Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can take safe bet, and I KNOW how to calculate mpg, being proud owner of TWO hybrid cars, that that vehicle will not pull 37mpg under any meaningful test. That said, I also KNOW how to bring my say Camry Hybrid to a 99mpg, take a pic of it and post here.
But this will be bogus data, as reality is - it's around 40 on LONG TERM data.
There is no way in the world a full time all wheel drive vehicle will have that mileage unless there is a continuous wind pushing it from behind on LONG decline.
Here's example:
That is my Highlander Hybrid after 27 miles drive from Fed Way to Seattle, I-5 and Airport Way. I am still surprised, what the heck stepped into that meter to show such mpg. Reality is different though:
tank average is 33.4 and long term average is 31.7.
And this is a HYBRID. So please, don't even try.
Btw, son's WRX with turbo 2.0 engine does solid 32 mpg average long term. Small turbos improve mpg, this is why you have so many turboed engines in Europe.
A hybrid is not an advantage in highway driving. Batteries and regenerative braking add weight. At 50 mph, the lighter car gets the better fuel economy. I'm pretty sure I could coax 37 mpg out of a Forester. 50 mph. Ethanol-free fuel. 70 degree temp. 70% humidity. 3,000 foot altitude. No hills. All highway. No load in the car other than the driver.
An Impreza gets better fuel economy than a WRX. Same car. Same engine except for the turbo so it weighs less. On the highway at cruising speed, the turbo on the WRX isn't enabled and is adding zero boost. The WRX gets almost the same fuel economy as the Impreza in that situation. A 4 cylinder turbo is only an mpg improvement when you are comparing against an engine with more cylinders, displacement, and weight. In an econobox like an Impreza, the turbo is a performance feature. I drove VW GTIs for 15 years. Same thing there. A 4 cylinder Golf got better fuel economy than my 4 cylinder turbo. It weighed less and 87 octane fuel has a bit more energy in it than 93 octane fuel needed in a higher boost turbo.
I don't care what fuel mileage one gets or how reliable it is or isn't, I hate CVT transmissions. I don't like the way they feel, I don't like the way it sounds and I just generally do not like driving them. Most people feel the same way and that is why both subaru and nissan are programming their PCM's to fake shifts on their CVT equipped cars. They are trying to make them sound and feel like normal automatic transmissions because people do not like CVT's.
I don't care what fuel mileage one gets or how reliable it is or isn't, I hate CVT transmissions. I don't like the way they feel, I don't like the way it sounds and I just generally do not like driving them. Most people feel the same way and that is why both subaru and nissan are programming their PCM's to fake shifts on their CVT equipped cars. They are trying to make them sound and feel like normal automatic transmissions because people do not like CVT's.
Speak for yourself...I'm liking mine...Do you think maybe switching to manual and using the paddle shifters would make you happy? I have that option too, although I haven't tried it yet.
I don't care what fuel mileage one gets or how reliable it is or isn't, I hate CVT transmissions. I don't like the way they feel, I don't like the way it sounds and I just generally do not like driving them. Most people feel the same way and that is why both subaru and nissan are programming their PCM's to fake shifts on their CVT equipped cars. They are trying to make them sound and feel like normal automatic transmissions because people do not like CVT's.
The cvt in my wife's nissan rogue is just terrible. Cant say the same for my 2016 Accord Sport though. Honda did a fantastic job with their cvt's. I prefer it to the 7 speed auto in my friends Infiniti Q50 or the 9 speed auto equipped in the Acura TLX for normal driving conditions. Both of those cars are constantly shifting and it becomes annoying. Honda's cvt's are quite smooth!
The cvt in my wife's nissan rogue is just terrible. Cant say the same for my 2016 Accord Sport though. Honda did a fantastic job with their cvt's. I prefer it to the 7 speed auto in my friends Infiniti Q50 or the 9 speed auto equipped in the Acura TLX for normal driving conditions. Both of those cars are constantly shifting and it becomes annoying. Honda's cvt's are quite smooth!
I had a 2008 Altima 4 cylinder for 5 years. Took it over 300k miles, never had any issues. Granted, I changed the fluid in the transmission, like I do in any other car.
That said, its CVT did have its share of clunkiness. I now have a new Altima, and k can honestly say they have VASTLY improved them. It's practically flawless.
Speak for yourself...I'm liking mine...Do you think maybe switching to manual and using the paddle shifters would make you happy? I have that option too, although I haven't tried it yet.
I only use the paddle shifters for engine braking on hill descents.
