Versa 6 speed VS. CVT in snow driving

[Wyld Bill]

So we could have bought a Versa that was exactly we the wife & I wanted EXCEPT it was a CVT instead of a 6 speed. So we didn't get it & now we are having a heck of a atime & in for a LONG wait to get a 6 speed SL Versa. My wifes arguement for holding out for a MT Versa is because manuals are safer, go better, & are more predicable in the snow & she commutes all the time in bad weather in the winter. I can SORT of see her point. I'd say that an auto is more of a problem in a rear wheel drive standard where the vehicle up shifts on ice & the rear suddenly tries to slide out. What do you guys think? How are the CVTs in the snow & ice compared to a regular transmission? Seems like there would be less issues because there is no real ""shifting" going on.

Also is there a 1st & 2nd postion on the shifter in a CVT Versa?? So like coming up our steep driveway you could put it in 1st & it would control wheel speed.

[versabundus]

Don't get me wrong, I love my Versa, but if I lived in Maine, I think I would look for something with AWD. Have you seen the new Suzuki SX4? About the same size and price with more features and standard AWD. Can be had 5 mt or auto. A nice feature is that you can lock the awd under 36 mph. for better traction. It doesn't snow much in South Jersey, but when it does, I break out the trusty Beach Buggy/Pine Barren Bogger/ Snow Plowin'/ Gas Suckin' Jeep.

[Ever Victorious]

I suppose that all depends on your level of comfort with driving in inclement weather. FWD in blizzards in our mountain passes here doesn't faze me, even done it a couple times on all-season radials.

Traditional autos aren't as good in snow, FWD or RWD, because they won't lock in gear and can shift at an inopportune time, leaving you with too much power or not enough (causing you to compensate by overpowering).

Newer manumatic transmissions act exactly like manuals in snow. I do not know if the CVT on the Versa has a manumatic mode... (but the Altima has a 6-speed manumatic program on its CVT)

[Wyld Bill]

Well, been looking at the Suzuki now HARD. The Sport is just about the same exact car as the Versa we ordered. Then I noticed the gas milage,..WHOA! 23/28 compared to 30/36 with the Versa. A tough pill to swallow to get AWD.

[catnap]

Well, been looking at the Suzuki now HARD. The Sport is just about the same exact car as the Versa we ordered. Then I noticed the gas milage,..WHOA! 23/28 compared to 30/36 with the Versa. A tough pill to swallow to get AWD.

Well 25-26 is what I've been getting on my Versa so maybe you should go with the Suzuki if it actually gets that gas mileage.

[oleblue]

have you read our gas mileage threads?...

As far as the CVT on snow and Ice. Car sucks on ice, it won't turn, as the wife found out. I have driven ours in about 6" of snow, it did good until a packed section on a 10% uphill grade going about 5mph.. Almost made it. A sanding truck was coming down another street that meet up with the oneway one I was on, he backed up and put some sand down for me, then it was no problem. So far I like the CVT in the snow, it has done well, don't think a manual will make much differance. The CVT can keep real low RPM's which is like keeping a manual in 3rd or higher when needed.

[motoguy128]

My 4 cylinder Accord Coupe was excellent on snow and ice. My girlfriend at hte time had a GMC Sonoma 4x4 with off road tires, and my Accord could dirve circles around it in the snow... as long as it was less than 10" deep.

Small cars on the otherhand... suffer from having to large of a contact patch for their weight and short wheelbased don't offer enough stability.

I'll wait and see about the Versa. My Toyota Corolla wasn't the best, but much better than a '91 Tercel I owned in Michigan. But in 6 Michigan winters... I was never stuck or stranded. In slippery stuff, I'd probably stard out in 2nd gear and just keep the RPM's low. I think it should do fine. The narrow 185 tires should help.

[Ever Victorious]

Well, been looking at the Suzuki now HARD. The Sport is just about the same exact car as the Versa we ordered. Then I noticed the gas milage,..WHOA! 23/28 compared to 30/36 with the Versa. A tough pill to swallow to get AWD.

I think I had asked in another thread if this SX4 you referred to was an Aerio SX, and you said "no".

After looking the car up today, the answer is actually "yes". It replaces the Aerio wagon, with some styling updates at the same time, and took away the 2WD option.

The car uses the 2.0L Holden (Australian) engine, which is an ANCIENT design, and was never terribly efficient or powerful for its size. Though its actual power ratings are higher than the Versa, I can confirm it is slower from past experience with the model it replaced.

I haven't sat in the redesigned one, but if it's similar to the vehicle it replaced, it is NOWHERE near as comfortable as the Versa.

Get the best of both worlds... Import a 1.5 AWD Tiida from Japan. There's a company that does it..

