[II Kings 9:20]

Mazda 6i Touring>Malibu LT>Accord Sport>Camry SE. The article is too new to link.

So much for the "superior MPG of the CVT". They have confirmed what I have pointed out for 2-3 years now. Once and for all we can put this foolishness to rest. The CVT does NOT get better fuel economy. Press releases claim better MPGs with a CVT and people here and elsewhere regurgitate what they read and before you know it, the CVT is the stuff of legends. If enough people repeat false or skewed marketing information enough, then it becomes truth.

C&D does not use the word "drone" vis a vis the CVT. Some of you will be happy to hear that (fb). Instead, they replaced the "d" in drone with an "m" and say it "moans".

Here is an excerpt:

"The editors united in their dislike of the CVT. By our fuel cards which rated all cars 23 except the thrifty Mazda which achieved 25, the CVT offers no fuel economy benefit. Don't believe us? Check the EPA ratings and the Accord rates only mid pack. Also it forces the engine to alternate constantly between near silence and a labored and moan as the transmission seeks just the right ratio for the situation. We know step gear-transmissions are old school but they work. Granted, in inches per hour commuting you may forget you have a CVT, but in every other situation you'll wonder why Honda, formerly the maestro of internal combustion, now produces cars that moan".

 

[Agent6er]

Glad the Malibu didn't win. The lower trim levels look cheap in person. 16" wheels on the base model look like they came off a late 90's grand am.

Oddly, though, is that the Mazda beat it. This year they dropped the Mazda from the 10 best from last year, but kept the accord.

 

[Personatech]

I'm shocked at such an unscientific conclusion on the part of C&D. The only way you could make the claim that a CVT provides absolutely no benefit with regards to fuel mileage is to test is with the exact same engine mated to a traditional AT (...and please, don't accuse me of being a CVT-lover - I'm not).

Of course, we'll never see that test. I suspect, though, that some engineers at Honda and Nissan HAVE performed such a test and have decided that the CVT does indeed offer some benefit in that area. There's no denying that MPGs have increased for the Accord I-4 from Gen 8 to Gen 9 (heck, EPA rating for the current V6 is better than that of my '08 EX-L I-4) but many variables have contributed to this. If anything, C&D's observed MPG can be attributed more to the Mazda's lighter curb weight and its engine's high compression ratio.

 

[savagexx1]

Consumer reports has mazda in 4th place behind Accord. 1st place is camry and 2nd is a subaru but can't remember which model off hand. I'll look again tomorrow and post a screen shot of the list.

 

[Flyboy]

C&D what a crock. Their testing is not very scientific but it's entertaining. They are like Fox News to a right winger or heroin to an addict. Their audience is made up of middle aged men who pine for a 1960s muscle car, sex without Viagra or a 2 seat sports car. The CVT does offer better milage despite the silly way the EPA determines fuel consumption.

My 2013 Accord Coupe regularly beats the EPA milage and gets a solid 30 MPG in real world driving. The other benefits are simpler design, fewer moving parts, lighter weight and better reliability. I've never heard the 'drone' or 'moan' but instead get smooth operation and great fuel economy. Additionally, I get the benefit of reducing my carbon footprint. Has anyone noticed that 2015 was the warmest year on record.

My wife's 2015 CRV 2 WD gets a solid 29 MPG the same milage as our 2007 Fit. If you really want a Mazda or a Chevy then good luck with reliability or resale value. Honda knows what their doing despite C&D.

 

[have2ride]

I just test-drove Mazda 6 GT with i-Loop braking, top-of-the line. Overall, it's a wonderful car. It has a HUD, Bose sound and a nice peppy 4-cylinder motor with paddle shifters (Accord doesn't have these). Fuel economy was 26 city (!)/40 hwy (!!!). But...

My shoulders don't fit into the seat. Also the ride is very stiff and seating position is a little too low/horizontal for my liking. In addition, lane keep-assist system is extremely sensitive on Mazdas (I also test drove CX-5 GT), it beeps non-stop, I had to turn it off right away (although we drove through some curvy back roads). If you are a smaller guy/girl and like sportier (bumpier?) handling, I would say Mazda is the closest best thing to the Accord.

