Last post on May 24, 2013 at 7:58 AM
You are in the Hyundai Sonata
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
#17422 of 18220 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [backy]
Jan 29, 2013 (10:33 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%
FWIW, my trip computer (2011 Sonata GLS) always overestimates fuel economy by about 2 mpg...
#17423 of 18220 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [pegasus17]
Jan 29, 2013 (11:26 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 18220 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [backy]
Jan 29, 2013 (11:58 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 18220 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [backy]
Jan 29, 2013 (1:32 pm)
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 18220 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [cski]
Jan 29, 2013 (3:00 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 18220 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [cski]
Jan 29, 2013 (3:47 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).
#17428 of 18220 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [backy]
Jan 29, 2013 (4:01 pm)
It will be interesting to see if the Mazda 6 lives up to its EPA highway number of 38 mpg in real world driving. Too early to tell.
If you peruse the Altima forum, many are complaining that their real world mpg is nowhere near what they expected. Plus there is a recall (or TSB) on some Altima CVTs in the 2013. That is surprising since Nissan has been using CVT's for quite some time.
extract (not me):
"Just finished my 3rd month driving 2013 Nissan Altima 2013 2.5SL and my car has been consistently delivering 18 MPG or Below. Monitored MPG manually several times. Bringing back to the dealer for the 2nd time. Also recieved a safety recall from Nissan (campaign# PC186). CVT belt slips during driving. There is already another safety recall (campaign# PC182) that has to do with power steering rack bolts and tranverse link bolts issue.
Problem after problem with this 2013 Altima and the year 2013 has not even started yet."
#17429 of 18220 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [pegasus17]
Jan 29, 2013 (4:33 pm)
Mazda has had a good track record with attaining their stated EPA numbers in real world driving. Both before skyactiv and with the two skyactiv models the 3 and the CX-5. In fact, from what I read about the CX-5 is that most testers and owners are getting at least the EPA numbers if not better. No real reason to automatically doubt the new Mazda6 just because Hyundai was caught cheating(oops I mean making several mistakes over a long period of time on several different models). Obviously, someone getting 18mpg in a car rated at 27/38 is having a major problem of some kind. I've read lots of good reports on the Altima as well so that one needs to be sorted out some before condemanation is in order.
#17430 of 18220 Re: Actual 2013 Nissan Altima CVT video..... [pegasus17]
Jan 29, 2013 (4:49 pm)
Odd on the Altima numbers... CR got some great FE numbers on the Altima 2.5, especially on the highway where they got well over 40 mpg in their tests. Someone who's only getting 18 mpg must be doing a lot of in-town, short-distance driving.
I know it's not a true mid-sized sedan (for those people tracking such things here), but my Sentra--which has a mid-sized interior at least--with the CVT has done very well in real-world driving over 3 years, exceeding its EPA numbers. But that's MY real-world driving, and I drive with a light foot and have learned to milk that CVT for all it's got. Not everyone will be able to drive that way, or want to.
Jan 29, 2013 (5:49 pm)
What an intelligent statement you've made in the past:
"What a huge difference speed makes for fuel economy! Something for folks to consider when they don't see their Optimas or (Sonatas) hitting the EPA fuel economy numbers on the highway, but tend to drive at 70+ mph."
Something to check on your wife's Sonata:
FWIW, in my 2011 Sonata, the speedo reads 2 mph high. example: I have to drive an indicated 62mph to attain 60mph. At lower speeds, it still reads high. Confirmed with GPS, local radar, a pace car, and a few middle fingers for driving too slow.