Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 80

Thread: Is the CVT really more efficient than the manual transmission?

  1. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    73
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 19 Times in 13 Posts
    I driven both and feel like a real world driver will get better MPG in a CVT. Period.

    I regularly move my sisters (It is a CVT) and check the avg mpg and most of the time it's actually above 40...On a 500 mile trip with the car loaded up with crap, it got 36 going 75-80 mpg..with a head wind.

    All and all though, I'd personally get the manual though because that CVT is the oddest transmission I've ever felt. lol.



  2. #62
    Administrator MetroMPG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    6,721
    Thanks
    2,230
    Thanked 1,881 Times in 1,151 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tytotheler92 View Post
    I driven both and feel like a real world driver will get better MPG in a CVT.
    If you mean the "average" or "typical" driver, I would sadly agree.

    Of the few manual drivers in my neighbourhood, I often hear them driving down the road in second gear when 3rd or 4th would be fine. They won't beat their cars' MPG ratings doing that.

    But anyone who cares enough to be asking or reading about this topic on this forum is probably going to be better than the average/typical driver.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage base ES 1.2 manual: 54.0 mpg (US) ... 23.0 km/L ... 4.4 L/100 km ... 64.9 mpg (Imp)


  3. The Following User Says Thank You to MetroMPG For This Useful Post:

    fc321 (08-09-2018)

  4. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    73
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 19 Times in 13 Posts
    Exactly what I mean.

    That being said lugging a car can hurt fuel economy just as much as revving it. Although, I don't think the Mirage really cares either way. Probably one of the easiest manuals to drive out there.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to tytotheler92 For This Useful Post:

    fc321 (08-09-2018)

  6. #64
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    New Jersey
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    8
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 6 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ecoboxer View Post
    The EPA ratings say the CVT gets better mileage than the manual, but some users here have tested both and achieved better MPG with the manual. But, those tests were performed by skilled eco drivers using the most fuel efficient driving possible.

    In terms of regular daily driving which may occasionally require going fast, which one wins? Will the manual only win if the driver really focuses on driving efficiently? Which one gets better highway mileage at 100km/h?
    ...I recognize this is somewhat disjointed but whatever...notwithstanding the fact that the wife would have issues with me having a manual stick...when I tried to teach her how to drive one on a previous car she left shavings on the road...in part you really have to know how to drive a stick...I have driven cars for over 30 years with various sticks...some great and some really bad...the worst was on my 280Z with an "injection thunk" they couldn't correct...somewhat like an irritating "thud" felt through the car each time I shifted...sort of a "Chinese water torture" mentally for me knowing it would happen each time I shifted...but it's not just knowing the exact shift points whether by sound or by tach...I took note and learned from a neighbor that could double-clutch and down-shift so perfectly on his 'vette that it was annoying...here, I would agree that for most, the CVT should be overall more efficient and personally I didn't exactly like the "feel" of the manual stick...for myself the pro for the manual was it gave better "touch" with the road surface in bad weather, especially snow and it kept you more aware of your surroundings when driving tired...the con was in stop and go driving where being on the turnpike at 5 mph for 20 miles because of bad weather conditions or an accident...it felt like my foot was trying to go to the same place my hip resided, to the point I was getting teary-eyed from the agony...but what I found whether using a manual or auto is that beside the normal litany of "how to increase your mileage," I mastered the art of staying "behind" cars that were on the road in front of me...keeping distance so I didn't have to constantly tap the brakes because I was too close as a following car...this was EASILY the hardest thing I had to learn to increase mileage...everything else in the holy grail of how to increase mileage was no sweat...I get 50 mph on the CVT so I'm good with the CVT...the only other item for my one and a half cents is that I don't use the cruise control as I'm pretty disciplined in keeping steady pressure on the gas pedal which is not exactly easy either...

  7. #65
    Senior Member fc321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    318
    Thanks
    383
    Thanked 103 Times in 70 Posts
    Unpopular opinion:

    You can mitigate alot of the highway losses by utilizing a 3 second draft. Im talking about tucking in behind a truck, van or SUV and following at a 3 second safe following distance.

    The biggest problem (as far as fuel efficiency) on the motorway is the wind-resistance at those higher speeds. If you can shave some of that off (even 30% or more) of it by tucking-in and following 3 seconds behind a big vehicle then you you are going to reap substantial savings at the gas pump.

    You can use that big vehicle in front of you are a "shield-against-the-wind" and profit from the fact that they are taking "the brunt" of the wind right on their chin, you can "tuck" into their wind-stream.....dont recommend this in too-much-congested traffic.... but its a reasonable strategy on long trips in isolated highways and also "if you are willing to absorb the risk" you can use same strategies in your daily commutes.

    It works like this: The closer you are willing to get to the big vehicle, the better the gas savings for you but it is like walking a circus tight-rope because the closer to car in front you get the more dangerous you risk yourself. You understand me? You get too close then now cannot stop in time if big vehicle does something unexpected.

    So up to you it is to make this decision of balance between both variables. I say 3 seconds is proper, never closer than 2 seconds, NEVER EVER. You find for yourself perfect balance for your own temperament.