 

[Blackheart]

I'm shocked at such an unscientific conclusion on the part of C&D. The only way you could make the claim that a CVT provides absolutely no benefit with regards to fuel mileage is to test is with the exact same engine mated to a traditional AT.

Well put. To take the point further, which "tradional AT" you mate to the engine can make a difference, too, not only in fuel efficiency, but, in driving characteristics. The only complaint I'd have so far regarding Honda's CVT, is it is a bit slow 0-25 mph....but, SHOCKER, I don't drag-race the Accord. I've never NOT pulled into traffic from a stop due to a lack of acceleration from 0-25. For a normally aspirated I4, the power is exceptionally good from 25-80.

I have a 2015 Camry with a 6 speed auto. My 2014 Accord with CVT gets 3-4 mpg higher than the Camry when I drive the cars. This is in either suburban or highway conditions, with a mix of occasional stop-and-go traffic. The Camry feels quicker from 0-25. The Accord feels quicker from 25-80. I prefer the Accord in stop-and-go, as I don't have to touch the brakes so much. I prefer the Camry on bumpy roads or the highway, as it's ride quality is smoother, and it's seat fits me better.

 

[Graycar]

Here's what Hyundai thinks of the CVT....

Hyundai: Dual-clutch transmissions match us better than CVTs

While a "smoother" transmission without defined shift-points, CVTs suffer frictional losses from dragging the transmission's steel belt around its pulleys in its search to find the optimum operating range. Meanwhile, a large hydraulic pump is required to clamp the pulleys together to deliver the power to the wheels.

Both those create parasitic power losses that degrade the CVT's performance and fuel economy, O'Brien said. What's more, the "rubber band" feeling of the CVT as it hunts for its best ratio is not conducive to enthusiastic driving. Also, CVTs are limited to smaller engine displacements with lower torque, limiting their applications.

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...1030/OEM/121039985/hyundai:-dual-clutch-transmissions-match-us-better-than-cvts

BTW, I drove a 2016 Hyundai Tucson yesterday with a 1.6 L Turbo 4-cyclinder mated to a 7-speed DCT. Great combination, IMO, very responsive with quick, smooth gear changes, and none of the dreaded "moaning" of a CVT when using lots of throttle.

 

[1accord]

I love my SPORT. Don't know enough about transmissions but even before test driving the accord, on paper I thought if this CVT engine is supposed to improve MPG, on paper it doesn't seem significant.

Other than that, I don't hear my car and don't care. I drink the Honda juice and love my sport and like(d) the Mazda 6.

And it is okay for an Accord to place 3rd, I assume for more reasons than just the CVT or mpg. Which 4 cylinder model did they test? Sp That may force Honda to improve on whatever area there is for the next year or next model.

And while agree some magazines have poor writers, I realize that they are just opinions. So a consumer report article is just an opinion also.

 

[TMVB]

If they were getting low 20's with all of these cars, they were driving them very spirited. Which in my mind is not where the Honda CVT was intended and is not how your typical mid-sized sedan driver will drive it. Drivers who want to push their car will select a 6MT or a V6 with either AT or 6MT.

A test like this is like tracking a Prius and then complaining that it only delivered 20 MPG and very slow times. That's not why people by a Prius and not how they were intended to be driven. Same for this test of the CVT Accord.

I'm not a defender of the CVT but if you're a typical Accord buyer, it will work just fine for you.

 

[14v6]

Mazda 6i Touring>Malibu LT>Accord Sport>Camry SE. The article is too new to link.

Also it forces the engine to alternate constantly between near silence and a labored and moan as the transmission seeks just the right ratio for the situation.

This sums it up. Driving the CVT is like driving an engine with an on-off switch. Honda makes beautiful engines but you don't need them anymore, the CVT equipped cars spend most of their life lugging the car around as close to idle as possible while vibrating. Floor them and you get the dreaded drone. It's a totally different approach that IMO is a net loss to an enthusiast. So while the CVT doesn't provide out of this world MPG increases, it must have saved Honda something in production costs.

