many-speed automatic vs CVT?

[JCH13]

I didn't want to say it, but that's what I was guessing. Did it have the VQ or was it the QR25?

Honestly, no idea. It was a rental car and I didn't pay that much attention.

The VQ + CVT in the Altima and Maxima is not terrible. The main problem--really the only one from the driver's perspective--is that it is not as responsive as it should be. As far as I'm concerned with enough money and development of a CVT it should be a marvelous experience. Imagine you are going along at 1500 rpm and punch the throttle--there's no reason the engine should not almost immediately rush up to max HP. Unfortunately in the current Nissans it doesn't; if you floor it from a stop you can wait a good 2-3 seconds for it to let the RPM get to their optimal range.

I've not driven a 2013 Altima but I read that 70% of its CVT parts are changed from previous gen and that the V6, for example, is hitting 60 almost a half second faster than the 2012--with the same engine. If that's true it must mean Nissan has really revamped the transmission to a huge extent. The 2013 Altima 4 cylinder is getting the best mileage of any non-hybrid mid-size, so its efficiency promises are being realized. I'd just personally love to see a hyper-responsive unit--one that lets your RPM when you floor it get up to peak HP as quickly as if you had floored the car in neutral. The VQ+CVT in the Altima has a "sporty" mode that increases responsiveness as it is, but I'd love to see it damn near uncomfortable to use an ultra snappy as it changes its ratio.

I felt that the Altima was quite responsive, at least while in motion. I didn't do a lot of stop-and-go with it, so I can't how it was from a stop. I found that when I punched it the RPMs shot up almost immediately, it definitely didn't take 2-3s to get into the power band.

Maybe some people expect CVTs to be magical, or turn a 150hp car into some performance monster, they aren't and they can't. They can provide a smooth, responsive, driving experience; just remember that there's only so much response you can get from the generally low-powered engines they're coupled with.

 

[Spungo]

I always wondered what it would be like to drive a manual (driver-controlled) CVT. It seems like it would be complicated to get used to, but once you did it might be quite nice.

Full throttle all the time and control the acceleration by lowering the engine rpm. If the car starts shaking that means you've dropped the rpm too low. Easy as pie
(probably not good for the engine)

Before buying that, I drove a 2012 Impala w/6spd....gawd it was almost worse than the old 4spd, certainly didn't feel like 300HP and the car didn't know what gear it should be in most of the time.

That seems like a recurring theme. Some of the old 3-speed automatics feel more peppy than the newer 6 speeds because it doesn't jump between gears as much.

 

[Ferzerp]

More gears are good for mileage, but once you have 5 or 6, any more are detrimental to performance on an auto (as well as it's easier to make a fewer geared transmission that can handle the extra power).

I think people forget this.

 

[nerp]

What do you mean, "detrimental to performance?" How do you explain the performance increase in the Charger and 300 which are basically the same as last year except for the transmission?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXrHDjcQIIU

 

[etherealfocus]

It still amazes me that we're struggling to make a good, basic econocar in 2012. I think the manufacturers must just be trying to force an upsell with free gadgets or something.

Just me, or were 1990s Civic hatchbacks about the best econocar you could ask for (save for missing gadgets)? Not very comfortable, but aside from that...

Newer cars seem a bit more comfy, but mileage is stagnant. My old 1994 Civic hatchback (stick of course) averaged about 40mpg with mild hypermiling. My 2007 Versa adds a sixth gear but gets slightly worse mileage. It adds nicer seats, power windows, and a little more cargo space, but handles about the same and loses the Civic's standard cruise control. Seems like more progress should have been made in the intervening 13 years.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Newer cars seem a bit more comfy, but mileage is stagnant. My old 1994 Civic hatchback (stick of course) averaged about 40mpg with mild hypermiling. My 2007 Versa adds a sixth gear but gets slightly worse mileage. It adds nicer seats, power windows, and a little more cargo space, but handles about the same and loses the Civic's standard cruise control. Seems like more progress should have been made in the intervening 13 years.

The non-Si Civic hatches in '94 weighed ~2100 pounds. The Versa weighs ~2,700 pounds. The Versa also will fare much better in crashes because of advances in safety equipment.

Additionally, since most buyers today go with a stick shift for performance reasons rather than fuel economy reasons, most new cars with a manual have the gear ratios chosen more for spirited driving than for economy.

ZV

 

[JCH13]

It still amazes me that we're struggling to make a good, basic econocar in 2012. I think the manufacturers must just be trying to force an upsell with free gadgets or something.

Just me, or were 1990s Civic hatchbacks about the best econocar you could ask for (save for missing gadgets)? Not very comfortable, but aside from that...

Newer cars seem a bit more comfy, but mileage is stagnant. My old 1994 Civic hatchback (stick of course) averaged about 40mpg with mild hypermiling. My 2007 Versa adds a sixth gear but gets slightly worse mileage. It adds nicer seats, power windows, and a little more cargo space, but handles about the same and loses the Civic's standard cruise control. Seems like more progress should have been made in the intervening 13 years.

This is a very uninformed view on the subject. With required emissions equipment, safety equipment and the introduction of E10 fuel it is impressive that real economy cars are still around the 40mpg mark. Not to mention the different EPA testing standards that decreased most vehicles' rated fuel economy.

One can get 40mpg in a modern Civic, despite adding 600+lbs of weight, 93% the fuel energy density, catalytic converters, a more powerful engine to haul all of that around, 4spd automatic, a comfortable ride etc...

 

[etherealfocus]

This is a very uninformed view on the subject. With required emissions equipment, safety equipment and the introduction of E10 fuel it is impressive that real economy cars are still around the 40mpg mark. Not to mention the different EPA testing standards that decreased most vehicles' rated fuel economy.

One can get 40mpg in a modern Civic, despite adding 600+lbs of weight, 93% the fuel energy density, catalytic converters, a more powerful engine to haul all of that around, 4spd automatic, a comfortable ride etc...

Hmm yeah fair enough. Actually I'm in north Texas (Denton) and E85 is getting annoyingly popular here. Forgot the ethanol, but EPA revisions don't really matter for what I said since I was comparing my own economy numbers then vs now. If anything, my driving skills have improved and given the Versa a slight advantage.

Question though: What's contributing 600 lbs to the weight of these newer cars? Cat converters aren't that heavy. The Versa's certainly a bit bigger than the Civic, but I'd think engineering advances would have allowed substantial weight reduction per size. I'm sure the safety equipment weighs something... dunno, depends on what they put in. The Versa certainly has a shorter hood than the Civic.

 

[JCH13]

Hmm yeah fair enough. Actually I'm in north Texas (Denton) and E85 is getting annoyingly popular here. Forgot the ethanol, but EPA revisions don't really matter for what I said since I was comparing my own economy numbers then vs now. If anything, my driving skills have improved and given the Versa a slight advantage.

Question though: What's contributing 600 lbs to the weight of these newer cars? Cat converters aren't that heavy. The Versa's certainly a bit bigger than the Civic, but I'd think engineering advances would have allowed substantial weight reduction per size. I'm sure the safety equipment weighs something... dunno, depends on what they put in. The Versa certainly has a shorter hood than the Civic.

Well, a 2009 Civic (my reference point, significant other's car) is also 600lbs heavier than an early 90's Civic, so I'll use it as an example. The thing about cars is that weight additions are compounded, so it's never as simple as adding 1lb, it's always 1lb*weight compounding factor.

So the catalytic converters add 20lbs to the exhaust (numbers are for argument's sake). Now the exhaust pipe has to be thicker to withstand that extra weight (add 10lbs) and the exhaust hangers have to be stronger to hold up the heavier exhaust (add 1lb) and the flex sections have to be larger because the exhaust system moves more (add 2lbs) and the exhaust manifold needs reinforcing (add 1lb) and now the manifold flange needs to be thicker and larger fasteners are needed (add 2lbs) the cats are also very hot, so we'll need more heat shielding and brackets and fasteners (add 4lbs). So these 20lb catalytic converters have turned into a 40lb addition to the car.

The newer Civic also has an ABS system, 8 airbags, a larger alternator for all the computers, bigger crumple zones, more wiring, etc making the car heavier. Now it needs a more powerful engine to move the car, that needs a bigger cooling system, a tougher transmission, and then you need bigger brakes to bring everything to a stop, bigger wheels to fit around the bigger brakes, heavier springs to give it a reasonable ride, and heavier shocks to control the heavier springs and bigger wheels... you see where this is headed. It's never as simple as tacking on a few components, everything is interconnected and adding 1lb of extra stuff generally means an additional 1-5lbs of weight in the context of a whole vehicle.

 

[jlee]

The CVT in the newish (2011 anyway) Jeep Patriot sucks hard.

That's the only one I have experience with.

 

[jlee]

Hmm yeah fair enough. Actually I'm in north Texas (Denton) and E85 is getting annoyingly popular here. Forgot the ethanol, but EPA revisions don't really matter for what I said since I was comparing my own economy numbers then vs now. If anything, my driving skills have improved and given the Versa a slight advantage.

Question though: What's contributing 600 lbs to the weight of these newer cars? Cat converters aren't that heavy. The Versa's certainly a bit bigger than the Civic, but I'd think engineering advances would have allowed substantial weight reduction per size. I'm sure the safety equipment weighs something... dunno, depends on what they put in. The Versa certainly has a shorter hood than the Civic.

ATS Racing is in Denton.

You should buy an MR2.

Now.

:awe:

 

[etherealfocus]

Hah, I'll get right on that with my 2k/mo salary

 

[jlee]

Hah, I'll get right on that with my 2k/mo salary

2k/mo net? That's not far off from me.

 

[etherealfocus]

@JCH13 yikes, ok. See, I'm used to computers. Adding another hard drive means you maybe need an extra fan but chances are the PSU and everything else can handle it.

I see where you're coming from. Makes me wish even harder that they'd sell base models without all the extras. I want something that goes forward, backward, can play in the 40mpg area, and has AC, cruise control, modest speakers, and a stereo port for my mp3 player. That's about it. Crumple zones are nice, but I'd rather have the ounce of prevention with a light, snappy car than the pound of cure with an escalating size battle that hits reductio ad absurdum with everyone driving a monster truck surrounded by an impact balloon.

 

[etherealfocus]

Nah, gross. I get commission too when things get off the ground but I just started here. Don't even get my first paycheck till the 10th. Current net worth: $34.22. lol

 

[jagec]

Well, a 2009 Civic (my reference point, significant other's car) is also 600lbs heavier than an early 90's Civic, so I'll use it as an example. The thing about cars is that weight additions are compounded, so it's never as simple as adding 1lb, it's always 1lb*weight compounding factor.

The newer Civic also has an ABS system, 8 airbags, a larger alternator for all the computers, bigger crumple zones, more wiring, etc...

But compare the late-90s civics to the modern ones. They had ABS, airbags, cats etc, but don't weigh much more than the early 90s versions while preserving the good mileage.

All the engineering advances of the past two decades have only managed to keep up with the weight gains.

 

[JCH13]

But compare the late-90s civics to the modern ones. They had ABS, airbags, cats etc, but don't weigh much more than the early 90s versions while preserving the good mileage.

All the engineering advances of the past two decades have only managed to keep up with the weight gains.

I'll bet money that the old ABS isn't as sophisticated or as good as the modern ABS/TC system, didn't have eight airbags (and the ones they did have probably didn't work as well), and I know they only had a single small cat, whereas the modern civic has at least 2 bigger ones. All of this on a bigger platform that's quieter and nicer to drive.

While most manufacturers have followed this formula for past 10 years (bigger, more weight, but eeking out efficiency to compensate), some cars have shown the opposite trend. Honda Insight, Toyota Yaris, Smart Car, Mazda 2, Skyactive Mazda 3, Ford Fiesta, etc. that all get similar or better EPA milage than an early/mid 90's Civic, with comparable or better performance and dramatically better amenities and safety with a more difficult EPA milage test with shittier fuel.

TL;DR: go buy a Prius and get 50mpg without trying and have all of the modern features so many people demand.

 

[etherealfocus]

Except the sub-10k price tag that sold me on my Versa. Had an 09 Yaris before that (5spd manual 2dr hatch) and the Versa's a better car in every way except for the lack of cruise control. Smoother shifting, better handling, way better performance with passengers in the car (and I'm not a performance nut at all - strict utilitarian here), comfier seats, more legroom...