Quote:
Originally Posted by some_other_dave
Are the gears for the AT version "taller" than those in the MT? If so, that's another reason for better MPG figures from the auto box.
-soD
|
Yes. Significantly. I looked when it first came out, and it's a classic case of high-revving-manual-itis.
That said, I'd still give the manual my vote for mileage
potential.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...age-27384.html
Quote:
CVT automatic, city: 37 mpg US (6.4 L/100 km = 44.4 mpg Imp.)
CVT automatic, highway: 44 mpg US (5.4 L/100 km = 52.8 mpg (Imp)
5-speed manual, city: 34 mpg US (6.9 L/100 km = 40.8 mpg Imp.)
5-speed manual, highway: 42 mpg US (5.6 L/100 km = 50.4 mpg Imp)
Despite the manual's apparent handicap, it's been my experience that a motivated, efficiency-minded cog swapper can beat the city rating by a bigger percentage than in the automatic.
|
Quote:
I intentionally kept it very simple: plain Jane vanilla eco-driving here, with anticipation and minimization of braking being the main tactics.
No pulse & glide, and no engine-off coasting. I even left the engine running at all stops, regardless of length. I wanted non-hypermilers to look at this and think... "hey, even I could do that."
|
Quote:
CVT automatic, city: 42 mpg US (5.6 L/100 km = 50 mpg Imp)
= 13.5% over EPA 37 mpg city rating
5MT city: 48 mpg US (4.9 L/100 km = 58 mpg Imp)
= 41.2% over EPA 34 mpg city rating
|