How to drive with CVT

[voltronguy]

I have seen some talk of the learning curve with CVT. Would anyone with some good knowledge like to post about the proper way to drive with CVT? Especially with regards to RPM ranges. My interest is in improving our MPG.

Thanks!

[philmcneal]

here's how I'd do if if I owned a versa.

Accelerate using max efficent torque curve (ususally 2000 rpms) when getting up to crusing speed. Try to cruise in the speed you want in the lowest rpms as possible. One can do this by when you have reached the speed you want to cruise at, let off the gas pedal and then lightly reapply so that you can still maintain the same speed. The less throttle, the less air into the cylinders and air needs fuel to run.

In city driving, I try to coast as much as possble. If travelling under 40 mph one can let off the accelerator pedal and the car's revs will drop, acting as if it is in neutral. If you had a instantenous fuel economy gauge like a scangauge, that number would be rediciously high since your travelling by using the least amount of energy possible (keeping enough gas for the engine so it does not stall).I try to use the most of my coasting (small amount of fuel to coast a huge amount of distance), so that by the time I hit the red light, my speed is dropped to 10 to 15 mph instead of slamming on the brakes at the last minute at 30 mph. Being the last one to be at the light instead of the first will yield surprisigly good results... like the light turning green again and you have some momentum from your previous coast! So that the CVT does not have to lower the gear, if you can acclerate in higher gear, by means do so to avoid friction losses (the faster the rotation, the higher chance of that energy being lost to friction).

That's it for now

[gr81]

here's how I'd do if if I owned a versa.

Accelerate using max efficent torque curve (ususally 2000 rpms) when getting up to crusing speed. Try to cruise in the speed you want in the lowest rpms as possible. One can do this by when you have reached the speed you want to cruise at, let off the gas pedal and then lightly reapply so that you can still maintain the same speed. The less throttle, the less air into the cylinders and air needs fuel to run.

In city driving, I try to coast as much as possble. If travelling under 40 mph one can let off the accelerator pedal and the car's revs will drop, acting as if it is in neutral. If you had a instantenous fuel economy gauge like a scangauge, that number would be rediciously high since your travelling by using the least amount of energy possible (keeping enough gas for the engine so it does not stall).I try to use the most of my coasting (small amount of fuel to coast a huge amount of distance), so that by the time I hit the red light, my speed is dropped to 10 to 15 mph instead of slamming on the brakes at the last minute at 30 mph. Being the last one to be at the light instead of the first will yield surprisigly good results... like the light turning green again and you have some momentum from your previous coast! So that the CVT does not have to lower the gear, if you can acclerate in higher gear, by means do so to avoid friction losses (the faster the rotation, the higher chance of that energy being lost to friction).

That's it for now

Thats what I do with my Escape Hybrid which also has CVT and I am getting 33mpg combined (right in the suggested range for the escape). The times when my mpg rating suffers is when I am running late or its just to freaking hot outside(see my thread about AC questions).

We are planing on trading in the Hybrid for a Versa, with the hopes that we will continue to get as good gas mileage because we do have experience with the CVT, and the fact we have 2 SUVs and the Escape cant tow like our Blazer. That and a much lower car payment.

[philmcneal]

before you trade in that hybrid take a look at this http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums...t=350

since this is a versa forum i'll add in some versa comment:

the only advantage i see over the CVT vs 6spd is that when starting from a standstill, you burn less gas getting to crusing speed as opposed to the 6spd (maybe who knows?) my impression of the CVT so far that it isn't as energy efficent as a 6spd but then again CVT users maybe driving a bit too agressively?

with the 6spd i'd would purposely shift to a higher gear and cruise around 1300 rpms (the least amount of rpms before lugging hits) but would a cvt at the same rpms yield the same fuel economy? or cvt is at a disadvantage due to friction losses? so maybe 1300 rpms in 6th gear would be equal to 1600 rpms for the cvt?

damn hard to say without no data and with people without scangauges.

