Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-29-2012, 06:21 PM   #11 (permalink)
EcoModding Smurfer
 
Smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: LaX
Posts: 293

Dime - '95 Chevy S10 LS ExtCab RWD
Pickups
90 day: 18.23 mpg (US)

G/A - '96 Pontiac Grand Am
Team Pontiac
90 day: 32.74 mpg (US)
Thanks: 52
Thanked 34 Times in 29 Posts
If I had a car that ugly, I'd shave it's emblems and teach it to drive backwards.

__________________

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Smurf For This Useful Post:
Flakbadger (12-30-2012)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 12-30-2012, 01:07 AM   #12 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 7,433
Thanks: 0
Thanked 764 Times in 675 Posts
That might appeal to people who don't know how to shift gears but wouldn't feel safe in a scooter. Altough it doesn't look so safe at all
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 11:21 AM   #13 (permalink)
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lake Elmo, MN
Posts: 109
Thanks: 2
Thanked 27 Times in 21 Posts
I'm really surprised at the lambasting this car is getting here.

It looks very functional with what appears to be many positive attributes like fender contouring for low wheel drag, an under belly pan, and a very useable layout (4 door hatch). I'd bet EPA will rate this car at around 37/47 with most of us being able to eek out more. I'd think only a hybrid or diesel would be able to best this cars economy with at least 50% greater overall expense.

What happened to function over form?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 04:00 PM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Smurfer
 
Smurf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: LaX
Posts: 293

Dime - '95 Chevy S10 LS ExtCab RWD
Pickups
90 day: 18.23 mpg (US)

G/A - '96 Pontiac Grand Am
Team Pontiac
90 day: 32.74 mpg (US)
Thanks: 52
Thanked 34 Times in 29 Posts
No one said we want them to be hideous.

I'd rather get 40 in a car I like looking at than 45 in a .... adjectives don't even describe how ugly that thing is!
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:53 PM   #15 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Carson City, Nevada
Posts: 612

Jimmy - '00 GMC Jimmy SLT
90 day: 21.18 mpg (US)

The White Gnat - '99 Suzuki Swift
Team Suzuki
90 day: 51.87 mpg (US)
Thanks: 236
Thanked 109 Times in 87 Posts
I don't know, guys - CVT or not, 57 mpg is pretty good for a stock factory offering. And it's not even a hybrid, right?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 08:16 PM   #16 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,018 Times in 1,302 Posts
The anti CVT attitude here seems somewhat disappointing to me, having averaged 68 MPG in my CVT Insight. Knowing that the vast majority of US drivers choose a self "shifting" transmission, CVTs have capabilities that even manuals lack, like the ability to accelerate while maintaining precisely the best load and RPM. Nissan seems to be doing pretty well with the new Altima with a highway rating same as my Fiesta at 38 MPG, and the new Sentra is supposed to have the highest combined rating of any comparable sized non hybrid car.

regards
Mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 09:37 PM   #17 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 21,309

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 52.8 mpg (US)

Winter beater Metro - '00 Chevrolet Metro
90 day: 73.57 mpg (US)

Fancy Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 58.53 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,084
Thanked 5,963 Times in 3,088 Posts
Quote:
What happened to function over form?
Oh, I wouldn't kick it out of bed for eating crackers. It's boring to look at, but I'd certainly drive one if it gets great fuel economy.

Quote:
The anti CVT attitude here seems somewhat disappointing
I'm not anti-CVT at all. For the average driver, the more CVT's the merrier!

But I am pro-manual.

In the hands of a motivated & skilled eco-driver, a manual will outperform a CVT (MPG-wise) in general and will be more engaging/entertaining while doing so.

I'd consider owning a CVT if:

1) It permitted switching between neutral and drive at any speed, without any problems (to make best use of coasting opportunities);

2) It permitted engine-off coasting in neutral;

3) Ideally, it also let me optionally choose when to "upshift" (ie. a "manual" mode) because CVT's are not necessarily optimized for economy. (EG. see: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...rly-21149.html )

And there are a bunch more advantages to manuals not specifically related to economy.
__________________
Latest mods test: 15 mods = 15% MPG improvement: A-B test, 2007 Honda Civic 1.8L, 5-speed
Ecodriving test:
Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown: Nissan Micra 1.6L



EcoModder
has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 09:56 PM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
mechman600's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 1,225

Colorado - '04 Chevrolet Colorado
90 day: 22.98 mpg (US)
Thanks: 190
Thanked 271 Times in 165 Posts
I recently went with my brother in law from Surrey to Osoyoos and back in his 2011 Mitsubishi Lancer 2.0L CVT. I was actually quite impressed how "eco-minded" the transmission is. From a stop, maintaining 1500 rpm actually had the car accelerating at a decent clip. Plus, top "gear" was super tall - like 2000 rpm @ 120 km/h. For a 2.0L in a car that size, that seemed ridiculous to me, but whenever more power was needed it quickly "ratioed up" as needed.

Admittedly, most time was spend between 120-140 km/h on super steep, long grades, so disclosing a fuel mileage figure would be moot, but I believe it was in the high 8s (L/100 km) when we were almost home.

But I do think a 6+ speed auto shifting manual is a better solution. I guess it comes down to price....but then why can Ford do it in the Fiesta?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 10:04 PM   #19 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Carson City, Nevada
Posts: 612

Jimmy - '00 GMC Jimmy SLT
90 day: 21.18 mpg (US)

The White Gnat - '99 Suzuki Swift
Team Suzuki
90 day: 51.87 mpg (US)
Thanks: 236
Thanked 109 Times in 87 Posts
Interesting. I would certainly prefer to have those options. Then it would be the best of both worlds. I wonder if it would be possible to modify one for neutral coast, etc.?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 10:05 PM   #20 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,018 Times in 1,302 Posts
I'll start a new thread.

regards
Mech

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com