Ask the Car People.SM


Midsize Sedans 2.0

18166 messages,  Last post on May 18, 2013 at 6:23 PM

You are in the Hyundai Sonata Forum.

What is this discussion about? Hyundai Sonata, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Volkswagen Passat, Mazda MAZDA6, Ford Fusion, Chevrolet Malibu, Kia Optima, Car Comparisons, Sedan

Messages Page 1743 of 1817

#17418 of 18166 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [m6user] by backy

Jan 28, 2013 (8:44 pm)

Replying to: m6user (Jan 28, 2013 6:41 pm)
At 70 mph? Maybe at 65. I can't wait to get my wife's out on a long trip and see what it does. Almost everything has been less than 7 miles in town so far.

#17419 of 18166 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [backy] by m6user

Jan 28, 2013 (9:53 pm)

Replying to: backy (Jan 28, 2013 8:44 pm)
Yeah, maybe at 65. But I can usually hit the hwy number on a straight hwy trip at 70.

#17420 of 18166 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [gimmestdtranny] by nyccarguy

Jan 29, 2013 (5:44 am)

Replying to: gimmestdtranny (Jan 28, 2013 1:44 pm)
I too am skeptical about CVTs. I personally know someone with a FWD Jeep Patriot that had to have the CVT replaced twice. Once 60K (on Jeep's dime) & then again 120K (on his dime).
 
That being said, the fact that Honda (from what I've read) seems to have gotten it right gives the technology itself a lot of credit in my eyes (YMMV).

#17421 of 18166 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [m6user] by backy

Jan 29, 2013 (5:46 am)

Replying to: m6user (Jan 28, 2013 9:53 pm)
Depending on conditions (weather, traffic, amount of passing etc.) I can also. So 31 does seem at the low end. I could make my car get much less than the EPA rating at 70 if I tried.

#17422 of 18166 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [backy] by pegasus17

Jan 29, 2013 (10:33 am)

Replying to: backy (Jan 29, 2013 5:46 am)
IMO, 31 mpg at 70mph (2050 rpm, 6 speed) is quite good.
EPA hwy estimates are based on 48.3 mph over a complex testing spectrum
IIRC, difference in mpg from 50 to 70 mph is approximately 20%
details:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
 
FWIW, my trip computer (2011 Sonata GLS) always overestimates fuel economy by about 2 mpg...

#17423 of 18166 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [pegasus17] by backy

Jan 29, 2013 (11:26 am)

Replying to: pegasus17 (Jan 29, 2013 10:33 am)
31 mpg at a constant 70 mph is pretty poor for a car rated at 35 mpg highway, IMO. As I stated, conditions could make it tough to get 35 mpg 70. But cruising down the highway at 70, one should be able to get the EPA highway rating or very close to it. And should be able to exceed the EPA highway rating cruising at 50-60 mph.
 
At least that has been my experience in every other car I've driven on the highway in the past 20 years or so.

#17424 of 18166 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [backy] by pegasus17

Jan 29, 2013 (11:58 am)

Replying to: backy (Jan 29, 2013 11:26 am)
I have done that calculation 3 times on a 600 mile trip from Ohio to NY state and back (6 trips worth). Not exactly a constant 70mph nor flat terrain. Oh well, all that matters is i think it's OK!
My lease is up soon and I am investigating several alternatives (Accord, Optima, Mazda 6). Too many choices in this mid-size sedan arena. Incentives vary widely and change month-to-month. glad i only do this every 3 years...

#17425 of 18166 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [backy] by cski

Jan 29, 2013 (1:32 pm)

Replying to: backy (Jan 28, 2013 11:55 am)
The Mazda3 and the Nissan Sentra are not mid size sedans. The 155 HP Skyactiv is a 2.0.
 
The comparisons I am making are in the 2.4 to 2.5 liter size engines, or their analogs. Example: the Ford EcoBoost 1.6 makes similar power.
 