[gr81]

before you trade in that hybrid take a look at this http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums...t=350

since this is a versa forum i'll add in some versa comment:

the only advantage i see over the CVT vs 6spd is that when starting from a standstill, you burn less gas getting to crusing speed as opposed to the 6spd (maybe who knows?) my impression of the CVT so far that it isn't as energy efficent as a 6spd but then again CVT users maybe driving a bit too agressively?

with the 6spd i'd would purposely shift to a higher gear and cruise around 1300 rpms (the least amount of rpms before lugging hits) but would a cvt at the same rpms yield the same fuel economy? or cvt is at a disadvantage due to friction losses? so maybe 1300 rpms in 6th gear would be equal to 1600 rpms for the cvt?

damn hard to say without no data and with people without scangauges.

Interesting read, and for the most part I do a lot of what was in that article(I have the nav system which gives instant fuel economy as well as charting the last 15 minutes). My reasons for trading the Hybrid in are also mentioned in the article tho. It mentions all the great numbers come with AC off which is next to impossible for me to do in Phoenix more than half the year (winter is where the Hybrid is perfect here). And it mentions trying to stay off the highways (not an easy thing to do as well, altho in city highway, it does pretty good). We like to do weekend trips where we are driving thru the mountains (6-8% grade) and can watch the MPG average drop 100 mile drive (get some of it back on the down trip letting gravity work in our favor).

Trying to keep on topic as well:Oh and my wive has fallen in love with the Versa, and we both have "learned" a bit about CVT and like it. When I drive other cars the way I drive with CVT some of the things do help with fuel economy on a normal automatic as well.

[elwesso]

Ive done a lot of research on CVT's, and the technology is very new at this point, so dont give up on them yet...

With all things considered, they are significantly more efficient at low speeds, but are roughly the same at highway speeds.. For city driving, nothing beats a CVT, but at high speeds its about the same..

The reason is at a constant speed, you see a lot of friction loss at the drive belt... MFG's are trying to make these belts more efficent, but when you consider what has to happen, you can see how itd be difficult...

To illustrate this point, the nissan maxima and murano have basically the same drivetrain, with the exception of the CVT... Despite weighing over 400lbs more than the maxima, the CVT murano gets the same fuel mileage in the city, and only 2mpg better on the higway (which is mainly due to its lesser rolling resistance)...

[gr81]

I love the CVT part of my Escape. When people ask me about the CVT vs a normal automatic I explain why I like the CVT but it does require a shift in how one drives. I cant compare Manual because I just dont have the strength in my left leg to push in the clutch thanks to an accident when I was young.

The thing is, just about everything has its tradeoffs, and everyone has to look at their situation when considering what to get. My wife loved her 95 Nissan pickup which was a stick, but when she was driving 45 minutes each way in stop and go traffic, it weighed heavily on her next vehicle. It happened to be a CVT which we knew nothing about at the time. Now we carpool, are only 8 miles from work (all street driving) and our weekends is when we hit the highway. The Versa w/CVT fits what we are looking for with the economy for the short trips to/from work, large feel inside for the weekend trips (with the dogs), and price aint to bad either.

[Ever Victorious]

Ive done a lot of research on CVT's, and the technology is very new at this point, so dont give up on them yet...

Not really. CVT's have been used in forklifts for decades... something like 50 years or so. Subaru used a CVT in a passenger car (4WD, no less) in the late 80's, but as far as mass-marketing, the car industry waited until now to develop and produce. Honda and Saturn were the first in the latest round. And now you even have Dodge playing around with them.

I'm still waiting and seeing. It's not the concept of the CVT I don't like... in fact, I think it's really something spectacular. It's that I want to make sure the manufacturers don't repeat Subaru's little error in the 80's by making a transmission that lasts only as long as a timing belt.

[elwesso]

Very true... They use CVTs in golf carts as well, in addition to snowmobiles and other offroad vehicles. However in those vehicles, since they travel fairly slow efficiency isnt what theyre going after... Main thing i think they want in those applications is for it to last a long time...... in cars, CVTs are new..

[ilusha55]

Not really. CVT's have been used in forklifts for decades... something like 50 years or so. Subaru used a CVT in a passenger car (4WD, no less) in the late 80's, but as far as mass-marketing, the car industry waited until now to develop and produce. Honda and Saturn were the first in the latest round. And now you even have Dodge playing around with them.

I'm still waiting and seeing. It's not the concept of the CVT I don't like... in fact, I think it's really something spectacular. It's that I want to make sure the manufacturers don't repeat Subaru's little error in the 80's by making a transmission that lasts only as long as a timing belt.