[versabundus]

Age of engine design means nil. Not trying to start an argument, but the Holy Grail V6 in the Z and Maxima was debuted in 1984 in the US. Probably earlier in Japan. The car itself is nothing like the Aerio.If you've ever sold cars or Real estate, you've probably heard of the "ben Franklin" close. That's where a salesman takes a piece of paper, devides it in half, and writes down the attributes and detriments of 2 vehicles or properties for comparison. Kind of like the comparison feature on the car web sites. In that situation, the versa does very poorly. If you go to Suzukiis web site and look at the standard features of the SX4 you'll be amazed. Things like ABS, 4 wheel disk brakes, Power package, remote entry,mp3radio,i AWD (read about this,only car in this segment that offers it), 16" alloy wheels. Anyway,you get the idea. take a look and compare. And no, I don't regret buying the Versa, I think it's a great car. But it's my wifes. When I need a new one, the choice will be harder. Oh, by the way, The SX4 is a joint venture with Fiat, It has a decidedly European feel also. The Europeans can get it with Fiat's very popular 1.9-litre DDiS turbo diesel offering 44 mpg!

Modified by versabundus at 3:21 AM 11/18/2006
Modified by versabundus at 3:46 AM 11/18/2006

[jacksan1]

I think I had asked in another thread if this SX4 you referred to was an Aerio SX, and you said "no".

After looking the car up today, the answer is actually "yes". It replaces the Aerio wagon, with some styling updates at the same time, and took away the 2WD option.

The car uses the 2.0L Holden (Australian) engine, which is an ANCIENT design, and was never terribly efficient or powerful for its size. Though its actual power ratings are higher than the Versa, I can confirm it is slower from past experience with the model it replaced.

I haven't sat in the redesigned one, but if it's similar to the vehicle it replaced, it is NOWHERE near as comfortable as the Versa.

Get the best of both worlds... Import a 1.5 AWD Tiida from Japan. There's a company that does it..

I agree with EV about SX4's engine being ancient. It's an old engine, unlike the lightweight and torquey 1.5 L that is the preferred choice with the JDM SX4. I drove a 1.5L SX4 in Japan and was impressed. It did not feel at all like such a small engine. Overall, SX4 is a tremendous improvement over the previous generation Suzuki anything. I wish we could also receive their Swift, which SX4 is based on.

Oh, about the Tiida 4WD, not that anyone here is likely to try to go and get it, but my advice if you are ever tempted: "Don't." It's NOT an AWD, but a true temporary if-I-ever-slip-at-the-get-go-this-system-MIGHT-help-me-so-it's-better-than-nothing option. This system, e・4WD, only kicks in when the front wheels slip at the start. It engages only when the car is in the first gear (no CVT available for e・4WD) and the vehicle speed is under 30 km/h, meaning that in most cases, you are in 4WD literally for seconds, and that's it. It absolutely does nothing when you are driving normally.　The advantage of this system is that you need not ask pedestrians to push your car in likely scenarios. That's about it.

[Ever Victorious]

Age of engine design means nil. Not trying to start an argument, but the Holy Grail V6 in the Z and Maxima was debuted in 1984 in the US. Probably earlier in Japan. The car itself is nothing like the Aerio.If you've ever sold cars or Real estate, you've probably heard of the "ben Franklin" close. That's where a salesman takes a piece of paper, devides it in half, and writes down the attributes and detriments of 2 vehicles or properties for comparison. Kind of like the comparison feature on the car web sites. In that situation, the versa does very poorly. If you go to Suzukiis web site and look at the standard features of the SX4 you'll be amazed. Things like ABS, 4 wheel disk brakes, Power package, remote entry,mp3radio,i AWD (read about this,only car in this segment that offers it), 16" alloy wheels. Anyway,you get the idea. take a look and compare. And no, I don't regret buying the Versa, I think it's a great car. But it's my wifes. When I need a new one, the choice will be harder. Oh, by the way, The SX4 is a joint venture with Fiat, It has a decidedly European feel also. The Europeans can get it with Fiat's very popular 1.9-litre DDiS turbo diesel offering 44 mpg!

The Z and Maxima engines, though based on an old engine, have received many MANY technological upgrades over the years. The Holden engine has only improved its technology for the purposes of passing US emissions.

I used to own many cars with technology very similar to the i-4WD system. They were all built in the late 80's and early 90's, by Subaru. While their 4WD systems were very good in the snow and ice, they had two problems.. first, they relied on the HUMAN to switch them to the correct mode, and they also relied on a vacuum system to actually actuate the change (I'm sure the Suzuki's is electronic, but that's still, in a nutshell, one more piece to go wrong vs. a permanent AWD system like the modern Subaru).

[versabundus]

The Z and Maxima engines, though based on an old engine, have received many MANY technological upgrades over the years. The Holden engine has only improved its technology for the purposes of passing US emissions.

I used to own many cars with technology very similar to the i-4WD system. They were all built in the late 80's and early 90's, by Subaru. While their 4WD systems were very good in the snow and ice, they had two problems.. first, they relied on the HUMAN to switch them to the correct mode, and they also relied on a vacuum system to actually actuate the change (I'm sure the Suzuki's is electronic, but that's still, in a nutshell, one more piece to go wrong vs. a permanent AWD system like the modern Subaru).

