Manual V CVT in the real world?

[Canoehead]

Let's assume the driver is not a skilled hypermiler, but a reasonably calm driver who understands that coasting to a red light makes more sense, shifting early is prudent, and limiting top speed on the highway is a reasonable thing to do.

What are our guesses for the actual combined mpg or L/100km differences between the manual and the CVT. I'm 95% convinced I'll be getting the manual, but I am starting to like the idea of the CVT purely from an efficiency point of view (If I'm getting a super-efficient car, maybe I should get the most efficient?)

[IchabodCrane]

I've read here that the manual trans cars are running near 3000 rpm at 100 km/h ?
If this is so, the cvt is geared to get better economy from the factory as my CVT runs as low as 1900 rpm at
100 km/h. (the cvt varies rpm at cruise depending on wind, grade, rain... etc - 1900 rpm is in ideal conditions)
I have achived 110 km/h @2000 rpm.
I am no hypermiler but I will coast to a red light, I'm not in a rush to leave one, I use cruise 70 - 80% of my highway time, try to limit city miles and use a less travelled route to work that allows me to set cruise at 70 km/h for about 20 km daily.
I'm logging an average of over 52 mpg Imperial, or
43.3 mpg US.
Most mornings going to work (air is calmer, traffic lighter) I achieve the advertised (Canada) 4.4L/100km or 53.5 mpg US.
I don't know how this stacks up against the manual trans Mirages under same conditions, but here's the info I have.

[Ares]

For efficiency, I would say cvt.

For all other reasons 5spd.

[cookiemonster]

I've read here that the manual trans cars are running near 3000 rpm at 100 km/h ?
If this is so, the cvt is geared to get better economy from the factory as my CVT runs as low as 1900 rpm at
100 km/h. ...

Yea .. 5th gear on the manual is geared to 0.804 whereas the CVT can go as low as 0.550. So the CVT is more efficient in that respect.

[aydu]

I think the biggest decision is how you intend to drive.

Using a manual is fun on the open road, but can become a pain in stop and go driving in the city.

If you tend to be a cruiser, a CVT will blend well with your style. If you tend to be a more aggressive driver, a manual is definitely going to give you more of an engaging ride.

[Ares]

I agree with above, for the most part.

What I don't understand is how much of a sissy everyone is about driving stick on traffic. The shifter is so light and so is the clutch. One does not have to push the gas pedal to move the car in stop and go traffic. Simply lift the clutch and you're moving.

Try driving a 700+hp car with racing clutch and regeared transmission in stop and go traffic. Then we'll talk about hard. Having to rev at 3k from a stop so the car does not bog down is hard.

Compared to that, or even a lot of regular cars in the market today, the mirage's clutch and tranny are a slice of cake.

[MetroMPG]

Canoehead - just checking if you have seen this thread:

Gas mileage/MPG test: 2014 Mirage CVT vs. 5-speed (sub/urban Ottawa route)

In mixed or predominantly sub/urban type driving, the manual can beat the CVT.

The question mark is on the open highway. The CVT/5MT Speed vs. Fuel Economy graphs we've done give the CVT a slight edge, unsurprisingly. But who drives 100% highway?

[Canoehead]

Those graphs are interesting. How does one compare a 30C temperature difference, different wheels, different spoiler, and A/C though? I suspect I'd have to dust off the old data analysis textbook to figure that out (if there was enough info)!

It seems the final drive ratio should have a big impact driving at highway speeds (which for me is 100km/h or less). On the other hand, it seems that the real difference is not so great. As I am likely to be hauling a canoe quite a lot, the ratio of the manual might actually be preferable, and I find driving a manual to be second nature having done it since I was a wee lad.

The testing cycles used (somewhat mysterious) and the way the companies prepare their vehicles for this testing possibly skews the result. This has been discussed on the ecoboost threads, and also on the Fit forums (consensus seems to be that Honda made the Manual for enthusiasts and the CVT for those who prefer efficiency over performance).

I suppose I'd like to see a "fair" graph showing two of the same cars, in the same conditions, on the same stretch of road. I'm probably dreaming, though.

[MetroMPG]

I suppose I'd like to see a "fair" graph showing two of the same cars, in the same conditions, on the same stretch of road. I'm probably dreaming, though.

I'd really like to do this.

[randysmirage]

I agree with above, for the most part.

What I don't understand is how much of a sissy everyone is about driving stick on traffic. The shifter is so light and so is the clutch. One does not have to push the gas pedal to move the car in stop and go traffic. Simply lift the clutch and you're moving.

Try driving a 700+hp car with racing clutch and regeared transmission in stop and go traffic. Then we'll talk about hard. Having to rev at 3k from a stop so the car does not bog down is hard.

Compared to that, or even a lot of regular cars in the market today, the mirage's clutch and tranny are a slice of cake.

What no one has mentioned so far in this thread, is the hill holding feature of the CVT. I am pretty good with hand brake, clutch, throttle coordination, but the CVT hill holder is a blessing in Seattle, San Francisco, and any other city with a lot of stop and go traffic on steep hills. Lots of stalls and burned clutch disks in these cities.