Elmojo wrote:I'm surprised EV agrees with the 6MT lovers, considering he's done a bit of auto-Xing.
Autocrossing does not automatically mean jamming through the gears as fast as possible. The fastest drivers are the smoothest drivers. Doing everything as quick as you can is the hallmark of a drag racer.
Quote »Those of you who like it have obviously never driven a truly smooth gearbox.Wait, maybe I should qualify that. Maybe you have driven better-shifting transaxles, but you're not expecting as much from the V, since it's an 'econobox'.[/quote]I've driven plenty of "smooth" or "better shifting" gearboxes. 300ZX, Legacy GT, WRX, New Sonata, Mazda6... the list goes on and on. And I will once again sound like a broken record in that I HATE "smooth" gearboxes because I can't always tell when I'm actually in gear. The most "upscale" gearbox I've ever driven that I actually LIKED was the Miata. Which, gee, has a very positive engagement feel like the Versa.
Quote »1) The throttle-by-wire makes the RPMs hang between gears, forcing you to shift very slowly to achieve smooth shifts.[/quote]This is ECU programming, not a general characteristic of TBW systems. Although I hate TBW's because they respond so slowly to throttle input. Sadly, cable throttles are going the way of the dinosaur.
Quote »2) The engine has quite a bit of torque for it's size, but the short gearing (especially 1st) doesn't allow you to take advantage of it. I routinely have to shift from 1st to 2nd in the middle of a turn, which is both annoying and dangerous.
3) The 6th gear puts the revs at 3K @ 65mpg indicated.This is just silly. This car should only be pulling around 23-2500 @ 65mph for decent fuel economy. I submit the CVT as exhibit 'A'.[/quote]I won't argue with you on the funny gearing, since it's geared for European roads. But a simple redesign of the gears would fix that.
I will also ignore your submission of CVT as exhibit A. Yes, it's a wonderfully smooth transmission and keeps your rev's at optimum at all times... BUT... Nissan has not had a CVT in production here for more than 7 years. To me they have NOT yet proven that they have gotten past the CVT reliability curse. Their first CVT's were what, '04? Talk to me again in '12 and if they haven't broken left and right then my mind will be changed. (I still won't intentionally buy one, I will always buy a manual if given the choice)
Quote »4) As a result, the new EPA numbers show about 28/34 city/highway (I think?), which is just horrible. My 10-yr old Honda Civic got a steady 32mpg in mixed city/hwy, whereas the V only gets about 28-29 mixed, and about 32 in straight highway driving. My friend's 2007 Toyota Corolla gets 37-40 on the highway, and it has a bigger engine! Go figure.[/quote]The new EPA numbers just reflect reality better. The old numbers were based on a very flawed testing system.
Also, your 10-year-old Civic weighs 400 pounds less than a Versa and has a 1.6L (I presume SOHC, unless it was an EX).
And for the record, the Corolla has the SAME size engine as a V, but weighs 300 lbs less. If the V weighed that little, no doubt it would get at least 2mpg better at all times. I'll ignore the comparison between the engines in the old Civic and the new Toyota since it is very difficult to compare the dynamics of a non-VVT engine to one that is.
But I guess I'm a bit old-school when I drive a car. I like feedback. I like to feel the road somewhat, I like to feel the engine and the transmission. I would die if I had to drive a Lexus or Infiniti as a daily because it would just feel... I guess like an out of body experience.