Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-18-2021, 10:59 PM   #71 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 8,788
Thanks: 0
Thanked 988 Times in 871 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CVTCivic View Post
Nissan had some problems with their CVTs from Jatco, but that was a long time ago. I don't know how it's these days. I'm reading a lot through some Honda forums and the CVTs of these days seem very durable and reliable. When there is failure, it's mostly due to neglect and abuse (racing and brake-boosting, not the stuff we Hypermilers use to do a lot). It's important to change the CVT fluid, but that's also important on any other automatic transmission as well.
I'm only familiar with Aisin CVTs fitted to some Toyotas. I don't know about the CVTs fitted to Hondas.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 02-19-2021, 08:03 AM   #72 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 4,198

Gaptooth (retired) - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 54.26 mpg (US)

Such Fit - '07 Honda Fit Sport
90 day: 41.27 mpg (US)

Connect - '15 Ford Transit Connect XL
90 day: 20.16 mpg (US)

K-sight - '00 Honda K-sight
Team Honda
90 day: 42.17 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,003
Thanked 1,776 Times in 1,149 Posts
I've seen various figures quoted but can't say for certain. I have two data points, however:

1) In the G1 Insight, the CVT had an EPA (adjusted) highway fuel economy of 49, while the manual was 60. The manual has slightly taller gearing. Real-world, a manual peaks at ~100mpg @ 50mpg, while an auto will struggle to see above 70mpg at any speed.

2) My wife and brother both have 2007 Honda Fits. Hers is a manual (EPA 34 highway) while his is an auto (EPA 35 highway). The auto has a much taller top gear. Real world, he's averaging mid 30's mpg, while she's averaging low to mid 40's, despite shorter gearing.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ecky For This Useful Post:
EcoCivic (02-20-2021)
Old 02-19-2021, 01:45 PM   #73 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
CVTCivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 33

CVTCivic - '17 Honda Civic 4D Touring Sedan
90 day: 39.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 13
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
With my 10tg generation Honda Civic from 2016, the MT is also more fuel efficient:

WLTP (combined):
6MT: 5,9 l/100km = 40 mpg
CVT: 6,4 l/100km = 37 mpg

EPA (highway / city / combined):
6MT: 42 / 31 / 35 mpg
CVT: 42 / 32 / 36 mpg
__________________
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CVTCivic For This Useful Post:
Ecky (02-19-2021)
Old 02-19-2021, 03:06 PM   #74 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 812

Sport Utility Prius - '10 Toyota Prius II
90 day: 59.63 mpg (US)

The Smoke Bomb - '96 Ford Ranger
90 day: 25.97 mpg (US)

CB 750 - '00 Honda CB750 Nighthawk
90 day: 37.35 mpg (US)

Killer 650 - '07 Kawasaki KLR650
90 day: 45.83 mpg (US)

Big Booty White Girl - '04 Toyota Sequoia Limited
Thanks: 237
Thanked 176 Times in 138 Posts
I think its an engineering dream that just isn't gonna happen. A lot of engineering programs in college forced us to use CVTs which are fantastic on paper for max acceleration max efficiency max bsfc but in the real world it isn't. But the problem is that it works for boring laymans who just press the go pedal from stop light to stop light.
__________________
"I feel like the bad decisions come into play when you trade too much of your time for money paying for things you can't really afford."
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2021, 04:09 PM   #75 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
CVTCivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 33

CVTCivic - '17 Honda Civic 4D Touring Sedan
90 day: 39.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 13
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
@hayden55
Hahaha you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, seems like you are a real layman lol
__________________

Last edited by CVTCivic; 02-19-2021 at 04:16 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2021, 07:04 PM   #76 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 8,788
Thanks: 0
Thanked 988 Times in 871 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CVTCivic View Post
WLTP (combined):
6MT: 5,9 l/100km = 40 mpg
CVT: 6,4 l/100km = 37 mpg

EPA (highway / city / combined):
6MT: 42 / 31 / 35 mpg
CVT: 42 / 32 / 36 mpg
Even though the EPA procedure is somewhat biased to benefit the automatics, it's also worth to remind the US-spec gearing may eventually have some slight differences compared to the Euro-spec.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cRiPpLe_rOoStEr For This Useful Post:
CVTCivic (02-20-2021), EcoCivic (02-19-2021)
Old 02-20-2021, 01:01 AM   #77 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Memphis, Tn
Posts: 322
Thanks: 203
Thanked 54 Times in 41 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky View Post
I've seen various figures quoted but can't say for certain. I have two data points, however:

1) In the G1 Insight, the CVT had an EPA (adjusted) highway fuel economy of 49, while the manual was 60. The manual has slightly taller gearing. Real-world, a manual peaks at ~100mpg @ 50mpg, while an auto will struggle to see above 70mpg at any speed.

2) My wife and brother both have 2007 Honda Fits. Hers is a manual (EPA 34 highway) while his is an auto (EPA 35 highway). The auto has a much taller top gear. Real world, he's averaging mid 30's mpg, while she's averaging low to mid 40's, despite shorter gearing.
Wow that's a big difference! So perhaps I will be getting more MPG than ever once I get a 5 speed. I was wondering if I may lose a little highway MPG compared to the stock 4 speed auto because of the shorter gearing, but it seems that the higher mechanical efficiency of a manual trans often makes up for the loss from the shorter gearing.

I wish I could find the post again, but someone on Civicforums had a 7th gen Civic EX with a 4 speed auto and then traded it for one with a 5 speed manual (the EX 5 speed has very short gearing) and the 5 speed got several more MPG city and highway despite the fact that the shorter gearing had him running at 3200 RPM @ 70 vs the auto's 2700 RPM @ 70. Both cars were coupes with the same D17A2 VTEC engine.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to EcoCivic For This Useful Post:
Ecky (02-20-2021)
Old 02-20-2021, 06:58 PM   #78 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 4,138

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,764
Thanked 1,908 Times in 1,238 Posts
Your top gear ratio may be lower than an AT's, but since you can actually control your gear ratio and the AT can't... MT FTW.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fat Charlie For This Useful Post:
EcoCivic (02-20-2021)
Old 02-21-2021, 06:16 AM   #79 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
CVTCivic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 33

CVTCivic - '17 Honda Civic 4D Touring Sedan
90 day: 39.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 13
Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Charlie View Post
Your top gear ratio may be lower than an AT's, but since you can actually control your gear ratio and the AT can't... MT FTW.
At least most of the newer cars with CVTs have paddle shifters, do you can influence the gear ratio. But yes the MT will still me more fuel efficient but only if you're driving fuel efficient.

I drive my Civic X with the CVT way more fuel efficient than all the other Civic X with MT I know (forums and fuel tracking sites), because they drive normally and I'm doing a lot of hypermiling. If someone with the same car and a MT does hypermiling, I have no chance with the CVT.

Sorry for hijacking OPs thread and turning it into a basic CVT vs MT discussion.

__________________
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com