Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Hypermiling / EcoDriver's Ed
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-23-2014, 06:24 PM   #41 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 21,247

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: 55.99 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,004
Thanked 5,882 Times in 3,049 Posts
And does Mazda favour the automatic with lower top gear RPM vs. your manual, as always seems to be the case these days?

__________________
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
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 10-23-2014, 06:31 PM   #42 (permalink)
Hypermiler
 
PaleMelanesian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,303

PaleCivic (retired) - '96 Honda Civic DX Sedan
90 day: 69.2 mpg (US)

PaleFit - '09 Honda Fit Sport
Team Honda
Wagons
90 day: 53.92 mpg (US)
Thanks: 585
Thanked 414 Times in 271 Posts
Not as badly as some. According to Cmpg's reviews:

CX-5:
Calculated RPM@ 60 mph (MT/AT): 2,264/1,960

3:
6-speed MT: 2,054 RPM / 6-speed AT: 1,688 RPM
__________________



11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2014, 08:02 PM   #43 (permalink)
The brake pedal is evil
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California__ Awsome: Yes
Posts: 374

Trolla - '94 Geo Prizm base
90 day: 35.82 mpg (US)

Ecomodded prizm - '94 geo Prizm Base
90 day: 37.88 mpg (US)

Dad's Corolla - '89 Toyota Corolla Base.
90 day: 29.51 mpg (US)

Denny's Detector - '08 Mercury Grand Marquis

Project E - '94 Geo Prizm Base
Team Toyota
90 day: 39.69 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4
Thanked 47 Times in 44 Posts
The manual is running at 120% the speed of the AT model. That sucks. The cruze eco has the MT trim with a 15% taller 6th gear vs the AT model.
__________________
Getting sensor data off of a pre OBDII Toyota ECU via TDCL.
All of this is on E10: Project E is my current focus.

  Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2014, 09:32 PM   #44 (permalink)
Ol' Skooler
 
jcp123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tyler, TX
Posts: 1,134

Beater Echo - '00 Toyota Echo
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.67 mpg (US)

Hondizzle - '97 Honda Civic DX
Team Honda
90 day: 46.77 mpg (US)
Thanks: 60
Thanked 185 Times in 158 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
jcp: someone in that thread replied "too bad the comparison wasn't against a state-of-the-art automatic."

I've done that too. The lower rated 5-speed still won out (though not by as much):

Gas mileage/MPG test: 2014 Mirage CVT vs. 5-speed (sub/urban Ottawa route) - MirageForum.com
Very perceptive. They were right, of course, but not as right as they think. Real world vs EPA is a different story as we all know.
__________________



'97 Honda Civic DX Coupe 5MT
'00 Echo - dead 2/17
'14 Chrysler Town + Country - the better half's car
'67 Mustang Convertible - gone 1/17
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2014, 10:38 AM   #45 (permalink)
Tinkerer
 
kafer65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 282

Silver - '15 Mazda CX-5 Sport
Team Mazda
90 day: 37.23 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7
Thanked 60 Times in 52 Posts
I've said all along that I'd gladly give a gear up to make 6th lower rpm. That being said, I don't think I'd have the torque at 1800 that I have at say 2400 to be able to overcome drag at the speeds I run on the highway unless I had way more aero mods. Once I'm over 60 mph its very difficult to get decent mileage on level ground. For its size the engine makes a lot of torque in the 15-2500 range its just so miserly for the vehicle that its in that its difficult to appreciate it.
__________________


Mirror deletes, 80% grill blocks, wheel covers, 50 psi tires = 6% better MPG avg. over a year. Wheel skirts overcoming ethanol winter fuel mpg losses and more!
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ead-30641.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2014, 11:00 AM   #46 (permalink)
Tinkerer
 
kafer65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 282

Silver - '15 Mazda CX-5 Sport
Team Mazda
90 day: 37.23 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7
Thanked 60 Times in 52 Posts
I thought the Proteges were geared up too much, back in the day, when I was looking for my 323 replacement. Now I'm making peace with the fact that I'm not maxing out my load when I'm at 2500 rpm and I can still make up for the frictional losses by using everything I learned here. Also, the technique that the Circumcizers used in the Audi challenge has worked for me as well. By getting up to speed and lifting and reapplying the throttle perodically as I slowly loose speed I can find several additional mpg showing on the instant readout that seem to play out in savings over the whole tank.
__________________


Mirror deletes, 80% grill blocks, wheel covers, 50 psi tires = 6% better MPG avg. over a year. Wheel skirts overcoming ethanol winter fuel mpg losses and more!
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ead-30641.html

Last edited by kafer65; 10-24-2014 at 11:09 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2014, 11:24 AM   #47 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 3,426

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,332
Thanked 1,475 Times in 939 Posts
I just can't seem to let this post go:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog 44 View Post
This question has come up a lot: How efficient is a CVT/MT? Why do some CVT cars have better EPA mpg ratings than their MT counterparts?
Since i've looked into this in the past, it's better to link direct sources than to respond from memory. I'm not an expert, these are my general observations...

Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @∞MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
Manual other gear ratios .96-97%
CVT toroidal ......................93%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=ht...20To%20CVT.pdf

If a CVT can be up to 8% less efficient than a MT, why doesn't a car with a CVT get 8% worse fuel economy?

From a mathematical viewpoint, a transmission is only one component of many that determines overall efficiency. BSFC Engine thermal efficiency% X Trans efficiency% X Rolling resistance% X Friction etc etc. All of these eat at the fraction of how efficient the engine is. For example MT vs CVT at 35% engine efficiency: (.96 x .35) - (.88 x .35) = 0.028 , Or you lose 2.8% overall efficiency MT vs CVT in this instance.

On page 34 of this link, you can see a CVT can cherry pick the best BSFC curve for efficiency. Sometimes at the expense of torque or power.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=h...pdf?1363999370

Many Manual Transmissions are geared for low end acceleration, NOT efficiency. Many don't have a tall enough top gear for decent highway cruising; going a couple hundred rpm over what you would want it to. Not to mention a proper overdrive gear for efficiency.

People are stupid! A CVT will seamlessly lower an engines rpm at any road speed. Giving better mpg and lower emmisions. And there have been vast improvements in CVT efficiency lately which go unreported as proprietary information from automakers.

All this leads to more MPG's from a less efficient transmission. A couple less horsepower lost, a second less to 60mph, and 50 more lbs.
__________________

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
Old 10-24-2014, 06:13 PM   #48 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1,282

spyder2 - '00 Toyota MR2 Spyder
Thanks: 78
Thanked 221 Times in 163 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian View Post
Not as badly as some. According to Cmpg's reviews:

CX-5:
Calculated RPM@ 60 mph (MT/AT): 2,264/1,960

3:
6-speed MT: 2,054 RPM / 6-speed AT: 1,688 RPM
The CX-5 has a lot of drag though. The mpg they wrung out of that thing is incredible. Everyone with a CR-V or RAV4 I've asked said they get low 20s mpg.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2014, 12:03 PM   #49 (permalink)
Tinkerer
 
kafer65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 282

Silver - '15 Mazda CX-5 Sport
Team Mazda
90 day: 37.23 mpg (US)
Thanks: 7
Thanked 60 Times in 52 Posts
I've wondered if you can do a 6th gear swap like a 5th gear swap that's popular on the VW TDIs without removing the trans since I don't have a lot of tire choices to get a gearing change. I have wheel covers and CX-5s have an 90% belly pan stock which helps some I guess. My next ecomods will be rear skirts (since the back wells look to parachute) and side mirrors (they are almost usless anyway). The hatch area has such compound curves its going to be a bear to figure out a tapered departure and still be usable. I may tackle the last 10% around the muffler as well if I can find a decent way to attach a pan back there.
__________________


Mirror deletes, 80% grill blocks, wheel covers, 50 psi tires = 6% better MPG avg. over a year. Wheel skirts overcoming ethanol winter fuel mpg losses and more!
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ead-30641.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2015, 06:59 PM   #50 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Everett WA
Posts: 508
Thanks: 67
Thanked 163 Times in 124 Posts
Have a beautiful 2013 auto Elantra & now a beautiful 2016 manual Elantra, both with EPA 38mpg highway.....demoted from 40mpg after all the leadfooters complained. Piloted the 2013 auto to 39mpg average calculated mpg with 15% city driving, with highs of 43mpg with more highway driving(tho no long highway drives). Mostly, my wife loves & drives the 2016 manual to work in much more city driving & stop&go traffic, so its mpg can't be compared accurately to the 2013. However, the manual has gotten a number of 40+mpg tanks with occasionally less city driving & a long trip to the ocean & back with stops for pix & beach walking, hilly travel away from the ocean & some stop&go I-5 traffic, got 46mpg. All in all, the auto & manual seem to give ~ the same mpg under similar, feather footing conditions. I love them both.
Had a 2007 Dodge Caliber, which was OK, but I adored the CVT tranny. EPA rated at 27mpg, I averaged 31(calculated) with highs of 37mpg(better than the smaller engined Caliber manual tranny). But the Caliber was outside of warranty, was decreasing in value, any future repair to the CVT was going to be expensive......&.....the Elantra was beautiful, sweet, long warranteed.....did I say beautiful.......

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/manual-vs-automatic-transmission-mpg-showdown-nissan-micra-30059.html
Posted By For Type Date
Yes, 28+ mpg isn't a dream!!!! - Page 13 - Dodge Cummins Diesel Forum This thread Pingback 06-05-2017 01:59 PM
Auto vs Manual - Micra-Forum.com This thread Refback 10-05-2015 03:11 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com