I am not keen on CVT's either, but if Honda risked offering it in the flagship Accord as the only automatic, then I need to re-think my view.

#17426 of 18166 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [cski] by gimmestdtranny

Jan 29, 2013 (3:00 pm)

Replying to: cski (Jan 29, 2013 1:32 pm)
Long post..touches on CVT vs conventional auto..maybe not to all's taste?
 
Well, they did risk continuing to use a troublesome auto in their Odyssey.
 
Who knows though, maybe their idea of a CVT is an improvement over their usual auto attempts...probably is. The Civic also had issues with its auto. Did the Pilot and Ridgeline have the same issues the Odyssey had?
But when Honda gets something right, it often is something that competitors will try to emulate. (variable valve timing and then later variable intake track lengths as a good example)
 
I think coast-ability, at the right times, is probably still one of the most difficult instructions to make a CVT work with.
 
But if these transmissions are so hardy and capable, why did Audi have a relatively restrictive horsepower cap on their first versions? Shortly after, Nissan did too if I recall.
 
I maintain these transmissions probably do work in a superior way in order to satisfy EPA ratings (and don't ever under-estimate the importance of the almighty EPA numbers and crash stats) but in the hands of a generally aggressive driver, or even most owner's real world, can't do nearly as well as a conventional auto. That's why the impressive numbers tend to fall off quite dramatically unless really babied.
 
The one thing that I think a CVT can excel at, providing the mfgrs get 'em dialed in right, is allowing near optimum engine rpm's at practically any speed you want to go. The final drives are geared so tall on all cars now that we see sub 2000 revs even when we talk about 75+ mph. And on the other end of the scale, if you have a conv auto in manual mode and let it lug right down (as a couple random examples..a Cruze 1.4 l turbo 6 sp auto or Jetta 2.5 6 sp Tiptronic) in 6th gear at less than 25 mph, on level ground with one or two people the tranny actually will let you cruise along at revs just barely off idle...like quite literally 1100 rpm. And the instant fuel use gauge gives numbers right off the chart. All until you either accelerate a bit or find a grade or headwind. This is something that can be accomplished with predictability in the right hands with the 6 sp conventional auto...but can be done with not nearly as much deliberate driver involvement...(read, the masses) with a properly dialed in CVT. All that is required though is a non aggressive light foot. But don't confuse non-aggressive with indecisiveness which can be a real fuel user in a CVT. And this gets back to why when being driven so gently and at times you want it to coast, it makes it that much harder to program all that into a CVT because the variables are...just that...constantly varying..
 
And this is why many 6 sp sticks will EPA at fewer mpg than the autos, but is because of generally lower chosen final drive gearing. You give the stick guys that SAME final drive as the tall autos have and then you would see even better hwy figures. And one of the reasons is there is less reciprocating mass with most standards than what I imagine a CVT has, and certainly has way less parasitic losses than the conventional auto.
 
I have been down at the road the past couple weeks cutting a huge red oak for firewood. Been there a lot and see (and hear) the actual cars that go by my rural road. I am just constantly amazed at the number of drivers who couldn't hold a steady throttle if their life depended on it! You know the ones....they are either accelerating or decelerating, with no in-between...just constantly dialing in throttle, then letting off, then dialing CONSTANTLY! You hear them go up the road all the way doing that until they disappear. Is that the way they were taught? Does it not occur to them that it is ok to just hold the throttle steady? It makes me embarrassed on behalf of my local community drivers. Anyway...these are the idiots that should use CC mandatory whenever the roads are dry and definitely should steer clear of all CVT's..

#17427 of 18166 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [cski] by backy

Jan 29, 2013 (3:47 pm)

Replying to: cski (Jan 29, 2013 1:32 pm)
I guess you missed this part of my post:
 
...and 38 mpg with a 189 hp engine on the Mazda6 (vs. 38 mpg with 182 hp on the Altima).

Messages Page 1743 of 1817

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement