City ecodriving comparison: 2014 Mirage CVT vs. Mirage 5-speed vs. 1998 Metro 5-speed
 

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1383003449
(Top row: the actual two Mirages I tried out. Yes, I drove around Ottawa with that lettering plastered all over the car.)

The new Mirage is yet another in the crop of small cars that gets a better EPA rating for the automatic than the manual transmission.

The rating for the CVT is actually higher for both city and highway:

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.

I suspected the same would be true of the wee Mirage, and this weekend I finally got a chance to compare them head to head, in Ottawa (thanks to the friendly staff at Donnelly Mitsubishi -- plug! plug!):

Route:

- 10.6 km (6.x mi.)
- residential and arterial Ottawa roads
- moderate traffic (but no stop & crawl)
- cool, windy conditions (5C / 41F), damp roads
- speed zones from 40 through 70 km/h (~25 - 44 mph)
- 7 stop signs & 18 traffic lights
- Google map of the route here

Driving techniques:

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."

With the manual: moderate acceleration; relatively early upshifts (no more than ~2500-2700 RPM); going right to top gear at low engine loads & low speeds where possible; a little bit of downshifting for fuel cut-off engine braking mode when stronger sustained slowing was needed.

With the CVT: acceleration at the lowest practical RPM, plus I made sure to lift slightly once at cruise to ensure the Mirage's fancy 2-stage sub-gearbox (this is in addition to the variable pulley/belt system) shifted into high gear for lowest engine RPM whenever possible. A couple of downshifts into "B" mode for sustained deceleration fuel cut-off. (PS: downshifting a CVT is kind of fun -- completely unlike other automatics or manuals!)

I kept up with traffic (though of course I let them pull away when I saw a light change to red ahead, for example, and I got off the gas well before they did). No rolling roadblocks here. (Despite that, the Mitsubishi sales guy who rode with me said I drove like a grandma! :turtle: )

Results:

OK, let's be clear this isn't really a "test". There are piles and piles of uncontrolled variables -- way too loosey-goosey. So a "comparison" it is...

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


Bring on the Flea!

Then for fun, after I finished trying out the Mirages, I took the Firefly for several laps over the exact same route to compare it as well.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1383007818

Three flavours of driving were employed in the Flea:

1) Plain Jane ecodriving (exactly the same style as in the Mirages)
2) Plain Jane ecodriving, but with engine off approaching stops longer than 10 sec.
3) Using advanced P&G / EOC (plus foundation elements of ecodriving, as above)

Results...

1) 55 mpg (US) = 4.3 L/100 km = 66 mpg (Imp)
2) 59.4 mpg (US) = 4.0 L/100 km = 71 mpg (Imp)
3) 73 mpg (US) = 3.2 L/100 km = 88 mpg (Imp)

Considering the Flea is quite modified, and had a ~350 lb weight advantage (lighter car to begin with, with one less person in it), I was suitably impressed with the little Mitsu. Also, it had just ~33 PSI in its tires. Plus, it was pretty cold (5C / 41F) and windy (24 kmh / 14 mph). Considering all that, the Mirage is definitely in "stock" Metro mileage territory right out of the box.

It's just too bad about the manual's gear ratios that limit its highway fuel economy. Though there will be final drive swap options in the future (from the UK/Europe Mirage parts bin)...


Links for more info:

- Full, gory details of the CVT vs. manual comparison:
Gas mileage/MPG test: 2014 Mirage CVT vs. 5-speed (sub/urban Ottawa route)

- General impressions after my first drive of the Mirage:
Brief test drive: Mirage CVT and 5-speed (Donnelly M itsubishi, Kanata/Ottawa, Canada)

- Why the heck does that white Mirage say "64 MPG" on its flank??
Mirage rated 64 MPG highway in Canada, 44 MPG in the US? WTF?!

.

The Ford Fiesta 1 litre ecoboost "supposedly" gets 45mpg highway but 32mpg city with the manual. Which is a 1 mpg highway improvement (who knows with ford these days). But it is a 1 litre and that Mirage is 1.2 litre. You should give it a test drive and see how it compares.

Neat! 45 EPA hwy is plausible in the Fiesta 1.0. But top gear will have to be very tall to deliver that.

I've been noodling over the Fiesta vs. Mirage showdown already...
2014 Mirag e 1.2 vs. Ford Fiesta 1.0 ecoboost - which has better mileage/fuel economy?

And, agreed on the question of Ford's credibility (though you'd think they would be very cautious about the Fiesta's rating given what happened with their other models recently). Countdown to the first customer lawsuit over misleading ratings starts now? :D

It'll be fun to see what happens when someone who cares about fuel economy gets their hands on one.

