I had a similar question a few months ago...
CVT and RPMs
I had a similar question a few months ago...
CVT and RPMs
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 52.2 mpg (US) ... 22.2 km/L ... 4.5 L/100 km ... 62.6 mpg (Imp)
CVT eliminates human interaction with proper gearing. The right conditions and the proper intelligent human gearing/throttle input beats the computer every time.
Actually no, it doesn't eliminate human interaction.
The cvt can be prodded to upshift, downshift or behave a certain way with driver input. I can make it upshift early to run rpm as low as 1000 and hold it at city speeds. I can cause a "downshift" to jump to 3000rpm from 2000rpm at the bottom of a hill or to pass. I can make it run the ragged edge or keep up with my grandma.
It seems most of you "purists" think the cvt makes me a rider not a driver but this is far from truth. The cvt simply demands different input to perform well.
Will weld for beer.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage SE 1.2 automatic: 45.3 mpg (US) ... 19.3 km/L ... 5.2 L/100 km ... 54.5 mpg (Imp)
Eggman (01-23-2017)
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 49.6 mpg (US) ... 21.1 km/L ... 4.7 L/100 km ... 59.5 mpg (Imp)
What I meant by my last blurb was you could identify the exact rpm or speed the CVT gained advantage using math. You would need too know a LOT of information though, including injector size and actual volume of fuel dispersed per millisecond, engine RPM and load, and have the end result fuel map displayed in pulse width for both auto and manual cars.
Then you could simply do the math, and know. But it's ludicrous concept because that's way to much work and there's so much missing info.. plus we aren't building a space shuttle and you'll still end up hours of your life shorter with nothing actual gained except a pretty rad chart.
The fuel map knows all!!
Read post 18,... or summed up... the drag of the CVT, and its losses.
For reference, I can spin the mirage transmission in gear (by itself) with one hand. I'm physically capable of dealing with its drag.
I probably couldn't develop enough energy to make the CVT function even on a row machine.
OK so to summarize this thread:
-Manual gets better economy at city speeds with proper technique
-CVT gets possibly better economy at very high speeds on the highway
Am I correct?
MightyMirageMpg, doesn't OBDII report engine load percentage? That could be used to compare the two transmissions in a side-by-side comparison. I understand there is some app like Torque that can log data, no? Cheap & easy.
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 49.6 mpg (US) ... 21.1 km/L ... 4.7 L/100 km ... 59.5 mpg (Imp)
One other variable to consider when talking about a CVT and highway fuel economy...
Does the car have a CVT and cruise control? Read explanation HERE
__________________________________________
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 52.2 mpg (US) ... 22.2 km/L ... 4.5 L/100 km ... 62.6 mpg (Imp)
I'm definitely looking for a mirage with cruise control.
Top Fuel and Eggman, since you have manuals, what has been your experience with highway driving? What MPG can you achieve on a flat highway? I know it varies by temperature but just a rough estimate helps