Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I know when I have a 200 lb passenger in my 05 Mazda6, my FE does not go down at all.
I recently read something that claimed every 25 pounds reduces mpg by 1%. If true, that's mean an 8% drop in FE with an additional 200 pounds.
I can not believe that it would have that much impact. OTOH, if your car weighs 3000 pounds and you reduce that by 2500 pounds, you would certainly get a big increase in mpg and 25 pounds would be 1% of that change in weight.
EPA says: An extra 100 pounds in your vehicle could reduce your MPG by up to 2%. The reduction is based on the percentage of extra weight relative to the vehicle's weight and affects smaller vehicles more than larger ones.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
Which is meaningless in the end, since the price paid is the document fee plus vehicle price.
And no, this wasn't an "instant readout" kind of thing. This was calculated manually (miles driven/gallons pumped on the refill). Not a one-time thing, either. I average 37-38 MPG on trips now, with the E-10 blend.
Of course the bottom line is the sum of the two---but at least there is one constant for everyone that doesn't need to be negotiated.
In general, more is better, for fuel efficiency and performance. However, I think matching the powerband of the engine, with the gearing in the transmission is more important. If the transmission and engine are not matched up well, the extra gear is not going to make up for it. For example, if the 6th gear is taller than a 5th gear would have been, it will help fuel efficiency, but it will need to downshift more for even slight inclines. More gears also means more shifting. If you make the transmission reluctant to downshift, that will also help fuel efficiency, but who wants to have to push the accelerator to the floor, to get the tranny to downshift? I don't want better mileage, at the expense of drivability. Where will it end? When we have transmissions with 10 gears? 20? Most cars in the 70's were 3 speed automatics. Now we have 6. I think we are getting to the point where more gears is not much of a benefit anymore.
when you need a downshift from top gear(new 6, old 4), it drops a smaller amount into 5, instead of 4(old 3).
I am a big fan of 5 and 6 speeds where the top gear is actually an overdrive. Engines are powerful enough to get up all but the steepest inclines regardless of gear, and my foot would be more than willing to depress the pedal on the left while my arm relocates the gear selector into the next lower gear, either 4th or 5th to complete my climb, or possibly 3rd if I need to pass that line of trucks and RVs.
Manual tranny would be nice, at times. But those times would be few and far between. An automatic transmission that shifts quickly, and predictably, is perfect for me. If I can easily control the transmission with my right foot, it's all good.
15 mpg is not terrible. Is this city or highway driving?
Felt infinite [non-permissible content removed] too...
After being in the Altima and a Murano, both with CVTs, I must say I really like them.
So that's the reason the Altima is sitting @ 9.3 right now? Funny how the Camry and Accord aren't that high....
Brilliant response...
Better get used to the CVT...you're going to see more and more of them...
Don't answer it because that was not the point. Comparing how many reviews one car has, certain model year(s) vs. certain model year(s) of another car prove little in the overall scheme of things. In addition, a more (or less) reviewed model concludes little to nothing about the function of the CVT.
You are right though, the consumer review mean nothing when comes to the actual mechanical function of the CVT, but how the consumer likes the CVT probably plays a huge role when they are reviewing an Altima.
Although a poor choice of words, it does show just how the CVT has affected car buyers. Some have grown to like it, some absolutely hate it.
Of course, it doesn't affect me, since I don't consider cars without a clutch pedal anyway...
The Altima 2.5S with 175hp is awesome with the CVT, in my opinion. Tests have pegged 0-60 in 7.5 seconds and the fuel economy is impressive as well. A co-worker recently bought an '08 2.5S and I've driven it numerous times. Other than training your ears/brain to accept the engine noise to remain much the same until you get up to speed is the only tricky part.
I will be very interested to see how Nissan's CVTs hold up over the long haul. But there's no arguing with the fact that they do increase efficiency both in fuel economy and performance. The Altima with a 5-speed automatic would trail a bit behind the CVT. The Versa does- SL has CVT but S is saddled with 4-speed automatic to keep price lower.
That's okay, looks like the DSG is really catching on too so I guess I am saved...
Test drove the Altima 3.5L with the CVT... didn't really like it.
Then I had an Audi A4 with CVT as rental for 2 weeks... really don't like it now.
More than likely, there's 2 reasons Nissan's chosen to adopt the CVT so widely
1. reliability (less moving parts = more reliable)
2. fuel efficiency (optimum power/gear ratio)
You'll see more people complaining about quirks from other cars. The Accord's fuel consumption for the 190hp 4-cyl and wind noise come to mind. The Camry isn't so great either. The 2.4L 4-cyl in the Camry is slow and lethargic while the V6 has/had transmission problems. On the other side of that canyon, there are very few reviewers that complain about the CVT in the Altima... that includes professional reviews.
In my CVT equipped Rogue (Altima drivetrain) it is interesting that if I 'shift' into a 6th gear at 70 mph engine rpms are at about 2600 rpm BUT if I leave the CVT alone the the engine speed can be as much as 500 rpm lower to hold the same speed.
Civic, Corolla, Sentra, Elantra
Accord, Camry, Altima, Sonata
I can't speak to the wind noise, but I know the 4-cyl can hit in the high 30s with conservative freeway driving at speed limits.
On the other side of that canyon, there are very few reviewers that complain about the CVT in the Altima... that includes professional reviews
Car reviews are like restaurant and movie reviews. :surprise
Yeah, just about any midsize sedan can hit the high 30s, if they're tailgating an 18-wheeler.
I can understand mid 30s, but 38-39 MPG? Right... Got any proof?
Car reviews are like restaurant and movie reviews.
That's right, they're called opinions. If you don't care for the CVT, fine, but there are a lot of people that do, and there's no reason to mock them for it.
The disadvantage is that it's expensive compared to a regular transmission and until recently could not handle much torque. Long term reliability is still a question mark.
The other downside to some is that it simply feels different because the engine RPM doesn't change the way it does with a conventional transmission. To others it's a neat feature.
Yep.
I think the OP was talking about an 08 Accord but several of us get the high 30's on the highway quite frequently in the 06/07 version. We even have a 40 mpg club with several members.