|
We have had a petrol automatic i30 as a courtesy car for a couple of weeks while our diesel manual is waiting for a part. It's doing around 35 mpg where the diesel would be doing 45.
Slight thread drift but I'm pleased with the service from the dealer as they've given us an i30 estate to match ours without any prompting and there have been no queries about doing the work required under warranty on our car which is getting on for 4 years old.
|
|
Jazz CVT here 2012. Averaging 46mpg - as calculated - mixed driving mainly towns. On motorways, I average 55.
I do not drive slowly but feather throttle as legal speed limit in towns. Pretty hilly here.
Edited by madf on 29/08/2013 at 07:35
|
|
Manual i20 1.2 petrol. 40 round town, mid 50s on a motorway run.
|
|
Not under similar conditons to those described by OP...
|
Not under similar conditons to those described by OP...
Mine is .
|
|
You typically travel with five people in the car? That's four companions. Get away!
|
|
|
|
Manual i20 1.2 petrol. 40 round town, mid 50s on a motorway run.
I thought the topic was small automatic cars.
Relative to the OP's question....my i10 Automatic (1200cc engine) consistently returns 32 mpg. And has done from new. Mixed driving - never thrashed.
|
|
Dad had 2 small Rover 1300 autos some years ago. Both averaged low 30's in mixd use, neither would pull the skin off a rice pudding.
Since then he has bought similar sized manuals with similar sized engines, low to mid 40's is normal. He had a Jazz manual and despite the incredible figures people often claim (even for the auto) 45 mpg ish was the norm. Just looked on Real MPG, 45 mpg is the Real for a Jazz manual.
Small engined autos are not the car to buy if you want good mpg or performance. They are best used in larger engines cars where the performance and economy penalty is less noticable.
Edited by thunderbird on 29/08/2013 at 15:41
|
|
Small engined autos are not the car to buy if you want good mpg or performance. They are best used in larger engines cars where the performance and economy penalty is less noticable.
Out of date: CVTs provide as good as manual consumption. The world has changed.
|
Small engined autos are not the car to buy if you want good mpg or performance. They are best used in larger engines cars where the performance and economy penalty is less noticable.
Out of date: CVTs provide as good as manual consumption. The world has changed.
Maybe decent fuel economy, (not driven one long enough to test it) but as for performance, its worse than an old auto. Engine screaming every time you touch the throttle with no added acceleration.
|
|
Maybe decent fuel economy, (not driven one long enough to test it) but as for performance, its worse than an old auto. Engine screaming every time you touch the throttle with no added acceleration.
You're beginning to sound like a record stuck in the 1990s... you've not driven one but tell us all they are noisy..
Sperical objects.
|
Maybe decent fuel economy, (not driven one long enough to test it) but as for performance, its worse than an old auto. Engine screaming every time you touch the throttle with no added acceleration.
You're beginning to sound like a record stuck in the 1990s... you've not driven one but tell us all they are noisy..
Sperical objects.
If you had taken the time to read my post I said I had not driven one long enough to test the mpg but that does not mean I have not driven one long enough to make my mind up about the constant pointless revving of the engine every time I breathed on the pedal.
I could draw a conclusion that the pointless revving would lead to high fuel consumption but I did not do that since I do not have the evidence. Having now looked at the Honest John Real MPG site it would appear that the Jazz CVT is about 4 mpg worse than the manual which I guess is not too bad.
But as is usual with this site a certain number of members prefer to insult others instead of accepting we may have different opinions.
|
I could draw a conclusion that the pointless revving would lead to high fuel consumption but I did not do that since I do not have the evidence. Having now looked at the Honest John Real MPG site it would appear that the Jazz CVT is about 4 mpg worse than the manual which I guess is not too bad
I think we can square the circle here. A CVT has the advantage of being able to vary the engine speed seamlessly, but the trade-off is far poorer mechanical efficiency than cog drive. So in stop-start work the CVT would probably be superior. In cruising conditions a traditional gearbox is superior.
|
I think we can square the circle here. A CVT has the advantage of being able to vary the engine speed seamlessly, but the trade-off is far poorer mechanical efficiency than cog drive. So in stop-start work the CVT would probably be superior. In cruising conditions a traditional gearbox is superior.