How many years we are talking about. If it is about 8-10 years i ll be definitely buying a new car by that time. I don't want a keep a car for more than it is supposed to live. And with new technologies evolving every year (god, every month), i ll be looking elsewhere by the time my versa is 8-10 years old, for sure!

[Ever Victorious]

How many years we are talking about. If it is about 8-10 years i ll be definitely buying a new car by that time. I don't want a keep a car for more than it is supposed to live. And with new technologies evolving every year (god, every month), i ll be looking elsewhere by the time my versa is 8-10 years old, for sure!

As I had mentioned in another post, the CVT on the Subaru Justy had an average life expectancy of only 70,000-80,000 miles. If you're an "average" driver (i.e. 15k miles/yr), this will only get you to 6 years. And in the case of the Subaru Justy, when the CVT failed, it was less expensive to pay a mechanic to refit the car with a manual than it was to repair/replace the CVT.

This is why I seriously hope that Nissan has a more durable transmission.

[skoobahead]

Nissan is putting this Trans in it's flagship Maxima. Trying to compare Nissans CVT's to a crappy 3 cylinder Subaru Justy is silly.Two completely different machines.

[8o88y]

I remembered hearing that the Dutch manufacturer DAF had CVTs back in the 70s, so I checked on Wikipedia (It's under DAF trucks) and saw that they built their first CVT model in 1958.
From the "CVT" article, Leonarco Da Vinci came up eith one concept for a CVT, and Daimler got a patent in 1886. A couple of motocycle makers used them prior to WW I. There was a British CVT car, the Clyno, in the 20s.

I always liked the idea of CVTs more than the driving experience, just like I enjoyed rebuilding automatics more than driving them.

[srellim234]

Getting back to the original post, efficiency and the CVT have been discussed at length in these forums since the Versa came out. The general consensus based on both gauges and experimentation is that the most efficient acceleration is achieved at around 1400 rpm. Sometimes that may seem slow but with practice you get used to it and it really isn't that bad. I would equate it to challenging yourself to get up to speed in a 2006 Prius (only models I have experience with) by using the electric motor only without the combustion engine.

Also be aware that for whatever reason the Versa has a definite break-in period compared to some other vehicles. Don't expect your best mileage right out of the starting gate. Mileage definitely improves after that break-in period.

Most efficient cruising speed is between 45-55 mph.

One thing you'll find with a Versa is that it does a lot of things very well but it isn't "knock your socks off" great at any specific feature. Other cars in its range may be better in an individual area (peppy, better mpg, etc.) but across the entire range the Versa is just steadily near the top in all of them.

[kc5f]

After putting over 150k miles on two Versas, I find myself accelerating at the RPM necessary for the speed I'm going to end up driving. On mine, that's been 1500 to go 45, 2000 to go 60 and 2500 to go 75. Seems to work out right as long as there's nobody right on my tail wanting to zoom out of the gate. And if there is, well, they get to wait!

As for the break-in, my mileage has consistently graphed as a sine wave, with better mileage in the summer. Each followed the sine wave right from the start, and so far have gotten identical mileage.

I agree with srellim about the Versa doing things well overall, and my next car will definitely have a CVT, and probably be another Versa!

[christian1]

so is it good to have a versa sl CVT or not , my neighbor told me to give my 2011 Versa Sl 13k miles on it for a Honda Fit , I've seen people here with Versa here with more than 100k miles on it ,so is it a good car ?

[kc5f]

Our three are still going strong, so I'd vote yes! One at 120k, one at 95k and mine still loafing at 83k, and not a problem with any of them beyond routine maintenance and one fuel pump replacement that was under warranty and common for that year. Even on this forum, there haven't been many reports of CVT problems, and a support forum is where folks usually go when they have problems.

I haven't changed my mind since my post 15 months ago - my next car will definitely have CVT and I still like Versas!

[christian1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjw6km86 ... re=related

copy and google ...youtube

[alonsorules8.1]

I have 104K miles on my 2008 Versa SL CVT not issues and still averaging 33.5 mpg. I love this car and will keep it for many years to come!

[silverarrow27]

Around 75k miles here and have not done any maintenance besides the routine oil changes. Need to replace the spark plugs & cvt transmission fluid soon.