What were these many, many improvements (other than the timing CHAIN that came along after 10 years of belts, in an interference engine no less) Secondly,the i AWD system is an AWD system not a 4wd . It offers the convenience of auto AWD plus the ability to LOCK into 2wd for economy plus locking into 50/50 AWD. BTW The 2.0 in the sx4 is a Japanese built variant of the 2.3 in the aerio. The chassis is based on the Swift. And the body was designed by Ital.

[Ever Victorious]

What were these many, many improvements (other than the timing CHAIN that came along after 10 years of belts, in an interference engine no less) Secondly,the i AWD system is an AWD system not a 4wd . It offers the convenience of auto AWD plus the ability to LOCK into 2wd for economy plus locking into 50/50 AWD. BTW The 2.0 in the sx4 is a Japanese built variant of the 2.3 in the aerio. The chassis is based on the Swift. And the body was designed by Ital.

Oh, I don't know, variable valve timing? microfinished cam shafts? Just to name a couple. And most engines now are interference engines. Last time I personally saw a new non-interference engine was in '96.

And the current Z/Maxima engine has actually changed enough from the days of the 80's that it's no longer a VG series. It's the VQ series. But hey, who cares about that part, right?

Now with regard to the 2.0 in the Suzuki... I do apologize, I was mistaken. It is NOT the Holden 2.0L.

Though it does not say this on the Suzuki site, I found a little more info on the i-AWD system that says that the AWD lock 1) does not work at over 26 (or was it 32?) mph and 2) does not actually LOCK it at a 50-50 ratio... rather it limits the ratio going to the rear to between 30 and 50 percent.

AWD/4WD systems (of ANY variety) are going to make a car 100-400 pounds heavier than a 2WD counterpart (depending on the size of the car and complexity of the system). That may actually very much account for most of the inefficiency.

Take two examples here: Subaru example... '95 FWD Impreza wagon vs. the same year Impreza OBS wagon with AWD. Same engine, same car/aerodynamics. The AWD weighs 100 pounds more, yet gets exactly the same mileage as the FWD. Nissan example... '06 Murano S 2WD vs. '06 Murano S AWD. AWD weighs 130 lbs more, gets 1 less mpg than the 2WD counterpart in both categories.

Besides that, Suzuki in the USA has about as positive of an image as Kia. The last time we had a Suzuki over here called the "Swift", it was a great gas mileage car... 50 MPG! Unfortunately, it was also a huge pile of crap that was made of such cheap/thin materials that all you'd have left after about 120k miles was an engine and transmission. (try finding, for instance, a good driver's door handle on one of these things with more than 100k miles on them)

But you might remember its fleet twin better. The Geo Metro.

[motoguy128]

I have to agree with engine age.... it doesn't mean that much. Most of the Toyoa and Honda powertrains date bakc to the early 90's, but they've continued to increase displacement and evolve the valvetrain.

If you compare the SX4 to other AWD vehicles over 2800lbs and it's not terrible, but not that great either. The 4x4 RAV4 166HP 4 cylinder for example gets 23/27... but weighs 3500lbs. The RAV 4 4x4 V6 gets 21/29, but weighs almost 3700lbs.

You have to look at the features vs. price and then factor in economy. The difference between 30mpg and 23mpg is $1500 over 50,000 miles @ $3.00/gallon. So you need to add that to the purchase price for direct comparison.

A big A** SUV uses about $6000 more gas than the Versa... but when your buying a $40,000+ vehicle... is that really important? When compared to a minivan (comparable seating capacity) it's about a $4000 difference.

In terms of power to weight ratio, the SX4 outmuscles the Versa by a small margin. I still think the Versa has more bank for the buck... being about one thousand less... and toss in that $1500 in gas.

[versabundus]

I remember both the swift and the geo metro, and I remember that they were very very inexpensive. Cars evolve. The absolute worst piece of crap I ever had the misfortune to drive was a 1970 Honda 600. Not any better but a little more durable was the Subaru 360. The Techological improvements that you mention, while important, were not really pioneered by Nissan, nor could they be construed as many, many. I realize that I'm nitpicking, but so are you. Nah-na- nah-na-nana

[Ever Victorious]

I'm a life long nitpicker. It brings endless fun for me. Sorry if I got you hot under the collar at all.

[versabundus]

I'm a life long nitpicker. It brings endless fun for me. Sorry if I got you hot under the collar at all.

Of course not! Anything short of a 2x4 across the back of the head doesn't really faze me. I enjoy a good argument that doesn't include politics or religion.

[Ever Victorious]

Sweet!

Though I do have a lot of 2x4's in my back yard. Most of them are rotten. Stupid crackmonkey that built the last deck....