But most users only find CVT acceptable when it operates on a set number of electronically-controlled fixed ratios - so in reality it has no advantages over a conventional autobox - in stop-start work both CVT and conventional will be using their torque converter.
|
|
CVTs provide as good as manual consumption. The world has changed.
When I had a Subaru Outback 2.5 CVT on an extended test drive, I specifically did a back-to-back test against my own 2.5 Outback with the older slushbox - I could detect no difference in fuel consumption - dire in both cases!
The world has indeed changed - modern slushboxes use torque-converter lock-up far more and since CVTs also use a torque converter, there's no significant difference, except in reputation for reliability.
|
|
Hybrids like my Yaris are small petrol automatics. Mostly A12 cruising 60-64mpg town work even more. Times are indeed changing. Just got it's first replacement VED disk today...nil, free . Now that was sweeeeet. Has four seats too.
|
Hybrids like my Yaris are small petrol automatics. Mostly A12 cruising 60-64mpg town work even more. Times are indeed changing.
Yeah, but even my old meggie with a stupidly low top gear will manage 50mpg at 50mph. At the same speed, A MK II Fabia VRS I once had the pleasure of using for a week could climb into the eighties...
|
|
CVTs are misunderstood by too many motoring journalist experts who forever bang on about screaming engines and poor performance, which then causes many owners/potential owners to think the same.
The way to drive a CVT as per the original idea is to "balance" the performance using the throttle, so as the car accelerates, you similarly lift pressure off the throttle, then the car settles into the appropriate correct "gear".
This harks back to the original daddy of CVT, the similarly much misunderstood by many, DAF Variomatic originally from over 50 years ago.
CVTs are more mechanically efficient, or certainly the original idea was before the pressures of marketing and making them more acceptable to a mass market caused the frankly bizarre idea of introducing stepped ratios so that it felt/sounded like a conventional gearbox, therefore completely going against the idea of CVT in the first place! (Think about it, a drive belt moving seemlessly up and down/between pulleys is not as clunky as cogs constantly engaging/disengaging)
That all said, my dad has a current shape Fiesta 1.4 with a 4-speed torque convertor automatic, and that goes, if you so choose, very well indeed. Leaves a lot of surprised others who assume they are going to take off from lights etc before him (he is quite small and sometimes wears a hat!) I like it a lot. Sadly, Ford appear to have stopped making this now with the facelift and you have to be saddled with a Powershift in a 1.6, which, well, if it's anything like the VW DSG appears to be turning out to be for many, may be a had move.
Ecomomy - not really measured it properly but probably mid to late 30s.
|
|
I had a DAF 44 in the 1970s, Renault 1100 engine, 35 - 40 mpg and would do 75/80 mph. (a number of crazy people proved thi was also possible in reverse).
The advantage over similar conventional transmission was you didn't have the problem of a hill for which 3rd was too high and 2nd too low without excess revs.
Biggest drawback was the need to regularly adjust drivebelt tension (20 screws to remove the plastic undertray for access to the adjustment screws - eventually I gave up putting it back)
|
CVTs are more mechanically efficient
They are not mechanically efficient transmitters of torque. Vee belts rely on friction to transmit torque. Furthermore, in order to achieve the necesary pulley tension, a high pressure hydraulic fluid pump is required.
As you have pointed out, they do have other advantages when coupled to ICEs, but mechanical efficiency is not one of them.
|
|
All I can relate to is my experience with a Jazz CVT.
It's 7 set speeds- electronically controlled witha torque convertor.
Tow options: D - changes up for economy,S = lower gears for speed.
Floppy paddles for up and down changes.
Economy? Claimed same as manual. I can't see the real mpg I am getting is any worse or better than quoted manuals.
Changes are nicley slurrred, very smooth and in normal driving imperceptible. So you really have no idea which gear you are in. NO jerking - ever.
