View Single Post
Old 02-19-2020, 08:33 AM   #4 (permalink)
CVTCivic
EcoModding Lurker
 
CVTCivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 78

CVTCivic - '17 Honda Civic 4D Touring Sedan
90 day: 39.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 22
Thanked 27 Times in 18 Posts
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
Did you chose the CVT on purpose over a manual?
Short answer, yes I did.

Loooooong answer: I really love driving manual transmission but I have to go through some serious traffic cams, stop and go traffic and sometimes even if there is not much traffic, I just have to stop every 2000ft for a red light. So it was kind of unbearable for me, to press the clutch every few seconds.

After driving a 2012 Volkswagen Polo (little version of a Golf), which was kind of a lemon car, I don't wanted to have anything more to do with VW. And the reputation of their DSGs was pretty bad. So I decided to go for a Hyundai I30 Fastback, but they also had DSGs and I was too sceptical. I read about some total totaled automatic transmissions.

So I had a look on the Hondas and their CVT. I read a lot about it and made some test driving and it just felt great for me personaly. Although I know there are many car lovers who dislike continuous transmissions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
One of my big pet peeves about regulated fuel economy testing is that it's biased against manual transmissions. These days, CVT ratings appear to exceed the fuel economy of the same car with a manual transmission, but a motivated eco-driver can still beat the CVT in the real world without much difficulty. (And have more fun while doing it!) I would assume the European test also handicaps the manual.
Yeah I know an eco motivated driver with MT will easily beat the CVT when it comes to fuel efficent driving.

I just went through the data and the MT will beat CVT, at least that's how it's rated with the 2017 Civic sedan:

NEDC numbers (liter per 100 km)
City......................7.0 (MT) / 7.5 (CVT)
Outside city...........4.6 (MT) / 4.7 (CVT)
Combined.............5.5 (MT) / 5.7 (CVT)

NEDC numbers, I transfered the numbers to MPG for you
City......................33 (MT) / 31 (CVT)
Outside city...........51 (MT) / 50 (CVT)
Combined.............43 (MT) / 41 (CVT)

WLTP data (liter per 100 km)
Combined.............5.9 (MT) / 6.4 (CVT)

WLTP data (MPG)
Combined.............39.9 (MT) / 36.7 (CVT)

Just to compare, here are the EPA data for the exact same car
City......................31 (MT) / 32 (CVT)
Highway................42 (MT) / 42 (CVT)
Combined..............35 (MT) / 36 (CVT)

Last edited by CVTCivic; 02-26-2020 at 04:55 PM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CVTCivic For This Useful Post:
MetroMPG (02-19-2020)