Most Mirage drivers (reporting results on Fuelly or MirageForum) are beating the EPA.

Competition's grand, ain't it?

Sheepdog: I started a new thread for the news about the Fiesta 1.0 turbo. Thanks for spotting that!

Reports: 2014 Fiesta 1.0T EPA rated 45 mpg hwy, 32 mpg city... starts @ $17,240

.

It would be interesting to see the EPA tests and how they are done. Obviously the M/T is not being driven to it's full potential. I've always wondered why CVT transmissions never get better MPG than manuals. They were suppose to be the answer to auto vs manual problem for MPG, for Honda at least. Infinite gear ratios, always accelerating at the best RPM, low cruising speed, etc. I guess it all comes down to how the power is transferred to the tires, and the M/T just makes better use of it (and with much more control).

With such an obvious error in the EPA tests it makes you wonder if they do it on purpose to sell more CVT's? Honda has never had a good reputation with them, maybe it has turned people off to the name "CVT" for all brands.

*Posted on EM Facebook page*

I've been wondering the same thing -- how the EPA tests handle a manual.

I suspect the "drivers" have to follow guidelines about minimum engine RPM (meaning having to hold a lower gear than we might), and possibly also minimum RPM when upshifting.

Meanwhile, I short-shifted while accelerating, and then went for top gear at every reasonable opportunity, once at "cruising" speed.

As for the CVT, I've driven a few, but none as "aggressive" as the Mirage's in terms of low RPM operation. I was quite surprised, to be honest: it's the first automatic I've driven (outside of hybrid CVTs) that felt designed to work with me, not against me when trying for good economy. I was prepared to dislike it, but it earned my respect.

--

Thanks for the Facebook post - good idea.

I think the difference is in the transmission control. With cvt, manufacturer's decide what the transmission does. With manual, it's up to the driver.
Cvt is good, but people did not like the way they revved on aceleration. That's why they changed the control to simulate fixed gear ratios.

As to what the epa tests involve, that is well documented. Look here for example:
Detailed Test Information

The thing is that nobody drives exactly according to the epa test schedule. It is just a way to compare different vehicles under controlled conditions. Vehicle A is less thirsty than vehicle B.

Hope they bring that to America

FYI, there are no "simulated" shifts in the Mirage CVT. Engine RPM changes with load - no fakery.

That resource is good, but it doesn't describe any rules on how a manual transmission is to be operated during testing, and I suspect there are rules in order to achieve some kind of consistency.

The Mirage is already for sale in the US. It has been for a month now. :thumbup:

I see two across the street right now at the dealer.

Oh ok great I googled it and all I found was Canada haha

I was hoping to see steady state highway cruise numbers compared. At 90km/hr or 55mpg, same stretch of road, there are less variables to contend with than city driving.

Speed vs. MPG for the 5-speed...
 

Agreed! And I'd love to do that as well.

It takes some time to do these things... and there's no Mitsu dealership in my small city. I should get around to seeing if the company will loan me one for more thorough testing.

Until then, I can offer you the speed vs. fuel economy graph of the 5-speed only... we haven't yet seen one for the CVT (but it should be better).

http://mirageforum.com/imgs/graph-speed-mpg-mirage2.jpg

Source: Speed vs. mileage/fuel economy chart - Mirage 1.2L 5-spd

This data was collected by EcoModder member niky (thanks again!). And the AC was on. And the car had the drag-increasing "sport" spoiler instead of the aero spoiler.

I think it's a fair guess the CVT will outperform the manual on the open road. That's why I took a crack at comparing their urban performance first. It was a bigger unknown.

http://mirageforum.com/imgs/graph-speed-mpg-mirage2.jpg

38mpg @75mph is pretty darn good for a 1.2L 3cyl engine. I'm intrigued by this car. I have my doubts about CVTs though, are they getting any better? Just seem like an expensive repair waiting to happen compared to the tried and true manual...



Just built one on Mitsu website...just like everyone but Honda, you have to have the fancy trim package in order to get cruise control :mad: and in doing that you get stuck with stuff you don't want, like stupid start/stop switch, alloy wheels, fog lamps and leather wrapped steering wheel...

I know CC is super easy to do considering all the fly-by-wire new cars come with, so why can't they just put it on every car??? $1,100 for cruise seems a bit steep...but not as steep as some other companies...