In D, kick down is slightly slow but you can go from1,500rpm in 7th - about 45mph to 3,000rpm in 4th (?3rd?) - for overtaking very easily . Does the transmission howl? No. Are you aware you have kicked down? Yes: the engine revs..
Approaching motorway /dual cabbageways I always kick down and it acclerates nicely. Not a ball of fire but no hesitation or failure to react..
Like all things, you can drive it competently and get excellent results - or drive it without felling and get poor results.
(I note the roadtesters mainly tend to be spotty yoofs who call the rear of a Polo "comfortable".. anyone but anyone who does that can only be a dwarf or a muppet - with apologies to all dwarves)
|
|
Our Juke CVT 1.6 is just as economical as our previous Mercedes A150 manual. Smoother and faster as well.
|
Hybrids like my Yaris are small petrol automatics. Mostly A12 cruising 60-64mpg town work even more. Times are indeed changing.
Yeah, but even my old meggie with a stupidly low top gear will manage 50mpg at 50mph. At the same speed, A MK II Fabia VRS I once had the pleasure of using for a week could climb into the eighties...
And these vehicles are small petrol AUTOMATIC's? Apples and oranges my friend. Your comparing Manual and diesel with Petrol and Auto. which is not what the OP asked.
Plus try doing 50mph on the A12 and numerous truck enema's will occur. I'm talking about 60 to 64 at 65 to 70mph.
And like I said in town work even better. I popped over the other side of Colchester the other lunchtime and round trip got an indicated 81.7...
Edited by Ethan Edwards on 30/08/2013 at 14:23
|
|
Posting on this tread is not the most sensible thing i have ever done, I don't really like auto's and I especially do not like small auto's. Have managed to avoid driving one since 1995, that was a Honda Accord 1800 hire car, nice enough but all revs and no action plus the mpg was appaling even compared to the 1800 Blubird we had at the time.
But there was a small auto I drove quite a bit in the early 80's and i have to admit it was not that bad. Dad had a Honda Civic 1300 (I think) for several years simply because after an accident mum could not drive a manual. The box in that car was a semi auto with a torque converter. You got 3 forward positions for the selector (low, * and OD) plus the usual reverse, park and neutral. Normally you pulled away in * and selected OD once out of town, to overtake simply selected *. Don't think dad ever used Low and I certainly cannot remember using it.
The car was pretty quick for the time, way quicker than the manual Talbot Horizon it replaced. This was probably helped by the fact the engine had a nice pair of sidedraft carbs attached to it to give it healthy power for a 1300 of the early 80's, Think it was rated at 75 bhp (I had a 1600 Golf that was only 75 bhp).
The best thing about the box was since it was not fully automatic it did not change up and down at a touch of the throttle and because of this it was not jerky like many auto's. Mum stopped driving and dad went back to manuals.
|
"But there was a small auto I drove quite a bit in the early 80's and i have to admit it was not that bad. Dad had a Honda Civic 1300 (I think) for several years simply because after an accident mum could not drive a manual. The box in that car was a semi auto with a torque converter. You got 3 forward positions for the selector (low, * and OD) plus the usual reverse, park and neutral. Normally you pulled away in * and selected OD once out of town, to overtake simply selected *. Don't think dad ever used Low and I certainly cannot remember using it."
Ah that was old Hondamatic. We had a 1980 Civic with that box. I was to young to recall economy, but I do remember a turbine smooth engine and total reliability but lots of rust!
Edited by Happy Blue! on 31/08/2013 at 22:34
|
|
East Anglia is nice and flat, if you ever come to the hilly (and congested) bits of West Yorkshire I'd be interested to know what the economy is like. (SWMBO has a 1.3 Yaris, comparison would be useful)
|
|
Parents have a 2011 Kia Venga 1.6 4 speed slushbox.
It's an easy car to drive, excellent visibility and the gearbox is always in the correct gear and never seems flustered.
Downside is that with their short journeys, the hills and cold starts the average is about 28-29mpg.
On the plus side, with the slushbox and 4 well chosen ratios they can beat most cars at the traffic lights upto 30mph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
