New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,767
    #1
    In terms of fuel economy, which is better?

    1. Mitsubishi LancerEX MX 1.6L (4-AT) or LancerEX GT-A 2.0L (6-CVT)?
    2. Toyota Altis 1.6G (4-AT) or Altis 2.0V (7-CVT)?

    Thanks.
    Last edited by red_one; August 1st, 2015 at 11:39 AM.

  2. Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    162
    #2
    Sir single speed lang ang mga CVT.

  3. Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    805
    #3
    CVT is always more fuel efficient compared to standard ATs,provided same engine specs is being used for comparison.

  4. Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,767
    #4
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjeff View Post
    Sir single speed lang ang mga CVT.
    Hehe, single speed so primera lang siya lagi?

    6-CVT and 7-CVT is from manufacturer datasheet and refer to equivalent speed when compared to conventional AT.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by mrjeff View Post
    Sir single speed lang ang mga CVT.
    Hehe, single speed so primera lang siya lagi?

    6-CVT and 7-CVT is from manufacturer datasheet and refer to equivalent speed when compared to conventional AT.

  5. Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,767
    #5
    Quote Originally Posted by e2romo View Post
    CVT is always more fuel efficient compared to standard ATs,provided same engine specs is being used for comparison.
    True but I am not comparing same engine specs in this thread. Please see car models I posted above. Thanks.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by e2romo View Post
    CVT is always more fuel efficient compared to standard ATs,provided same engine specs is being used for comparison.
    True but I am not comparing same engine specs in this thread. Please see car models I posted above. Thanks.

  6. Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    414
    #6
    Please add usage parameters such as percentile in city and highway driving, percentile on the number of passengers. And if the driver is male or female.

  7. Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    434
    #7
    IMHO, 1.6L still best for fuel economy. specially with stop and go traffic or city driving. unless we are talking about rpms above 4,000 or so. or higher speed wherein you can utilise the cvt's many gears.

    so which use will the cars be?

    Quote Originally Posted by red_one View Post
    In terms of fuel economy, which is better?

    1. Mitsubishi LancerEX MX 1.6L (4-AT) or LancerEX GT-A 2.0L (6-CVT)?
    2. Toyota Altis 1.6G (4-AT) or Altis 2.0V (7-CVT)?

    Thanks.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    IMHO, 1.6L still best for fuel economy. specially with stop and go traffic or city driving. unless we are talking about rpms above 4,000 or so. or higher speed wherein you can utilise the cvt's many gears.

    so which use will the cars be?

    Quote Originally Posted by red_one View Post
    In terms of fuel economy, which is better?

    1. Mitsubishi LancerEX MX 1.6L (4-AT) or LancerEX GT-A 2.0L (6-CVT)?
    2. Toyota Altis 1.6G (4-AT) or Altis 2.0V (7-CVT)?

    Thanks.

  8. Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    1,299
    #8
    Are you making an inquiry so you could get an idea if it's better to get a more powerful engine and yet more economical (CVT) than a smaller engine using traditional AT?

    Kung minimal lang ang difference nila in terms of FC, I might as well get the bigger CVT engine.

    Insterested din ako, which is better?

  9. Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,767
    #9
    Quote Originally Posted by jcal68 View Post
    Please add usage parameters such as percentile in city and highway driving, percentile on the number of passengers. And if the driver is male or female.
    Let's say 4 passengers and same driver for both cars. Take 3 scenarios:

    a) 75% city, 25% highway
    b) 25% city, 75% highway
    c) 50% city, 50% highway

  10. Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,767
    #10
    Quote Originally Posted by RC-V View Post
    Are you making an inquiry so you could get an idea if it's better to get a more powerful engine and yet more economical (CVT) than a smaller engine using traditional AT?

    Kung minimal lang ang difference nila in terms of FC, I might as well get the bigger CVT engine.

    Insterested din ako, which is better?
    Yes bro, that's exactly what I want to know.

