Oops, I did it again! Bought another cheap Mirage "beater".

[Top_Fuel]

I love the change...the gearing difference is noticeable

I notice that I'm not so quick to shift into 5th now when driving in the city. This might be the easiest approach to achieve a gearing change for 5-speed owners who do a lot of freeway driving. I wish I had done it sooner.

The taller tires also help fill up the fender wells a little bit more.

[MetroMPG]

Also, first gear doesn't feel quite as useless/granny gear-ish when taking off from a level stop.

EDIT: And it's not necessarily just for 5-speed owners, is it? This could give a gearing boost to CVT owners as well. I don't know at what speed the CVT gearing is maxed out, but it's got to be well below highway speeds.

And it's worth emphasizing/repeating: as far as MPG goes, this is a mod for highway drivers.

[Mark]

Also, first gear doesn't feel quite as useless/granny gear-ish when taking off from a level stop.

1st gear is sort of useless on level ground. I usually skip 1st & start in 2nd gear on level stops most of the time.

Glad to hear they fit! Didn't you have a 58 mpg tank of gas recently? If so with snow tires & winter conditions that's already amazing.

I did 390 miles today. 99% highway. Mostly 70 mph, but some areas were 60 or 75 mph (Wisconsin/Iowa/Illinois). Filled up with the final bar flashing @ 301.2 mi/7.004 gal. = 43 mpg. Quite windy in some areas & some light rain. Very worn Federal tires up front & also worn down Dunlop tires on rear @ 42 psi.

[MetroMPG]

I used to use start out in 2nd if the car was moving at all ("rolling stop" - haha). But I'll have to revise that a bit with these taller tires.

Yessir, 58 MPG. But remember, I drive fairly slowly: mostly on roads with a max limit of 80 km/h = 50 mph. Plus all the various fuel-saving mods on the car. 43 mpg is pretty great for 70 mph cruising.

[MetroMPG]

... Yet.

My typical pattern with winter beaters for many years has been:

- buy in the summer/fall,
- drive through the winter,
- sell in the spring.

Rinse & repeat. And if I should fail to find another candidate by the next winter, I have my 2000 Metro as a backup plan:



Change of plans: despite the Metro's impressive 70 MPG = 3.6 L/100 km average, I'm kind of tired of driving it. It's always had a touchy/wonky clutch (busted damping springs, I think) and a handful of other minor problems & annoyances. And honestly I don't need so many cars.

The Mirages have spoiled me. SO MUCH LUXURY! SUCH REFINEMENT! Lifestyle inflation, hedonic adaptation in action. I don't want to get stuck driving the my $1000 crapcan Metro any more.

So despite my initial plan to flip Mirage #2 this spring for a wee profit, I'm going to hang onto it.

I will continue my search for the Holy Grail: a cheap, base, low-ish kms, 5-speed which will be my forever Mirage. I may give up some/all potential profit in Mirage #2 by keeping & driving it longer. But I'm fine with that.

[2016 Versa]

Years ago I ran tires as large as 185/75-14's on a Ford Escort that had a factory size of 165/80/13's. As I remember I got at least a 2 MPG increase in FE.

[MetroMPG]

I went to remove the hitch from the car this evening -- 6 nuts/bolts -- and was foiled by every one! Rusted.

I broke one, and couldn't budge the other 5. WD-40 couldn't save me.

I don't own an impact gun, so I guess I gotta get the neighbourhood mechanic to break them loose for me with some heat & impact.

[allrock]

That's a good question. I suspect in a carefully orchestrated 100% highway test on a fully warmed up car, the CVT might beat the manual by a bit. But in the real world, the CVT takes a bigger MPG hit during warm-up, not to mention on the portions of the drive between the highway ramps.

Remember that the CVT has a wider factory grille opening because it needs more cooling than the manual car. The extra cooling requirement tells me it's not as efficient overall. There's got to be more friction/mechanical resistance inside the CVT than in a manual gearbox for a given road speed.



That's a case of faulty expectations caused by the different EPA fuel economy test methodologies for CVT vs manual transmissions. The manual test procedure handicaps the car and results in a lower rating than real world drivers can easily get (not talking hypermiling).

I should stop typing and go see if those wheels fit the car.

the result conducted by the dept of energy here is for the manual they got 25.64km/l while the cvt got 27.05km/l thats the same 2015 model unit, i think cvt is realy efficient because unlike the old AT the tech on torque converter today is really change todays torque converter already have lock up function and they lock up even on low rpm ranges thats why its so efficient.

[Mark]

the result conducted by the dept of energy here is for the manual they got 25.64km/l while the cvt got 27.05km/l thats the same 2015 model unit, i think cvt is realy efficient because unlike the old AT the tech on torque converter today is really change todays torque converter already have lock up function and they lock up even on low rpm ranges thats why its so efficient.

I am not overly impressed with CVT performance others share on the forum. I wouldn't buy a CVT & expect it to out perform the manual. Mitsubishi claims the CVT is better, but I haven't seen anyone with a CVT share anything overly impressive. I am not saying the CVT is terrible. I'm just not convinced it's better in real life driving situations. Plus, driving an automatic is so boring!

If I had to buy a new vehicle today outside of buying another a Mirage ES manual, my money would most likely go to Mazda or Toyota. If I have to settle for something that's not a manual, it's going to be something with an automatic transmission that can tow something. When Subaru went CVT, the towing capacity of a Forester dropped 40%. No thanks!

[allrock]

I am not overly impressed with CVT performance others share on the forum. I wouldn't buy a CVT & expect it to out perform the manual. Mitsubishi claims the CVT is better, but I haven't seen anyone with a CVT share anything overly impressive. I am not saying the CVT is terrible. I'm just not convinced it's better in real life driving situations. Plus, driving an automatic is so boring!

If I had to buy a new vehicle today outside of buying another a Mirage ES manual, my money would most likely go to Mazda or Toyota. If I have to settle for something that's not a manual, it's going to be something with an automatic transmission that can tow something. When Subaru went CVT, the towing capacity of a Forester dropped 40%. No thanks!

yah manual is really fun to drive and its faster the manual mirage can compete with some 4 cylinder engine car when it comes to speed, and cvt is disposable thats why its risky owning it but for me its more fun to drive compare to AT its quicker and much responsive ive driven the AT xpander its fast but its not quick compare to ASX which is cvt though theres a 500cc difference on the engine.. toyota just launch the VIOS GR with 10speed CVT looking forward to test it.