Darin's test drive review notes: 2017 Mitsubishi Mirage G4 sedan CVT

[MetroMPG]

The CVT characteristics might be unique to the Mirage. A few people I know have driven other cars with CVT and hated the CVT because it was always revving the engine quite high. I guess it is all in the programming.

I've only driven a couple of belt & pulley CVT's other than the Mirage's, and I had the same impression: they both revved too high for my liking. One was in a Jeep Compass, the other in an Audi A4.

But both of these cars had a "manual mode" where you could tap the shift lever up or down to simulate gear changes, and I found I could always get the car into "highest gear" / lowest RPM sooner than the default programming if I used the manual mode.

On the other hand, the Mirage ALWAYS seems to try for lowest possible RPM when in Drive (if you haven't recently been flooring it).

I even said to Daox that I had the impression the Mirage was often on the verge of actually lugging the engine to keep revs down.



Now I'm curious to try the redesigned Chevy Spark, which uses the same CVT-7 transmission that the Mirage uses. I wonder if they programmed it similarly.

[El Kapitan]

very true. I often wish mine would rev just a little higher, however i'd rather that it error on the side of lower revs.

[Ranny]

I would love to see those low RPM numbers when cruising a highway speed in my manual. Must be quite a bit quieter cruising at 2K than at 2700. I like my manuals too, but next time, it's automatic and adaptive cruise for me. Traffic is getting too heavy these days for dealing with constant clutching. Pretty soon, that feature ought to trickle down to even inexpensive compacts.

[Basic]

I've only driven a couple of belt & pulley CVT's other than the Mirage's, and I had the same impression: they both revved too high for my liking. One was in a Jeep Compass, the other in an Audi A4.

Oh man, that Compass CVT is the stuff of nightmares... I had the unfortunate experience of having one of those for a rental for a whole week. The best way I can describe it to someone who's never driven one, is that its like a power boat. You throw the throttle wide open, and the vehicle slowly gains speed as it cuts thru the water with the RPMS at full rip...

Absolutely astonishing.

[MetroMPG]

I would love to see those low RPM numbers when cruising a highway speed in my manual. Must be quite a bit quieter cruising at 2K than at 2700.

Yup. I'd prefer driving the CVT when at cruising speed. I'd prefer driving the manual the rest of the time.

next time, it's automatic and adaptive cruise for me. Traffic is getting too heavy these days for dealing with constant clutching. Pretty soon, that feature ought to trickle down to even inexpensive compacts.

The Mirage will be getting forward radar in the next couple of years. It's already available overseas. The main reason it's there is for forward collision avoidance/emergency auto-braking, but I bet the same sensor also enables adaptive cruise.

[MetroMPG]

Notes:

- Values are averages of bi-directional runs repeated on the same stretch of a level road *
- (* except for the highest speed, which should be considered an estimate only)
- Weather: 21 C / 70 F, dry, with negligible wind
- no traffic ahead in my lane (no aero / drafting effect)
- A/C off
- Driver only on board
- Headlights on
- Tires at manufacturer's recommended pressure (35 PSI)
- Readings were taken from the car's MPG display (which was within a few % of calculations at the pump based on 2 fill-ups).

It seems to fit the pattern of some small displacement cars: really good low/moderate speed numbers. But MPG really falls off a cliff (relatively speaking) as speed climbs.

EG: The 75 mph reading is only a bit better than my mom's much bigger 2004 Toyota Camry 2.4L automatic. Although in real world sub/urban driving, the Mirage uses nearly HALF the fuel.

[MiMi]

Your graph matches the graph in the Speed vs. MPG thread except for the points at 110 km/hr and 120 km/hr where your fuel consumption was a lot higher.

[MetroMPG]

Thanks for pointing that out.

I'd say my graph is less accurate at the highest speeds because the fuel economy display has less and less time to update/refresh before I run out of room on the level stretch of level road I used.

Also, looking at my notes, I only made 1 run for the highest reading. (Didn't do the return run)

So definitely take those last 2 with a grain of salt.

[MetroMPG]

It was close enough that you might as well call it 50 MPG (US)...

Overall fuel consumption after 2 fills:

- 1277 km = 793 miles
- 4.7 L/100 km = 49.6 mpg US

Filled at the same pump, parked in the same direction, with the same number of fuel filler "click offs" each time.

Not bad for a car with no mods, and tires inflated to manufacturer's specs.

Driving style was "eco", not "hyper". That is: gentle acceleration where possible, sticking to the speed limit or a couple over. Usually with the cruise control engaged on the highway. In town, the main eco technique was simply avoiding rushing into situations where I had to brake abruptly -- ie. reading traffic ahead and easing off the throttle early.

Note: the highest speed limit on the freeways around here is 100 km/h = 62 mph.

Accurate fuel economy gauge??

2 fills aren't enough to say this conclusively, but the gauge was surprisingly accurate compared with my at-the-pump calcs.

On the other hand, the gauge in the 2014 Mirage hatch I drove was 4-5% optimistic.

[El Kapitan]

it's been a while since your other test drive but if you remember, which of the two models has more road noise?