    The strategy is sound but human dumb brain in some cases cannot be relied upon (maybe) to react in time-fashion. So you decide for yourself with realistic and honest self-analysis.
    2015 Mirage DE 5 speed Manual (no bluetooth) nickname: "Agile Grey Rat"

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 44.9 mpg (US) ... 19.1 km/L ... 5.2 L/100 km ... 53.9 mpg (Imp)


  8. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    New York
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    76
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 43 Times in 27 Posts
    We own both a 17 ES 5spd and CVT... Manual does way better in MPGs lifetime avg 47-48 mixed

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to DottandDolores For This Useful Post:

    MetroMPG (08-17-2018)

  10. #67
    Senior Member stevedmc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Baton Rouge
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    145
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 40 Times in 27 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by fc321 View Post
    Unpopular opinion:

    You can mitigate alot of the highway losses by utilizing a 3 second draft. Im talking about tucking in behind a truck, van or SUV and following at a 3 second safe following distance.

    The biggest problem (as far as fuel efficiency) on the motorway is the wind-resistance at those higher speeds. If you can shave some of that off (even 30% or more) of it by tucking-in and following 3 seconds behind a big vehicle then you you are going to reap substantial savings at the gas pump.

    You can use that big vehicle in front of you are a "shield-against-the-wind" and profit from the fact that they are taking "the brunt" of the wind right on their chin, you can "tuck" into their wind-stream.....dont recommend this in too-much-congested traffic.... but its a reasonable strategy on long trips in isolated highways and also "if you are willing to absorb the risk" you can use same strategies in your daily commutes.

    It works like this: The closer you are willing to get to the big vehicle, the better the gas savings for you but it is like walking a circus tight-rope because the closer to car in front you get the more dangerous you risk yourself. You understand me? You get too close then now cannot stop in time if big vehicle does something unexpected.

    So up to you it is to make this decision of balance between both variables. I say 3 seconds is proper, never closer than 2 seconds, NEVER EVER. You find for yourself perfect balance for your own temperament.

    The strategy is sound but human dumb brain in some cases cannot be relied upon (maybe) to react in time-fashion. So you decide for yourself with realistic and honest self-analysis.
    I brake for tailgaters.

  11. #68
    Senior Member fc321's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    318
    Thanks
    383
    Thanked 103 Times in 70 Posts
    In car driver safety school they advise a 3 second following distance as the MINIMUM margin for safety and to give you time to react if driver ahead has slammed on the brakes. So what I am recommending is to make that a "firm" 3 seconds rather than turn it into 5 or 6 seconds or above.

    Please I hope nobody misconstrued my strategy as if I am advising people to "draft" behind big trucks because we all know that this is a dangerous thing to do. What I am saying is:

    1) Choose big, fat trucks, vans or SUVs to drive behind on the motorway.
    2) Choose one that is driving 70 mph or less (if possible)
    3) Watch as their rear wheel passes a stationary object such as an orange cone
    4) Count "1 one thousand, 2 one thousand, 3 one thousand" and this will tell you the closest you can tuck-in behind them without getting "too close" based on how soon your front tire passes the same orange cone.

    So the strategy I am advising is make it a "firm" 3 seconds, look proactively for highway opportunities to use big vehicles as a "wind-shield"

    I am sure I am in the minority here and it is unpopular advice because of the stigma people have against drafting. But if you are in a 5 MT and driving above 70 mph with no draft then the CVT will absolutely decimate you when it comes to fuel-efficiency due to the higher rpm revs
    2015 Mirage DE 5 speed Manual (no bluetooth) nickname: "Agile Grey Rat"

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2015 Mirage DE 1.2 manual: 44.9 mpg (US) ... 19.1 km/L ... 5.2 L/100 km ... 53.9 mpg (Imp)


  12. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    332
    Garage empty: add car
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 54 Times in 31 Posts
    there is a stigma against drafting? Uh-oh, i'm in trouble
    2014 White SE with CVT

  13. #70
    Senior Member stevedmc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Baton Rouge
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    145
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 40 Times in 27 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by El Kapitan View Post
    there is a stigma against drafting? Uh-oh, i'm in trouble
    You could kill yourself, but to each his own I guess.

    When I was younger and didn't know any better, I would drive behind 18 wheelers at what I thought was a safe distance. I would get no closer than 2 or 3 car distances from an 18 wheeler on the interstate at 70 mph.

    One day, I found myself driving behind a truck that had a tire failure. The tread on one of his rear tires, separated from the rest of the tire and became air-born, resulting in it becoming a projectile. I was too close to dodge the huge piece of tire, and it ended up destroying the front end of the car I was in. Had it gone through the windshield, I would be a dead man today.

    I now keep a very safe distance behind all vehicles, especially 18 wheelers. My general rule is to stay at least one car distance behind a vehicle for every 10 mph I am going. So these days, I stay at least 7 car distances behind 18 wheelers on the interstate. In actual practice, I try to stay a lot farther back than that.

    My life is worth more than saving a few dollars on gas.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •