Why am I getting worse MPG with a CVT then a manual?

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
2.4L 160HP DOHC (Probably includes VVT-i) for the TC
2.5L 170HP DOHC (Not sure what Nissan calls its Variable Valve Technology)
-Kevin

NVCS - Nissan Valve-Timing Control System

Camshafts can be rotated to advance/retard valve timing, but lift and duration cannot be altered.

 

[ashishmishra]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
The EPA ratings are actually the same for the auto and manual 2007 2.3L Fusion. 23/31 under the old ratings and 20/29 under the new.

The gear ratios don't have anything to do with selling auto trannys, imo.

Well the gear ratios might not have anything to do with selling auto transmissions but it sure is responsible for the similar perceived fuel economy of manuals and autos.

Given that the gear ratios are the same, manuals are more efficient than conventional automatics period.

I took the EPA ratings from ford's website, they are accurate AFAIK.

I understand that you don't like manuals and that's perfectly alright, but there is no getting away from the fact that apples to apples they are more efficient, that is the only point I'm trying to make.

NOTE: The above argument only applies to conventional autos, not DSGs, or F1 style gearboxes

 

[exdeath]

Might have something to do with the fact that a CVT by design keeps the engine in its higher RPM power band better? Power = fuel.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: exdeath
Might have something to do with the fact that a CVT by design keeps the engine in its higher RPM power band better? Power = fuel.

No, it keeps the engine in the most efficient RPM range for the conditions. Cruising = low RPM... pedal to the floor = high RPM.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: exdeath
Might have something to do with the fact that a CVT by design keeps the engine in its higher RPM power band better? Power = fuel.

No, it keeps the engine in the most efficient RPM range for the conditions. Cruising = low RPM... pedal to the floor = high RPM.

Ah never driven one. Just figured over the course of normal acceleration the MT engine varies as the RPMs go up and down while the CVT is at red line the whole time, so it would be consuming more.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Perhaps the odometer (and likewise the speedometer) is more accurate on your new vehicle than your old. Or vise-versa.

Edit: nah. After reading thru other's responses, I think they are right. Can't really expect a larger heavier vehicle to get better gas mileage just because it's got a CVT.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: Baloo
Perhaps the odometer (and likewise the speedometer) is more accurate on your new vehicle than your old. Or vise-versa.

Edit: nah. After reading thru other's responses, I think they are right. Can't really expect a larger heavier vehicle to get better gas mileage just because it's got a CVT.

Not so much with the CVT, just thought that since the EPA rated the Rogue at 2 MPG higher than then the Scion TC, it would get at least equivalent and not worse MPG while driving the same route.

 

[Jeff7181]

Is the Rogue brand new? Maybe not broken in yet? I know with 11,000+ miles I'm getting better mileage now than I was last fall when I got my CVT Altima Coupe.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Is the Rogue brand new? Maybe not broken in yet? I know with 11,000+ miles I'm getting better mileage now than I was last fall when I got my CVT Altima Coupe.

less than 1k miles

First tank around 22mpg
2nd tank around 23mpg
3rd tank around 22mpg
4th tank around 22mpg
5th tank around 20mpg (let wife drive the car and she has a lead foot)

Even though the car is not broken in yet, shouldn't the MPG get progressively higher? I know it is only rated at 22mpg in the city but I expected at least the same MPG as the Scion TC at around 25 mpg when the scion is only rated at 20mpg city.

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: ElFenix
rogue: cute ute, ~3300 lbs
tc: hatch/coupe ~2900 lbs

no, i'm sure an extra 400 lbs wouldn't have anything to do with it



also, how new is the rogue?

Originally posted by: Bignate603
One was a coupe, one was an SUV. Worse aerodynamics, bigger tires, more weight, probably a bigger more powerful engine, all end up eating more gas. SUVs get worse gas mileage, it's a fact of life. Go talk to JulesMaximus about that

I know the rogue is a larger car. But I am going by current EPA MPG. And by current EPA ratings, the Rogue is more fuel efficient.

The Rogue was purchased new in May 2008.

You cannot go by what the EPA sticker says. its like buying a new video card based on specs only and not doing a real test with it. Those numbers are on a level track, going around in a circle so that the auto maker can post up the highest number it will ever get. Once the car makes it in your hands you be lucky to ever come close.

Just be happy your getting that good with a new SUV, its not off by much, Id stop having it chap your ass and your mind dwelling on it and enjoy your new ride. Its got to be better then the other car by terms of looks, and comfort, if not why buy a suv if your worried about MPG, you should of bought a used metro or something if MPG is so demanding on the brain