mileage calculated, not taken from the cars readout. My route is exactly the same every day to and from work. It is about 1/3 highway 1/3 rural backroads and 1/3 city.I'm not doing anything special e.g. hypermiling, just normal driving. I am older and gave up shifting gears when I turned 30 or so; . So personally would not consider a manual transmission.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 automatic: 43.1 mpg (US) ... 18.3 km/L ... 5.5 L/100 km ... 51.8 mpg (Imp)
I can deal with the awkward behavior of them. Two of the worst examples were a rental Versa that would randomly shoot to 5000RPM when cruising on a flat highway at 55 and a Sentra that would lug the engine at 1100RPM causing my ears to hurt.
It's that they aren't reliable.
I like the idea. It's really excellent. Keep the engine where it's most efficient for what you are trying to do. Even during moderate decelerating they work great. I was accelerating hard stoplight to stoplight with the Versa and it was keeping 34MPG through all of it.
On ramps aren't bad either - my old Taurus would shift into OD and lock the torque converter right when you were about to hop into traffic, killing your momentum. Causing me to have to floor it and waste gas to get going again. CVTs don't have that problem.
Thanks for this topic. I love both trannys, but have decided the 5-spd pretty much wins. There is something to be said for being and staying in control of shifts when crucial gas can be saved as power needs are less.
Power is as instant as could possibly be - even with the small engine and drive by wire - it's not bad. The clutch's high friction point helps both eco/smooth driving and hard acceleration/quick shifts when wanted.
This is all very interesting. However, as some of you have alluded to, it really is a preference. The differences are small.
Basically, there are people who like driving a manual (myself included) and those who don't. That single preference really determines which you should drive. Everything else is rationalization.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage GLS 1.2 manual: 32.9 mpg (US) ... 14.0 km/L ... 7.1 L/100 km ... 39.6 mpg (Imp)
fc321 (07-15-2017)