2 Attachment(s)
Gas mileage/MPG test: 2014 Mirage CVT vs. 5-speed (sub/urban Ottawa route)
http://mirageforum.com/forum/attachm...1&d=1382995003
(The actual cars used: entry level 5-speed ("ES" trim in Canada); up level CVT ("SE" trim) on the right.)
Mirage 5-speed vs. CVT fuel economy test...
In my first impressions of the 5-speed and CVT Mirage, I mentioned one of my goals in trying out the cars this weekend was to compare their fuel economy in city driving over the same route. (Yes, I'm a fuel economy nerd.)
As a refresher, here are the car's urban ratings, according to the U.S. EPA (currently the most "realistic" rating system, regardless of where you live):
| 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage 1.2 L |
U.S. EPA city rating |
| 5-speed manual |
34 mpg (US)
6.9 L/100 km
14.5 km/L
40.8 mpg Imperial |
| CVT automatic |
37 mpg (US)
6.4 L/100 km
15.7 km/L
44.4 mpg Imperial |
Despite the CVT's excellent rating, I suspected that the 5-speed would outperform the automatic's mileage in the hands of a motivated eco-driver. (See: Mirage CVT or 5-speed: which should you get for best gas mileage/fuel economy? )
Eco-driving results ...
The numbers, from the cars' factory fuel consumption gauges (how accurate are they?):
| 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage 1.2 L |
Observed fuel economy |
| 5-speed manual |
48 mpg US
4.9 L/100 km
20.4 km/L
58 mpg Imperial |
| CVT automatic * |
42 mpg (US)
5.6 L/100 km
17.9 km/L
50 mpg Imperial |
* Caveat: I'm not certain the CVT was as warmed up as the manual car, and a colder car would have used more fuel. I still have my doubts it could match the 5-speed, but I think it may have been able to do a little bit better than it did. More details on that, below.
UPDATE: highway mileage comparison test ...
April 28, 2015: El Kapitan decided to repeat the CVT vs 5-speed showdown on a much longer route (80 km / 50 miles) that was mostly highway driving. His results:
- CVT: 45 mpg US / 5.2 L/100 km
- 5-speed: 47 mpg US / 5.0 L/100 km
Read the full details of the comparison: Mileage test between Mirage 5MT and CVT on set route (mostly highway)
Driving techniques used: plain vanilla eco-driving ...
The route was was plain eco-driving, nothing fancy: The engine stayed on at all times, and I drove with traffic -- with the exception of when approaching stops ahead, like a fresh red light. I typically let off the accelerator significantly earlier than drivers ahead of / beside me. So, while they continued to burn fuel to rush up to stops & slowdowns, I coasted in behind them, sometimes arriving just in time to keep moving when they started up again.
- The primary technique: plenty of following distance and looking well ahead to avoid rushing into situations where I would be forced to brake sharply (eg. red lights, cars in my lane slowing to turn, etc.).
- Minimizing brake use & maximizing coasting opportunities are the key methods for getting great city fuel economy.
- 5-speed: upshifting to the highest possible gear once up to speed; downshifting again if/when power required. Sometimes that meant I was in top gear at speeds as low as 50-60 km/h (30-36 mph).
- 5-speed: early upshifts (not past ~2700 RPM) under moderate engine load
- 5-speed: coasting in neutral towards some stops & turns when strong deceleration was not needed (otherwise, left in gear to take advantage of stronger deceleration under fuel-cutoff/engine braking)
- CVT: under acceleration, keep RPM as low as practical
- CVT: once up to speed, I would lift the throttle slightly to ensure the transmission had upshifted to provided the lowest cruising RPM.
Corey, the sales rep from Donnely Mitsubishi (who was very good about showing me the cars -- plug! plug! - go see him if you're in Ottawa) said I drove like a grandma. :)
But I want to emphasize that I drove with traffic. No rolling road blocks.
Conditions & 10 km / 6 mile route ...
