Small Engine (AT) vs Big Engine (CVT)

**red_one** · August 1st, 2015 11:36 AM

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.

**mrjeff** · August 1st, 2015 12:24 PM

Sir single speed lang ang mga CVT.

**e2romo** · August 1st, 2015 12:29 PM

CVT is always more fuel efficient compared to standard ATs,provided same engine specs is being used for comparison.

**red_one** · August 1st, 2015 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by mrjeff

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.

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

Originally Posted by mrjeff

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.

**red_one** · August 1st, 2015 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by e2romo

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.

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

Originally Posted by e2romo

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.

**jcal68** · August 1st, 2015 02:44 PM

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.

**baker123** · August 1st, 2015 03:25 PM

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?

Originally Posted by red_one

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?

Originally Posted by red_one

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.

**RC-V** · August 1st, 2015 05:20 PM

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?

**red_one** · August 1st, 2015 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by jcal68

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

**red_one** · August 1st, 2015 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by RC-V

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.