Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Midsize Sedans 2.0

18498508528548551028

Comments

  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    Am I missing something? It seems all I hear is how much better the CVT is for MPG but the cars that have them don't seem to have all that much better MPG than cars with traditional torque converter trannies. Like the new Mazda6. About the same HP as the Altima and about the same MPG. But the Altima has the CVT. Shouldn't that mean a substantially better MPG than the Mazda? Or is there so many other things that the Mazda is doing better that outweighs or matches the CVT benefit?
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 13,584
    most likely true on the mazda. And they depended on the makers sending over cars that fit the bill, so possibly VW did not have one, or didn't bother to send it? I know the Malibu was not included because it exceeded the price limit.

    And they did comment that the CVT was the best yet, and that you pretty much would not know it had one, if you did not already know!

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • stickguystickguy Posts: 13,584
    The mazda has a bunch of other tricks to up MPG. But the Altima and Accord get very good MPG while also having more HP.

    a better test is the same car. When Subaru moved to a CVT, with otherwise the same car and engine, MPG went up a whole bunch.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,621
    edited January 2013
    backy wrote:

    "Too bad they didn't include the new Mazda6, or the Passat."

    I agree.

    But the Passat has one significant weak point: its old-tech 5 cylinder engine.

    Acceleration with Passat's standard engine 0-60 is the slowest in the whole class at about 8.8 seconds, and mpg is also lowest in the whole class at 31 mpg hwy. Those numbers would have been fine 5 years ago, but today that's poor performance compared to the competition. The base Accord with the auto gets to 60 in just 7.7 seconds, and the manual Accord makes it in 6.8 seconds. And the Accord CVT gets 36 mpg hwy.

    The Sonata and Optima started off the latest rush to put quite advanced engines in even base models of midsize cars. The Sonata and Optima have direct injected 2.4 engines that are powerful and economical.

    I think that may have forced Honda to put its new directed injected engine in even the base LX model Accord. Honda used to save its higher-end VTEC engines for the EX and up models, but now even the LX gets a top-end engine.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 1,621
    Nice looking car! Love the color.+++
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,623
    The limit on the test was $28k. They could have tested the Passat SE TDI for under that limit. Would have made for an interesting comparo... a diesel vs. all the gas-powered cars.

    Also the Passat beat out all comers in MT's latest comparo, and even C/D ranked it ahead of the Camry and Optima. So its absence is pretty glaring, IMO.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,623
    It's a great color--very close to the Ruby Red on my wife's new Sonata, but the Fusion might be a tick lighter. Love the wheels also--a fairly clean design in this era of fussy alloys.
  • hill02hill02 Posts: 3
    How are you liking the Fusion so far?
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    edited January 2013
    Maybe the Passat SE TDI needed a moonroof to match up to the other models or something. That may have put it over the limit $ wise. I think it would be nice when they do these comparos if they would explain why they didn't test certain cars that many would expect to be in the group. What the heck could a paragraph cost to print and it would answer a lot of questions.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 13,584
    this was the TV show, not a print article. Pretty sure they said that these were the manufacturers that decided to send them a car to test Honestly don't recall if they mentioned any invited that did not show (they did refer to the Malibu as being to expensive)

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • akirbyakirby Posts: 7,622
    So far it's great. No complaints.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    Yeah, I wasn't really refering to this specific comparo test but to all the mags/blogs that do the same thing. Just would be nice to know.
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,652
    I can't help but think there might be a ?slight ? exaggeration here....14 hours at 5K

    Unfortunately not...southern state all the way up to Canada. It was probably closer to 5.5 - 6K rpm. 17 hour trip in 14 hours, but surprisingly good mpg in the low 20's.

    I think I'll leave this event out of the curriculum when I teach my boys to drive :blush:
  • cskicski West Springfield, VAPosts: 1,049
    edited January 2013
    This video is more technical and describes the improvements made over conventional....or last gen model CVT's. This unit is in all Altima and Maxima sedans in place of a conventional automatic. A six speed stick is still available.

    There is no doubt that the CVT is more efficient than automatics in this class.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdqt84_3t-k
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    edited January 2013
    So if the new Mazda6 can get 38hwy with a conventional 6spd auto, what would be a WAG MPG if they incorporated a CVT trannie. Should be substantially better I assume. On the flip side, if the Altima were using all the improvements that Mazda has come up with in their skyactiv system then the Altima would probably get substantially better MPG, again assuming.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,623
    There is no doubt that the CVT is more efficient than automatics in this class.

    Hmmm... the Mazda Skyactiv 6AT does pretty well for itself, e.g. 40 mpg from a 155 hp engine in the Mazda3, while the Sentra gets 39 mpg (40 with the extra cost FE+ variant) but with only 130 hp; and 38 mpg with a 189 hp engine on the Mazda6 (vs. 38 mpg with 182 hp on the Altima).

    Looks to me the automatic tranny is not dead yet, compared to the latest CVTs. :)
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,897
    The mazda has a bunch of other tricks to up MPG. But the Altima and Accord get very good MPG while also having more HP.

    I believe the new Mazda6 has more HP than the Altima but gets as good of MPG.
  • crkyolfrtcrkyolfrt Posts: 2,346
    I tend to agree with this, and I also think that if you regularly loaded one of these mid-sizers with their max payload, or often towed a small trailer with no more than 1500 lb including trlr weight (what I do often since I don't have a pickup...must be the English blood in me) then you would see (CVT) algorithms, designed to look good in EPA, scattering for cover to avoid the "how comes" cuz I am quite confident that the numbers would not stand up to the same test using a 6 sp auto.

    Some of my bias against them is due to some time that I have spent in an Outback that had one. It boasted fairly impressive highway numbers, but in the real world, you'd have to draft every semi-truck you could find in order to actually get them. That thing could smell a grade with revs a half mile off.

    And the other thing I have against them..and granted it is a mental thing but still counts if you can't get over it...but I had a hard time mentally convincing myself that that trans wasn't slipping everywhere I went. With the revs all over the place, the only car I can think of that would be even more disconcerting in this regard would be the Volt once you had exhausted all batteries and were on gas generator.
    Now I imagine a person must get over that sorta thing, but I am a very visceral seat-of-the-pants type driver. Irregular noises like engine revs that have nothing to do with your actual speed etc really rob some of the fun I (still) get from driving. And for this reason I doubt I would ever spring for a Prius type car if it was my only ride. It'd be strictly an A - B fuel saver. I still have to drive one, but my guess is that in 'go' mode it is easier to take than a CVT in, let's say that 10?Subaru or the 09? Altima I last drove that had it...that is until you applied the brakes..then all bets are off as for any normal visceral feedback that you would normally associate with braking a car..

    That said though I hear the new Accord has really nailed making the CVT as...well..apparently it's CVT works quite 'normally' (doesn't spin up unexpectedly compared to what you are asking of it).
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,623
    I will say this in favor of the CVTs, based on 3 years driving a 2010 Sentra with a 2.0L engine and CVT: it's possible to get super-EPA FE numbers if you have a light foot. That's because the CVT keeps engine revs very low when the engine isn't taxed. That also contributes to low engine noise while cruising. And the "turbine" feel when accelerating, no shift points, is kinda neat.

    But there's also the downsides... pretty sluggish when pressed (at least my Sentra is, but it's not Nissan's latest CVT design), and high engine noise at high revs.

    My preference is still a good 6MT, although there's some really good 6+ automatics out there now that are easy to live with. My wife's 2013 Sonata has a very smooth 6AT, and it has a manumatic feature if someone really wants to shift for themselves (which I think is kinda dumb with an automatic, but whatever).
Sign In or Register to comment.