I dont have either of these cars, however I work with someone who owns a manual version of my impreza. we both take the exact same route home except for the last couple kilometers. yes we are different drivers but we are both hypermilers of same experience. I use scangauge 2 and he uses those bluetooth apps. almodt always I beat him in the mileage tests in city driving. just yesterday I scored 8.2l/100km while he only did 8.8l/100km. however when it comes to highway driving, I cant even match his good mileage. im behind a good 2-3 mpg on the freeways from the manuals unless I draft a truck or something.

Automatics are not really so disadvantaged in highway after they can overcome the inertia from the torque converter. But I still got quite surprised when a regular automatic delivers better mileage in city, altough manuals currently don't get the gear ratio so optimized for all-around efficiency.

it's very easy for me to accelerate with a locked torque converter once i reach ~35km/h or when the car shifts to 3rd gear. It's all about throttle management with autos. and at 40km/h i can literally cruise in overdrive at about 1100rpm.

Fantastic you finally got a good eco-test in one... not surprised by your results... these cars are quite good, and more is possible with a little trying.

Also matches initial observations. That 1.2 liter motor is a true match for most 1.0s in the economy stakes. Fantastic work Mitsubishi did on that motor and car.

Thanks for the write up MetroMPG, I haven't read a new car shootout article since it was 5.0 Mustang vs IROC Camaro! Wow, that just made me feel really old right there ha ha.

thread split
 

I did a bit of searching on this, and the short answer is: when the EPA lab tests a manual transmission, the test driver has to follow prescribed shift points, and they're not optimized for best fuel econony.

So in the real world, it's relatively easy for a manual transmission ecodriver / hypermiler to beat the city/combined EPA rating, sometimes by significant amounts. (Like 41% over, in the case of the 5-speed Mirage!)

---

Admin note...

See more: I split the interesting discussion about EPA testing & manuals into a dedicated thread...

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ing-27416.html

.

What tires did it have?

same tire size on Mirage as 1st gen. Insight
 

Tires are veerrrry interesting...

Dunlop Enasave -- the exact same size as the Bridgestone RE92's on the 1st generation Insight: 165/65R14.

And the same tire used on Mitsu's iMiEV electric car. So they should have good LRR performance.

It will be extremely interesting to see a comparison to the RE92's. At the very least, Insight owners will now have another replacement tire option for years to come. (Rumours always swirl that the RE92 is being discontinued...)

It's always worth asking: Why?

How much additional power is consumed by the hydraulic pump that moves the pulleys in the CVT? A lot of changes in ratio i.e. typical city driving would mean that's working harder right?

How is declutching done in the Mitsu. CVT?

This should answer general inquires.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post397991

Its a JATCO 2 Speed CVT. They have problems making a "1 speed" CVT work - the same company that makes Nissan's CVT.

I would avoid.

OK, it uses a TC. That explains a lot.

Needs a (manual or automated) clutch before we see what the real benefits of a CVT are.

Can you elaborate?

Hi!

Today I bought a new 2014 mirage 5 speed!

My poor 94 protege developed an intermittent spark loss and even being a mechanic I am tired of my fleet of old vehicles braking down.
It was time to upgrade!

The average MPG reading started at 37.X at the dealer, but I reset it on the way home as we came to a stop at a red traffic light.

I never shut the engine off but did my best to hypermile this thing while not loosing my wife ahead of me. (following her). Including some neutral coasts when beneficial. By the time we got home (night,headlights on about 70 mile trip) the MPG on the display was showing 57.4 MPG.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-3d...31103-0014.jpg

This is stock straight from the dealer,no tire pressure bump or any mods.
We shall see how she does on my normal commute in the future!
Just thought I would share!

FYI, 3dplane -

I split the discussion about your new Mirage into a dedicated thread, here:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...7-a-27469.html

.

Thanks for the test! Remember too the Mirage also comes with a bunch of safety features the Metro didn't which would attribute to most of the weight gain.

The Mirage trumps my Mazda 3 SkyActiv in the city but not the highway. A couple of months ago I did 1004 km on a 49.3L tank of gas. That's 4.9 L/100km or 48 MPG. A/C was on a quarter of the time to keep the kids cool, averaged 100 km/h, trunk full of camping gear.

Sorry hit send too soon. I only get 7.5L/100km (31 MPG) average in the city with my 3 however which makes up 80% of the 3's kms, would be nice to get 5.5L/100km in the city! Plus the Mirage comes with auto climate control which my 3 doesn't have. I think auto climate control doesn't bode well with most hypermilers but leaving it on all year did not affect my Mazda 5 the slightest, and allowed me to focus more on driving and less on fumbling with HVAC controls.

