O.K., Let's Get One Thing Straight!

[achr]

Nissan's claim that the Versa with CVT is the "Best Performing" and "Highest Mileage" Versa of the bunch is just plain Blatantly False.

Although I still PREFER the CVT equipped Versa for its "Sedate Cruising Ability", it is neither the FASTEST nor most THRIFTY version. That honour goes to the 6 speed manual equipped versions.

Road & Track magazine did a comparison of the Versa, FIT, and Yaris in their April issue. See it here if you wish:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp ... =4806Their test specs for the 6 speed Versa were 0-60 mph in 9.1 seconds, quarter mile in 16.7 seconds at 84.1 mph, and their overall mileage while lead footing it around was a commendable 32.5 mpg.

Last Friday evening, I took my CVT equipped Versa to the track to verify my suspicions. While I don't have a 0 - 60 mph time, my car ran the quarter mile at an average of 17.44 seconds @ 128.2 kph (79.7 mph). Weather conditions were near perfect and there was no wind. I made four passes and COULD NOT break 80 mph no matter what I did. The major discovery of the evening was that a CVT equipped Versa would probably make a great "Bracket Racer". Over 4 runs, the total variation was 0.1 seconds and 0.3 mph. Now that's CONSISTENT! I made an entire pass in LOW range and there was NO difference in either engine revs nor performance than when leaving it in drive. While I've noticed a dramatic difference in acceleration feel at light throttle applications by selecting LOW ratio or hitting the OVERDRIVE bypass button, at full throttle, nothing makes any difference. The computer just takes over and places the revs just above peak horsepower at about 5,500 rpm. In short, my Versa will NEVER see engine redline at 6,500 rpm and that's fine by me.

On the mileage front, I have kept meticulous records since new and log the data into a spreadsheet. Over 2,164 miles, my Versa has averaged 30.55 mpg overall or about 2 mpg LESS than Road & Track magazine achieved with a 6 speed Versa throughout the course of their testing, which included time lapping a racetrack.

My testing days at the drag strip with the Versa are over. It was somewhat embarrassing to have VIRTUALLY the SLOWEST car at the track. For what it's worth, I DID manage to beat an old Mazda Protege on a holeshot but he ran about 2 mph faster. For all those who frequent the Nicco thread entitled "What Have You Beat", give your head a shake. ANY car can outperform another vehicle at a stoplight when the other driver is sleeping. Trust me. I outran my son to 45 mph in his 2.7 liter 200 horsepower V6 at which point I backed out of the throttle because he was asleep at the switch. I KNOW that his car can run the quarter mile in the high 15 second range at over 86 mph. Been there, done that!

SO, the next time a Nissan rep tells you that the CVT is the "Best Performing" Versa and that it delivers the "Best Mileage", just give him a friendly nod. T'ain't So! The RATINGS for fuel economy may be higher but the "Real World" tells a different story. And as far as acceleration goes, I don't know where Nissan gets off making claims that the CVT can outperform the 6 speed. Manual transmissions still RULE when it comes to absolute performance. The only thing certain is that a CVT equipped Versa revs nearly 1,000 rpm's lower at 75 mph than the 6 speed manual. I'll take that performance tradeoff for the sublime cruising peace and quiet and continue to enjoy my SL's sound system.

Cruise on!
Modified by achr at 12:54 PM 6/22/2007

[audtatious]

Conditions vary. Unless you drove both a 6sp and your CVT at the same track during the same timeframe it is pretty difficult to claim Nissan is false in its statements. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that taking your outing and comparing it to a test that was performed at a different track with different drivers and weather conditions is not what most would consider as proof.

[CodeRed]

Im pretty sure the versa hits its peek torque and HP at 5.5k RPM. so thats could be why the CVT is doing that.

[motoguy128]

Bottow line is that less than 10% of the populaiton is interested in shifting gears themselves. I think the CVT is an imrovement over an inexpensive 4 speed automatic you expect in an econobox and great for freeway crusing. However, although I haven't driven a CVT Versa, I would be hard pressed to outperform the compact 5 speed automatic in the Civic or VW's 6 speed automatic.

As for shifiting at the torque or HP peak... you typically want ot shift past the peak to get the maximum tractice force available. The higher the RPM, the more leverage you have with the same gear ratio. The combination of torque and gear ratio supply the actual force needed ot accelerate. That's how a semi with only 1200 ft-lbs of torque can move 80,000lbs while a car with only 120ft-lbs like the Versa will be unable to move 8000lbs.