- Saturday, October 26 between 4-5 PM
- 5C (41 F)
- windy: 24 km/h (14 mph) from SSW
- damp roads
- humitidy: 93%
- pressure: 100.56 kPa
http://mirageforum.com/forum/attachm...1&d=1382988516
Route, on Google Maps: http://goo.gl/maps/e5TLa
- 10.6 km (6.6 mi.) clockwise loop (to avoid sitting at traffic lights for left turns)
- sub/urban area (commercial & residential)
- various speed zones, from 40 through 70 km/h (25 - 44 mph)
- 7 stop signs
- 18 traffic lights (which were very consistent between laps)
- moderate traffic (cars all around, but no "stop & crawl" situations)
Vehicle details/set-up ...
Cold CVT: The biggest potential difference between cars was the manual transmission car had been driven earlier that afternoon. ("A couple of hours ago," said sales rep Corey. The fuel economy display showed the previous driver(s) got 7.1 L/100 km (33 mpg US = 14.1 km/L = 40 mpg Imp.)
The "cold engine" light was not on when I started the manual.
The CVT showed the "cold engine" light on start-up, so before driving the test route, we took a 5-7 minute detour to warm up the drivetrain. The light was out when we started.
Odometers: The CVT had just under 300 km (186 miles) on it. The 5-speed had about half that.
Tire pressures: (checked cold, the next morning)
- 5-speed: ~33 PSI all around
- CVT: ~33 PSI on two; one at ~36 PSI; one at ~45 PSI (giving this car a slight rolling resistance advantage over the manual)
There's even better MPG where that came from ...
There's significantly better fuel economy available without much more effort, by shutting off the engine at stops longer than ~10 seconds (my time preference).
How much better? Around 8% on this specific route. Here's what that would mean compared to the laps with the engine always on...
Observed fuel economy
|
Engine always on |
Engine off, longer stops
(+8%, projected) |
| 5-speed manual |
48 mpg US
4.9 L/100 km
20.4 km/L
58 mpg Imperial |
52 mpg US
4.5 L/100 km
22 km/L
62 mpg Imperial |
| CVT automatic * |
42 mpg (US)
5.6 L/100 km
17.9 km/L
50 mpg Imperial |
45 mpg US
5.2 L/100 km
19.3 km/L
55 mpg Imperial |
How did I figure 8%?
After we finished running the Mirages around the test loop, I took my own car around. (It's a 15 year old, 1.0 L, 3-cylinder, 5-speed Pontiac Firefly -- Canadian market Geo Metro). I repeated the "plain vanilla eco-driving" I did with the Mirages, then went again using "plain vanilla eco-driving plus shutting off the engine at long stops". That second lap was 8% better than the first.
FYI, my modified Firefly/Metro returned 55 and 59.4 mpg (US) on those two laps. Though it has been modified to get better economy than stock (through minor weight reduction, higher tire pressure, modified gearing, multiple aerodynamic improvements). Oh, and there was one less person in my car.
update and difference between manual and CVT
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RodeRoNL
I have a Mirage 1.2 CVT and I get on average easily 4.5 l/100km. Sometimes (on highway route) 4.0 l/100km. My record? 3.9 l/100km. In city traffic about 6.0 l/100km. Luckily city traffic is rare in my case. I am too lazy to keep record of it at every refuelling and post it on the website all the time :bi_polo:
Update: the first 10,000km the average fuel economy of my 1.2 CVT was 5.0 l/100 km which was a bit worse than hoped. I expect a bit better fuel economy for the second 10,000km as the engine is a bit more loose. My target will still be 4.5 l/100km. I know I can!
Regarding the topic of Original Poster: I just checked the fuel economy log part of this website. The 1.2 CVT uses on average almost 10% more fuel than the manual (averageing 105 cars). This difference dissapointed me a bit. I thought the CVT would be almost on par with the manual if I am honest...