Well, we've yet to see a speed vs. fuel consumption chart for the CVT-equipped Mirage.

I expect it will outperform the manual on the highway with its much taller gearing at cruise. Wayne at CleanMPG is testing one this week - hopefully we'll see some numbers soon.

If that's confirmed, then drivers who spend most of their time on the highway (above ~70-80 km/h) should get the CVT car for best MPG. Urban/suburban drivers (ie. the non-brain dead kind, willing to eco-drive) should get the manual.

I wrote about this on MirageForum: Mirage CVT or 5-speed: which should you get for best gas mileage/fuel economy? )

Though in reality the difference in volume of fuel consumed between the two amounts to a hill of beans, and the "payback" on the CVT has to be taken into account if the decision is purely financial.

FYI, auto AC is standard on the Mirage in the U.S., but the base Mirage ("ES") in Canada doesn't have AC at all.

The speed vs mpg chart we have shows the Mirage also gets 48 mpg @ 100km/h. And that is for the 5-speed. The CVT gets better.

http://mirageforum.com/imgs/graph-speed-mpg-mirage2.jpg

CVT results: speed vs. MPG
 

Wayne has posted speed vs. MPG results for the CVT car he's been driving this week.

Conditions:

• bidirectional averaged runs
• 32 - 33F (0 - 0.5C) ambient -- however, the MPG values were "temperature compensated" by increasing them approximately +7.5% by Wayne to estimate results at 70 degrees F.
• 5 - 10 mph (8-16 km/h) side wind

http://ecomodder.com/forum/attachmen...1&d=1383847388

(Read the CleanMPG thread for more info, photos & impressions of the CVT: Most Fuel Efficient Non-hybrid/Non-Diesel and its MT/AT Ratios - CleanMPG Forums )

As expected, the CleanMPG test shows the CVT performing somewhat better than the manual at cruising speeds.

However (!), the two charts shouldn't be seen as an apples to apples comparison. Ideally we need to run a CVT against a manual in the same conditions for the most accurate picture.

Nevertheless, I'm going to combine the data into a new chart just for kicks...

CVT vs. 5-speed manual "comparison" chart with the CleanMPG numbers ...

http://mirageforum.com/imgs/graph-sp...ge-cvt-5mt.jpg

This combined chart has to be taken with with a large chunk of NaCl: different weather conditions; different rear spoilers (one drag-reducing, the other drag-increasing); and a big consideration is those 100 & 120 km/h figures for the manual are from one-way runs, not bi-directional averages. (The 60 & 80 km/h runs were averaged.)

Ideally, we need to compare 2 cars at the same time, in the same conditions.

It's still reasonable to expect the CVT to outperform the manual on the open road.

To note... I believe whenever Mitsubishi has done showoff "eco-runs" here, it has typically been with the CVT.

Just drove the Mirage G4. Impressive. Suspension still way too soft for enthusiasts, but it's still ultralight and very stiff, meaning potential. Still frugal. Lots more space. Lots better looks.

https://m.ak.fbcdn.net/sphotos-a.ak/...34390480_n.jpg

Also have probably one of the first dynocharts for the 1.2 online...

https://m.ak.fbcdn.net/sphotos-d.ak/...79120087_n.jpg
(power at the hubs on a dynapack hub dyno)

https://m.ak.fbcdn.net/sphotos-b.ak/...01493418_n.jpg
(corrected to show bhp)
Related to this article...

Mitsubishi Mirage Gymkhana: A taste of things to come | TopGear.com.ph

Sorry I couldn't get a readout with the AFR. I took a pic of the dynochart during intake design, but forgot to switch the secondary screen to AFR readout.

Not that it would interest ecomodders much... but an intake should be easy to CARB certify... it doesn't interfere with MAP function. But the header removes the pre-cat.

Not an easy engine to modify. See how small that throttle body opening is!
http://www.topgear.com.ph/images/art...ymkhana_04.jpg

Thanks! I had seen the TopGear.com.ph report earlier this week.

One issue yet to be ironed out: different countries are getting different intake sensors: MAF in some places vs. MAP in others. This also has implications for tuning/boosting.

The sedan is rumoured for the U.S. market in about a year, as a 2015 model. Though officially, the company says they're going to wait and see how well the hatch does. Several reps have publicly mused about turbocharging for power hungry America.

Maybe the sedan version could be a good opponent to the Nissan Versa, and if a turbocharged version of the 1.2L would come there it might be an incentive for Nissan to introduce that direct-injection supercharged 1.2L already used in Euro-spec versions of the Nissan Micra.