The CVT in rental fleet econoboxes is typically lousy. Anyone ranting about CVT has probably only ever driven one of those where the car doesn't have enough horsepower and nothing in particular happens when you put your foot to the floor. My Outback has 256 hp on a 3,700 pound car. The CVT is fine. I don't need a manual transmission in a boring grocery getter.
I had a 2008 Altima 4 cylinder for 5 years. Took it over 300k miles, never had any issues. Granted, I changed the fluid in the transmission, like I do in any other car.
That said, its CVT did have its share of clunkiness. I now have a new Altima, and k can honestly say they have VASTLY improved them. It's practically flawless.
The issue I have with her rogue is the droning. It just sounds terrible! During the winter months it sounds like I have a diesel under the hood until the vehicle warms up.
At around 30k miles she developed a cvt whine. A fluid change fixed it but that's not something that should be happening at just 30k miles in this day and age.
First road trip in my 2017 Forester....240 miles.....37.9 mpg (us gallon).....Way better than my 2007 forester, which had same engine...The only real difference is the CVT...
just because the engine is the same does not mean that the software is also the same. i will grant that CVT will improve fuel economy, but ten years of constantly changing technology will also improve things. for instance, ho much did the cam timing change in the intervening years? how much did teh compression change? and what new materials are they using in the engine?
just because the basic engine is the same doesnt mean nothing has changed inside. take the 1968 302 ford and the 1988 ford 302(5.0). they are basically the same engine, you can take the internals from the later engine and swap them into the early engine, though you would need to convert the early block to a one piece rear main seal.
but the early engine is not as efficient as the late engine is due to the differences in technology. so while CVT helps, it is not the end all be all in technology.
Speak for yourself...I'm liking mine...Do you think maybe switching to manual and using the paddle shifters would make you happy? I have that option too, although I haven't tried it yet.
Ummmmm, I did speak for myself but I guess I threw in a few known observations. The reason they have started programming the PCM's to sound as if it is shifting is because of all of the complaints from customers. Most people simply do not like the sound or feel of a CVT but the manufacturers are sticking with them on the lower power mass produced small to midsize cars because they can get better gas mileage with them.
We had a new 2009 Altima SL loaded with everything that had the CVT transmission. We bought it to save on gas but it just sat in the driveway because we hated driving it. I didn't drive it for the last year and a half we owned it and my wife very rarely drove it because she hated it as much as I did. We finally sold it and moved on. I won't ever have another car with a CVT. To be fair though, I don't enjoy driving front wheel drive cars at all.....none of them.
To answer your question, no switching to manual and using the paddle shifters doesn't make me happy because it still isn't really shifting, it is faking it to try to make you feel good. What makes me happiest is over 500HP, rear wheel drive, 6 speed manual in my Z06 Vette. Next after that is the above 400HP rear wheel drive with 6 speed automatic and then the z71 tahoe and silverado.
Quote:
Originally Posted by louie0406
The cvt in my wife's nissan rogue is just terrible. Cant say the same for my 2016 Accord Sport though. Honda did a fantastic job with their cvt's. I prefer it to the 7 speed auto in my friends Infiniti Q50 or the 9 speed auto equipped in the Acura TLX for normal driving conditions. Both of those cars are constantly shifting and it becomes annoying. Honda's cvt's are quite smooth!
Quote:
Originally Posted by louie0406
The issue I have with her rogue is the droning. It just sounds terrible! During the winter months it sounds like I have a diesel under the hood until the vehicle warms up.
At around 30k miles she developed a cvt whine. A fluid change fixed it but that's not something that should be happening at just 30k miles in this day and age.
The droning and staying at the same rpm's is mostly what annoyed me as well. I guess part the problem is the fact that most of these cars only have 250HP or less so as you accelerate, they stay at a high rpm level, droning for extended periods of time. I find it extremely irritating.
just because the engine is the same does not mean that the software is also the same. i will grant that CVT will improve fuel economy, but ten years of constantly changing technology will also improve things. for instance, ho much did the cam timing change in the intervening years? how much did teh compression change? and what new materials are they using in the engine?
just because the basic engine is the same doesnt mean nothing has changed inside. take the 1968 302 ford and the 1988 ford 302(5.0). they are basically the same engine, you can take the internals from the later engine and swap them into the early engine, though you would need to convert the early block to a one piece rear main seal.
but the early engine is not as efficient as the late engine is due to the differences in technology. so while CVT helps, it is not the end all be all in technology.
I never said that it was....The CVT is only part of the improvements made on this car...They also cured the head gasket problems, and went to a metal timing belt, eliminating timing belt changes, along with various other improvements such as direct fuel injection and variable valve timing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
