New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 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
    803
    #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
    433
    #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
    1,298
    #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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Small Engine (AT) vs Big Engine (CVT)