I'm curious.....

My V is a 6 sp and at 70 (in 6th gear - cruise on), the tach reads right at 3,200 rpm. Mom's V is a CVT. She's told me that her tach shows about 2,200 at 70.

Just wondering if this is about where everybody else's tachs are running.

(I'm guessing this is why the CVT is rated with slightly higher mpg's than the 6 speed.)

Paula

That's absolutely right. And you've discovered the BLARING flaw in this vehicle. The 6MT is waaayyy to short. Why even bother making a 6sp with that sort a top gear is quite beyond me. Especially knowing how well the engine pulls at 2200 RPM with the CVT. I had my versa up to 100 MPH about a month ago ant only tached 3500 at that speed. SMOOTH as a baby's butt too.

That's the main reason I opted for the CVT. I drove both and at 70-80 MPH there's no comparison. Especially with how buzzy the engine gets above 3K.

Ben

I fully expected the 4 banger to run faster, but it really surprised me that the CVT was only running 2200 @ 70 mph. Hell... my Titan with the 5.6 V8 ran 2K @ 70 (but then that wonderful beast, at best, on a really good day with a tail wind, would only get 18 mpg on the highway - ~ 14 in town).

Paula

Paula wrote:I fully expected the 4 banger to run faster, but it really surprised me that the CVT was only running 2200 @ 70 mph. Hell... my Titan with the 5.6 V8 ran 2K @ 70 (but then that wonderful beast, at best, on a really good day with a tail wind, would only get 18 mpg on the highway - ~ 14 in town).

Paula

The gearing is set for international use being a Renault gearbox and engine and for the larger heavier B platform vehciles. In most countries, a car like this is used most often commuting on country roads or in the city, nmot on freeways like in the US. The tradeoff of a short top gear, is better responsiveness at 50-60mph. If it was taller everyone would complain how it felt like a slug at 55mpg.

My Honda Accord with a 5 speed automatic ran around 2300 @ 70mph and was less responsive without downshifting. My '03 Corolla ran about 3000RPM, and was also a little less responsive.

Overall I think it's about right. This way you can go up rolling hills with 4 adults or even a trailer without downshifting as often. With the ultra low 1st gear, you reduce clutch wear and can idle in slow traffic at 5mph without using the clutch. You can also stay in 3rd gear for most turns.

motoguy128 wrote:Overall I think it's about right. This way you can go up rolling hills with 4 adults or even a trailer without downshifting as often. With the ultra low 1st gear, you reduce clutch wear and can idle in slow traffic at 5mph without using the clutch. You can also stay in 3rd gear for most turns.

Haven't had 4 adults in it yet, but I understand what you're saying. I'm not complaining, I was just curious. Yes, 1st is ultra low and actually it starts from a dead stop in 2nd pretty well (doesn't like to try to do that in 3rd tho !). It had been over 10 years since I'd driven a stick and those were 4 & 5 speeds. It has taken some time to get used to the 6 speed and to get the feel for 1st & 3rd.

I'm having to "re-learn" driving a standard trans. and am forcing myself to stay off the clutch in turns.

Paula

Ultra-low 1st gear...

Maybe they got the final drive wrong.

I think a six speed should have a nice tall 6th gear. 5 are enough for driving in-town, maybe 1 too many. Anyone not liking the responsiveness in 6th could use 5th instead, but what choice do you have now? Can't shift up into 7th. Methinks it's a mistake: a bad choice. At least for this market. For TOKYO it's probably perfet the way it is.

Ben

I dunno, I'm actually extremely happy with the 6-speed. 1st is slow as a dog, but all the other gears are REALLY responsive.

I HAVE had 4 adults in the car (not small ones, either) plus over 100 pounds of cargo at the same time, and 6th held up pretty well at the 70 mph speed limits over the hills in eastern WA. Only the highest of the hills (such as Umptanum Ridge) and the actual mountain passes coming back into western WA (like Snoqualmie) required me to downshift to 5th... and that wasn't for very long.

Looking at the EPA expected fuel economy for the car when I bought it, I was going into this expecting to get 28 city and 30-32 combined. I've been delighted that I have actually been getting 30 city and 32 combined.

I drove Mom's V today to an old country store to listen to bluegrass/gospel music. The ONLY reason I drove was because we had 5 adults and Mom fit better in the back seat (one rather large lady (probably close to 300#) and her bf already back there). It was either that or take 2 cars. I don't have any idea what the payload of the V is, but I imagine we were close to, if not exceeding it.

Not too many hills where we went, but some curvy country roads. It was about a 20 mile ride and the CVT handled the FULL load very well.

Paula