So... you actually want to shift closer to 6000RPM for maximum acceleration. In addition the 6 speed has a slight weight advantage and transmits the power more effeciently than the CVT. In particular, you'll get a much faster launch wiht a manul if you're willing to abuse the clutch a little.

[benchthug]

ECU any one :P when will some company release an ecu for a cvt... of course why would nissan make your cvt a none smooth gear shifting... thats the only reason why your cvt is slower than your manual... at 0-40... try this on your cvt... double pump your gas... just try it :P dont burn out using your cvt also... because the cvt will be confused on what gear he is on hahahaha... :P

cvt = Smooth ShiftsAuto = semi smoothmanual = depends on the driver semi smooth to rough

[KimberKenobi]

I made four passes and COULD NOT break 80 mph no matter what I did.Cruise on!

How could you not beak 80? [edit stuff about driving 100 mph] You couldn't break 80 in a quarter mile? Then I don't think you're trying or something is wrong with your V. I can get up to 85 while driving up the merge lane onto the highway (I've done this a few times to place myself in front of a semi). That merge lane is a 1/4 mile or less and I'm not even trying with the V. And CodeRed is correct... 5,000 RPM is where you get your best moving power with the CVT V... it's a B**** with your gas, but it'll go where you want it and when.

As for the rest, you've gotta start out slow on the CVT and let it 'catch up' and then it'll do what you want it to... I've never tested mine flat out in a 1/4 mile, but maybe I'll try it this weekend...

Oh, and yeah, unless you had the same person driving both cars the same way on the same track near the same time, any comparison can't be taken at face value. It's too small of a sample and there's too many variables. (this is why I think the "Versa is trying to kill you" article is complete BS)

additional: typo... I meant to put 5000 RPM instead of 6000 RPM... so I'm fixing that.
Modified by KimberKenobi at 4:49 PM 6/22/2007

[HareBrained]

Note: "Best Performing" is relative. They might be referring to fuel economy or ride comfort or noise levels, not acceleration or handling. And it depends on what they're comparing to. You've taken it to mean compared to a 6-spd Versa.

And in the EPA 2007 highway test, the CVT does perform better than the 6-spd Versa (36 vs. 34). Of course, the EPA 2008 mileage tests are different because the manufacturers figured out how to tune their cars to perform well in the test (although it's not reflective of the real world).

In the intended context, those statements are entirely true. In you're context, they're not. There are laws against false advertising and companies are very aware of the claims they make for fear of actually having to support or fulfill them. There's a says: There is the truth, white lies, bold lies, and statistics. A corollary to this is: There is the truth, white lies, bold lies, and advertising.

[pingflood]

Nobody seems to have mentioned altitude yet.

Without having the corrected 1/4 mile stats (corrected for altitude, temp, humidity etc) it's apples to oranges. My '97 Formula would run a 14.2-14.3 at the track 45 mins from my house, and a 13.4 at the one a couple hours away. Difference? Altitude. Temp can also make a HUGE difference in the numbers.

Basically, the comparison is relatively worthless.

[benchthug]

it will only give you a average thats it... but dont base your decision over numbers... too many factors to consider... just bring it to the tracks... numbers are for giggles only... but the actual race bring it on :P

[COVersaSL]

ok.... anyone who has a CVT who wants to race my 6 speed let me know I will prove that achr is right. I live near Denver (so my high altitude quarter mile time would do no one any good and do the versa no justice). If you have a friend who has a Corrola bring them too I want to settle that one for my own well being.

I have an SL sedan, but the SL sedan is only 2 pounds lighter than SL hatchback. There is how ever a mentionable differance in the weight of the CVT versus the 6 MT, the CVT weighs over 40 lbs more than the 6 MT and that alone can be a deal breaker (depending on drivers weight etc.). I drove both and I know the 6 MT will walk on the CVT.

side note: I saw this posted in another thread but can't find it anymore, it is a Motor Trend article comparing the fit, Yaris and Versa w/ CVT. there are alot of numbers on the CVT in there. http://www.motortrend.com/road....html Also there is a Popular Mechanics article Battle of the B-cars http://www.popularmechanics.co...age=1Not that I didn't appreciate the Road&Track article mentioning that the Versa could beat the VW Jetta 2.5 I think that it was mostly a Toyota commercial.
Modified by COVersaSL at 9:49 PM 6/25/2007