 

[1accord]

If they were getting low 20's with all of these cars, they were driving them very spirited. Which in my mind is not where the Honda CVT was intended and is not how your typical mid-sized sedan driver will drive it. Drivers who want to push their car will select a 6MT or a V6 with either AT or 6MT.


I'm not a defender of the CVT but if you're a typical Accord buyer, it will work just fine for you.

I agree with your last sentence. Probably about 60% of typical accord buyers are not even going to know they have a CVT, among other things.

However, I do disagree with your first statement and many others who have said this about Accords and/or family sedans. Anyone can drive a car spiritedly. An ccord is not intended to be driven like a SUV/off road or to tow heavy loads. Anything else is fair game and every car manufacture knows that. With the Accord and Camry being the top selling sedans that means the likelihood of an average spirited driver has one is high. Not to mention how many accord buyers are handing them down to their teenagers or being bought used by someone younger all who the insurance companies say are at higher risk. My dad drove his Corolla with Spirit. I hit 90mph in my moms 94 Civic several times as a teen. I actually get frustrated when I drive behind BMWS, and other fast luxury cars with V6 and V8 engines driving below or just at the speed limit on the highway. I am like "do you know what you car can do?..Move!"

Choosing a V6 on MT is based on availability and price. And they are still regular safe rule-following manual transmission drivers.

Again my statement was directed at all who think that way and not you directly @TMVB

 

[WhiteOrchid]

This C&D bunch is the same bunch of dip(BOWEL MOVEMENTS)s that picked the Mustang over the GTO in a 2005 model head to head comparison even though the GTO proved superior in every single performance category they measured, so go figure. I've driven both and there is a reason I own a GTO and not a Mustang. The GTO is a vastly superior car in almost every respect.

It all boils down to which company generates more advertising revenue with their magazine I would guess.

 

[Flyboy]

Here's what Hyundai thinks of the CVT....

Hyundai: Dual-clutch transmissions match us better than CVTs

While a "smoother" transmission without defined shift-points, CVTs suffer frictional losses from dragging the transmission's steel belt around its pulleys in its search to find the optimum operating range. Meanwhile, a large hydraulic pump is required to clamp the pulleys together to deliver the power to the wheels.

Both those create parasitic power losses that degrade the CVT's performance and fuel economy, O'Brien said. What's more, the "rubber band" feeling of the CVT as it hunts for its best ratio is not conducive to enthusiastic driving. Also, CVTs are limited to smaller engine displacements with lower torque, limiting their applications.

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...1030/OEM/121039985/hyundai:-dual-clutch-transmissions-match-us-better-than-cvts

BTW, I drove a 2016 Hyundai Tucson yesterday with a 1.6 L Turbo 4-cyclinder mated to a 7-speed DCT. Great combination, IMO, very responsive with quick, smooth gear changes, and none of the dreaded "moaning" of a CVT when using lots of throttle.

Why only seven gears? Why not a 14 gear dual clutch transmission. Much better and closer to a CVT without the 'moan'. :devil

 

[TMVB]

I agree with your last sentence. Probably about 60% of typical accord buyers are not even going to know they have a CVT, among other things.

However, I do disagree with your first statement and many others who have said this about Accords and/or family sedans. Anyone can drive a car spiritedly. An ccord is not intended to be driven like a SUV/off road or to tow heavy loads. Anything else is fair game and every car manufacture knows that. With the Accord and Camry being the top selling sedans that means the likelihood of an average spirited driver has one is high. Not to mention how many accord buyers are handing them down to their teenagers or being bought used by someone younger all who the insurance companies say are at higher risk. My dad drove his Corolla with Spirit. I hit 90mph in my moms 94 Civic several times as a teen. I actually get frustrated when I drive behind BMWS, and other fast luxury cars with V6 and V8 engines driving below or just at the speed limit on the highway. I am like "do you know what you car can do?..Move!"

