New Mirage Owner Question (city fuel economy)

[nternal1]

Of course I'm always trying to keep the green "eco" light on.

[debburyl]

Yea, I was suprized when I got mine and they said that the CVT gets better gas mileage? It's always been the manual got better mpg.Question? Is your Mirage Brand new? If it is it could be that it needs to be broke in before it gets better MPG,s

[MiMi]

nternal1 -- The fuel consumption data that Natural Resources Canada and EPA publish are based on tests designed to simulate actual driving conditions. The Mirage CVT is hugely different from a conventional automatic. The video clip (Rally driver gives fuel economy tips for driving the CVT Mirage) in one of MetroMPG's links is a good place to start. It takes some time to learn to drive the CVT efficiently. I can easily drive residential, city, rural, and highway (90 km/hr speed limit) without ever going over 2000 rpm. Average is 5.2 l/100 km after 15,000 km. It would be better but I do a lot of short trips.

[nternal1]

nternal1 -- The fuel consumption data that Natural Resources Canada and EPA publish are based on tests designed to simulate actual driving conditions. The Mirage CVT is hugely different from a conventional automatic. The video clip (Rally driver gives fuel economy tips for driving the CVT Mirage) in one of MetroMPG's links is a good place to start. It takes some time to learn to drive the CVT efficiently. I can easily drive residential, city, rural, and highway (90 km/hr speed limit) without ever going over 2000 rpm. Average is 5.2 l/100 km after 15,000 km. It would be better but I do a lot of short trips.

Yes, I saw the video and I think it will help. I have 20 years of stick shift driving habits to overcome.

[MetroMPG]

When the Geo metro was around the manual rated much better (than the automatic) on their tests

True. But that's because the Metro automatic was garbage! It was a 3-speed slushbox with NO locking torque converter. That's about as old school as they came! There was a HUGE fuel economy penalty - close to 25%.

The government site was getting it right before (for conventional automatics vs manual) so I don't see why, all of a sudden, they would have screwed up the CVT vs manual rating.

It really hasn't been "all of a sudden". The test has ALWAYS handicapped manual transmission ratings. (See the previous links I provided for the full explanation. It's explained in detail.) The issue is that the gap between "old school" automatics and manuals used to be so big, that it vastly outweighed the handicap that manuals face during testing. So nobody ever really noticed, and nobody felt misled.

But auto transmissions have been progressively closing the gap for a decade or longer -- with more gears, lock-up torque converters (which lock in more gears) and now CVT's and dual-clutch automated manuals. Today it's not at all uncommon for a new automatic to be rated equal to or somewhat better than the same car with a manual trans (eg. check out: Honda Fit & Civic, Nissan Versa Note, Micra, Mazda 3, etc.). But the manual will still get better real world mileage in the hands of a motivated eco-driver than the automatic.

Long story short: if your goal is best fuel economy and you have the choice of a brand new manual or automatic car, and you're willing to put some effort into eco-driving, take the manual even if its official rating is slightly worse than the automatic.

[nternal1]

It's not so much about economy as it is about feeling a moral responsibility to pollute as little as possible. Unfortunately I already bought a new Mirage SE CVT (before stumbling on this website). I assumed that the ratings were acurate in relative terms and had also heard from others that the new CVT transmissions were finally on par with the manuals. It sort of sucks to find out otherwise because, in order to approach the fuel economy of my Metro, I still have to "put some effort" into driving the CVT within the guidlines outlined in the rally driver's video. It just adds insult to injury to know that I paid extra for the CVT when it doesn't even do the best job.

[debburyl]

It all goes with what you like. I didn't care for the stick in the mirage because it felt like you have very little clutch. And the engine sounded different. I have No Regrets. . Getting almost 52 MPG on the freeway I love

[MetroMPG]

heard from others that the new CVT transmissions were finally on par with the manuals.

This is probably true in the hands of a typical driver. The ratings would reflect the relative efficiency of each transmission.

Note that I keep adding that a "motivated or skilled eco-driver" can surpass the CVT's performance. In the hands of Mr & Mrs Joe & Jane Q Public though, I suspect they'll do better with the CVT. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few perhaps?

[debburyl]

Well it's not sappose to be a Race car but a Gas Sipper.

[alex16]

I can get better mpg in my 5 speed, but I drive a little too aggressive at times to keep the flow of traffic moving quickly, I am sure I would get better city mileage with a cvt but I am more concerned about cvt with 150,000 miles on the clock, but seeing how I'm finding 6,000 mile cvt's on ebay for $800, buying a cheap used low mileage replacement would solve my long term durability concerns. I drove a CVT Mirage and for 95% of the test drive it was absolutely amazing, I didn't enjoy the constant scream when getting on it for freeway entrances but other than that I'm glad I didn't test a CVT first, because I might have got a CVT instead!