As much as the CVT is put on a pedastel by those companies choosing to use it, I just saw an advertisement on TV for the new Nissan Altima. It claims with the 3.5L and CVT, the EPA got mileage of 19/26. I've gotten 21/27 in my Ranger before, with a 4.0L and a standard 5 speed transmission? Why does the Nissan Altima, with it's supposedly economically superior CVT, get worse mileage than my truck?

 

This is a guess but if the Altima is an '08 model, the EPA ratings are using a new method which substantially lowers the fuel efficiency estimate versus an identical '07 model.

I've noticed the ratings in the commercial for the Altima with the CVT and have wondered about that myself. I'm wondering what the HP ratings are for that engine and whether it is tuned for performance, not efficiency.

My Escapes have a CVT and it is unbelievably smooth. When I drive a car with a normal automatic it feels funny to have it shift.

 

Slightly depressing considering the 5.4L V8 just surpassed 270 a few years ago.

I don't see ratings for the 6-speed, but the only transmission options are a six speed manual or the CVT.

 

270 HP and getting 26 mpg highway doesn't seem all that bad. It's tough to compare an Altima to a Ranger (weight, drag coefficient, etc.) but your 4.0 is what, 160HP? Even if it is the SOHC it is still only 210. Big difference.

 

Indeed. Old school OHV, but I have highway gearing (3.08). Just kind of odd I thought to see a small car getting slightly worse mileage under some conditions than my small pickup, especially considering the CVT.

Just another reason to own a Ranger for me!

 

Believe it or not, the '08 Altima outweighs your Ranger. According to a review online, the curb weight for the Altima is 3290 pounds. That is up to several hundred pounds heavier than the Ranger, depending on cab and bed configuration.

You are right though, 26 seems low.

 

I read a bit in Car and Driver about the CVT. Seems Nissan is a hold out on the CVT, where others are going to 5 + speed conventional automatics. Where the CVT shines on matching engine speed to load, the cost of that is running the pump all the time to hold the pulley/chain system in place. So overall mpg isn't better, according to this article.

I have one in my Audi, not sure they are the answer.

And yes, the MPG numbers for '08 are refigured and will be lower, and supposedly more realistic.

 

"more realistic"...that will be fun to compare. I've seen them far too high, far too low, almost correct. Never seems to be a good way to test it. Perhaps they should put it through real world, non-controlled driving. A lot of us sit in traffic.

Kind of suprising that a car outweighs my truck. Oh well...I still like the Ranger better.

Nitramjr, where are you seeing an '08 Altima? I was on the Nissan website and all I saw was '07, and that was under the "Build your Nissan" thing.

 

I did a google search for "2008 Altima CVT" and found a review somewhere. I didn't save the site however.

 

Oh. Interesting. That's a new one to me. Thanks.

 

When I think of CVT I think of Go-carts and 4 wheelers Please tell me I'm wrong in thinking the mechanisms are the same as in a car...

 

Are CVTs popular in go-carts and the like? I always just figured it was a glorified torque converter attached to a single gear transmission.

 

Good comparison, operation is simular feeling, but actually it is a centrifical clutch, doesn't change / mulitiply torque at all. You are correct in that it is attatched normally to a single speed tranny, although some small motorcycles use a multi speed tranny. (manual shift lever)

Closest thing in the automotive world were the old fluid couplings. They also were incapable of torque multiplication that Torque Converter is capable of.

Not trying to correct and be a A hole here, just trying to clarify in case you might be wondering.

As to the CVT thing, I am not sure I buy into the whole improved economy thing, at least not in how they are being implemeted currently. There also has to be car and driving changes in order to gain the promised efficiencie's, at least in my educated opinion from what I know of mechanical engineering.

David

 

Very interesting, good stuff. Thanks for that dmanlyr.

 

CVT's are much different than a go cart.

read this

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/cvt4.htm