Choosing a V6 on MT is based on availability and price. And they are still regular safe rule-following manual transmission drivers.

Again my statement was directed at all who think that way and not you directly @TMVB

Fair enough. I can be guilty of over-generalizing. And at the risk of doing it yet again, I'll say that Accord buyers that value a quicker car will pick the 6MT or V6. That was how I picked - drove 6MT back-to-back with CVT. Picked 6MT because I valued how much quicker it was over the added bells and whistles of the higher trim levels that forced you into CVT.

 

[Graycar]

Why only seven gears? Why not a 14 gear dual clutch transmission. Much better and closer to a CVT without the 'moan'. :devil

If you ever say anything that makes one scintilla of sense, I'm gonna call Ripley's.

 

[Agent6er]

This C&D bunch is the same bunch of dip(BOWEL MOVEMENTS)s that picked the Mustang over the GTO in a 2005 model head to head comparison even though the GTO proved superior in every single performance category they measured, so go figure. I've driven both and there is a reason I own a GTO and not a Mustang. The GTO is a vastly superior car in almost every respect.

It all boils down to which company generates more advertising revenue with their magazine I would guess.

I have listen to podcasts discuss this.
, and it's almost always the same conversation. People that work for magazines say it doesn't happen. People that USED to work for magazines say it does happen.

 

[II Kings 9:20]

This sums it up. Driving the CVT is like driving an engine with an on-off switch. Honda makes beautiful engines but you don't need them anymore, the CVT equipped cars spend most of their life lugging the car around as close to idle as possible while vibrating. Floor them and you get the dreaded drone. It's a totally different approach that IMO is a net loss to an enthusiast. So while the CVT doesn't provide out of this world MPG increases, it must have saved Honda something in production costs.

In fairness to Honda, my 8 speed S60 lugs the engine under some light throttle conditions in the name of max MPG until it downshifts. No moan, but definitely acts like an old 5 speed manual in 5th when you should be in 3rd or 4th.

Obviously in a test like this, they drive them hard. Many dual Camry/Accord owners report better MPGs with the Accord as stated elsewhere in this thread and 3-4 MPG seems about the norm. I know of 1 person with a Mazda 6 that is equal to my Accord's 31 average but the driving conditions and style are from an entirely different person. Suffice it to say, the CVT is not de facto superior in MPGs to a good 6A.

 

[Graycar]

In fairness to Honda, my 8 speed S60 lugs the engine under some light throttle conditions in the name of max MPG until it downshifts. No moan, but definitely acts like an old 5 speed manual in 5th when you should be in 3rd or 4th.

{bold added}

Does your Volvo have selectable drive modes? If yes, you should not experience any lugging in "sport" mode. True?

BTW, I recently found out that the BMW X1 uses the same FWD Aisin 8-speed auto as in your Volvo. I have read good things about this transmission. Maybe Honda should have gone this route, rather than the ZF 9-speed.

 

[WhiteOrchid]

I have listen to podcasts discuss this.
, and it's almost always the same conversation. People that work for magazines say it doesn't happen. People that USED to work for magazines say it does happen.

And to further that thought we should be able to rely on magazines like Consumer Reports since they don't accept advertisements, but I've always had trouble with their measurement criteria which is entirely devoid of any enthusiast input (which makes sense given their intended audience) but their reliance on owners' self reporting is still suspect.

If you buy a Chevy you are going to be much more likely to report issues because you expect them to occur yet the average owner of a Lexus has to justify the expense in their own minds more and are willing to overlook certain failings which go entirely unreported. For example, my family has owned many GM products over the years and never once had anything approaching the level of problems as would appear to be the case given Consumer Reports statistics on GM products.

I remember once reading their review of the very same Toyota model I had just bought new and one of their complaints which cost the car points in the comparison was that the window crank took too many turns (4) to raise the window (should be 3 or less according to them). Seriously? In 25 years of ownership I put 278,000 miles in on that car and never once had an issue with having to turn the window crank 4 times to lower or raise the window.