  11. Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,668
    #11
    Stop and go traffic, smaller engine has better Fc, irregardless of transmission. Highway driving, big engine + cvt is way better.

  12. Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    227
    #12
    Quote Originally Posted by red_one View Post
    Hehe, single speed so primera lang siya lagi?

    6-CVT and 7-CVT is from manufacturer datasheet and refer to equivalent speed when compared to conventional AT.
    mrjeff is quite right. But it doesn't mean na naka primera lang siya lagi. A CVT is comprised of two pulleys connected by a belt. (Same sa mga motor na mio if you already ridden it). There are no set number of “gears” in a CVT because it can choose the exact gear ratio along a “variable” continuum between it’s lowest and highest gear ratios.

    Sa madaling salita, pulleys ang nagpapaandar sa mga CVT na sasakyan at hindi mga gears like the conventional Automatic Transmission cars na may gears.

  13. Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4,447
    #13
    Quote Originally Posted by istan View Post
    Stop and go traffic, smaller engine has better Fc, irregardless of transmission. Highway driving, big engine + cvt is way better.
    Agree. Stuck ka sa traffic, less sip ng fuel ang smaller engine

  14. Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27,624
    #14
    1.6 4at corolla prior the cvts are still fuel efficient if driven economically.

    The 2.0cvt cant match 30days of metro manila traffic fc of a 1.6 4at.

    For 40liters of 91ron in metro manila:

    320-400km on the 1.6 4At
    260-340km on the 2.0cvt

  15. Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,767
    #15
    Quote Originally Posted by ramones283 View Post
    mrjeff is quite right. But it doesn't mean na naka primera lang siya lagi. A CVT is comprised of two pulleys connected by a belt. (Same sa mga motor na mio if you already ridden it). There are no set number of “gears” in a CVT because it can choose the exact gear ratio along a “variable” continuum between it’s lowest and highest gear ratios.

    Sa madaling salita, pulleys ang nagpapaandar sa mga CVT na sasakyan at hindi mga gears like the conventional Automatic Transmission cars na may gears.
    Thanks sa clarification. But like what I already said, the 6-CVT and 7-CVT descriptions are from the manufacturer datasheet so I just posted as they are. This thread simply wants to compare small engine with traditional AT vs big engine with CVT.
    Last edited by red_one; August 1st, 2015 at 10:18 PM.

  16. Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,668
    #16
    Oh yea, i forgot. On highway driving, if u di maintain a cruising speed, say 80km/h, the one who has the less rpm wins. I think.

  17. Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,767
    #17
    Quote Originally Posted by StockEngine View Post
    1.6 4at corolla prior the cvts are still fuel efficient if driven economically.

    The 2.0cvt cant match 30days of metro manila traffic fc of a 1.6 4at.

    For 40liters of 91ron in metro manila:

    320-400km on the 1.6 4At
    260-340km on the 2.0cvt
    Thanks so converted..

    320-400km on the 1.6 4AT = 8-10 km/L
    260-340km on the 2.0 CVT = 6.5-8.5 km/L

    Are both values from the Corolla Altis?
    Last edited by red_one; August 2nd, 2015 at 09:13 AM.

  18. Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    54
    #18
    Quote Originally Posted by istan View Post
    Stop and go traffic, smaller engine has better Fc, irregardless of transmission. Highway driving, big engine + cvt is way better.
    with this, your query is already answered. up to you to decide.

  19. Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    27,624
    #19
    Quote Originally Posted by red_one View Post
    Thanks so converted..

    320-400km on the 1.6 4AT = 8-10 km/L
    260-340km on the 2.0 CVT = 6.5-8.5 km/L

    Are both values from the Corolla Altis?
    Yes displacement is a big factor in metro manila.

  20. Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,767
    #20
    Quote Originally Posted by StockEngine View Post
    Yes displacement is a big factor in metro manila.
    Okay, thanks again.
    Last edited by red_one; August 4th, 2015 at 09:42 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Small Engine (AT) vs Big Engine (CVT)