[-xplora-]

Originally Posted by keroo1099

That's exactly the point I was trying to convey to xplora and in the bargain was willing to give him the benefit of all possible doubts.

Maybe like you say the manual is more efficient than the CVT in certain conditions, but overall the CVT is efficiency king and that's why most manufacturers are shifting to the CVT for their mass market cars which is a pity for us 'stick' guys.

I was not promoting the idea that it makes sense to buy CVT if FE is the main issue. That is directly proportional to daily usage. My monthly usage is 300 km. Still I would prefer the CVT anyday.

I was simply replying to a query asking if CVT gives less FE than MT and if it makes sense to buy a CVT per se.

One more thing I realised is that MT is more fun if you have a very torquey diesel engine, in petrol MT vs CVT S mode with paddle shifters, I don't think the "enthusiasm" is reduced. If anything, paddle shifters are fun and easily mimics the torque rush you get in a MT gear change.

[keroo1099]

Originally Posted by -xplora-

I was not promoting the idea that it makes sense to buy CVT if FE is the main issue. That is directly proportional to daily usage. My monthly usage is 300 km. Still I would prefer the CVT anyday.

You are buying it for convenience, which is perfectly fine. That's why it's called horses for courses.

Originally Posted by -xplora-

I was simply replying to a query asking if CVT gives less FE than MT and if it makes sense to buy a CVT per se.

As pointed out by some, the CVT should be more efficient.

Originally Posted by -xplora-

One more thing I realised is that MT is more fun if you have a very torquey diesel engine, in petrol MT vs CVT S mode with paddle shifters, I don't think the "enthusiasm" is reduced. If anything, paddle shifters are fun and easily mimics the torque rush you get in a MT gear change.

For some of us a MT is just more fun, PERIOD. Just for the sake of it go test drive an Abarth Punto if you can.

[onelife]

Originally Posted by riteshritesh

Push it a bit further and go for the CVT. You won't regret the decision. If you stay close to Dadar or Chembur, you are free to try my Car.

Thanks for the offer, but I stay in Thane :(. Actually the CVT is stretching beyond my budget a bit and that is why I am not yet completely sure.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by -xplora-

Every penny. Even if the CVT was 2 lacs more than MT I would have gone for it. A good CVT will almost always have more fuel economy than a MT if driven in ECO band. Reason being CVT has unlimited gears (technically no gears, two cones and a belt). Hence, while in manual when you change gears, you are engaging the clutch and dis-engaging one gear and engaging another, the time, however small to do that counts. Engine RPMs are still running while that is happening, causing fuel wastage. In CVT there is no need for that, as at every level there is engagement, hence better mileage. I think Honda CVT will give you 1km more than MT.

I don't think it happens this way. The reason why the CVT gives better ARAI mileage than the manual is because it has a more relaxed high speed cruising ability at lower rpms.

But in general the transmission losses are much higher in the CVT compared to the manual. Moreover, the new generation CVTs also incorporate a small torque converter than again has losses, but helps reducing the rubber band effect.

Guess this has already been noted in the City threads as well that the CVT gives slightly less FE than the manual, but still a very respectable figure considering the convenience it offers.

[JediKnight]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

I don't think it happens this way. The reason why the CVT gives better ARAI mileage than the manual is because it has a more relaxed high speed cruising ability at lower rpms.

But in general the transmission losses are much higher in the CVT compared to the manual. Moreover, the new generation CVTs also incorporate a small torque converter than again has losses, but helps reducing the rubber band effect.

Guess this has already been noted in the City threads as well that the CVT gives slightly less FE than the manual, but still a very respectable figure considering the convenience it offers.

Completely agreed . We have seen that the real life mileage in case of MT
Honda city is more than the CVT although ARAI claims otherwise. ARAI
figures are more academic than real. I don't think it will any different for
BRV.

From my experience in driving the 4th Gen Honda City i can say that
the 1.5 ivtech's rev happy nature complements the Honda's slick
shifting gearbox beautifully. When you floor the throttle the CVTs rubber
band effect is very obvious in the City. In the manual you can really enjoy
the heady top end of the engine. Also i found the manual to be very easy
to drive within the city as well. The flexible nature of the engine make it
very easy to punt around in slow traffic in second gear. The latest iteration
of the 1.5 ivtech has good low down torque vis-a-vis the 1.5 iVtech seen in
the third gen city. Buy the CVT if you must. But for the keen driver 1.5
iVtech with MT is the best power power-train combination.

[SmartCat]

That's why I mentioned that "CVT has no FE disadvantage when compared to MT" rather than saying "CVT is more fuel efficient than MT". Depending on certain traffic/speed conditions, either of the two can give higher FE.

Originally Posted by keroo1099

You are buying it for convenience, which is perfectly fine. That's why it's called horses for courses. For some of us a MT is just more fun, PERIOD. Just for the sake of it go test drive an Abarth Punto if you can.

Originally Posted by JediKnight

From my experience in driving the 4th Gen Honda City i can say that the 1.5 ivtech's rev happy nature complements the Honda's slick shifting gearbox beautifully. In the manual you can really enjoy the heady top end of the engine. But for the keen driver 1.5
iVtech with MT is the best power power-train combination.

Saying that MT is more fun than CVT is very cliched. It's like 10 years back when everybody was saying "petrol is more fun than diesel. Buy diesel if you want FE, but if you want fun, buy petrol". I've owned a Honda Civic for 6 years. My brother still owns the 3rd gen Honda City. I know exactly what you are talking about, when you say MT is more fun than AT. But you two have not driven the Honda CVT as much as I have. You can call this a "second gen CVT", whose equivalents are used even by companies like Subaru.

Basically, the way CVT surges from 40 to 100 kmph is extremely thrilling. You can't experience that with a manual, because of the "pauses" in acceleration as you are shifting to a higher gear. The thrills are different and not comparable - like how you can't compare the thrills of a diesel with a petrol.

Originally Posted by onelife

Question to existing owners of BRV. Did any of you manage to squeeze any discounts on BRV?

No discounts as such, but if you pick Tafeta White like I have, you will get Rs. 10,000 off - since it is a non-metallic colour!

[onelife]

Originally Posted by JediKnight

Completely agreed . We have seen that the real life mileage in case of MT
Honda city is more than the CVT although ARAI claims otherwise. ARAI
figures are more academic than real. I don't think it will any different for
BRV.

From my experience in driving the 4th Gen Honda City i can say that
the 1.5 ivtech's rev happy nature complements the Honda's slick
shifting gearbox beautifully. When you floor the throttle the CVTs rubber
band effect is very obvious in the City. In the manual you can really enjoy
the heady top end of the engine. Also i found the manual to be very easy
to drive within the city as well. The flexible nature of the engine make it
very easy to punt around in slow traffic in second gear. The latest iteration
of the 1.5 ivtech has good low down torque vis-a-vis the 1.5 iVtech seen in
the third gen city. Buy the CVT if you must. But for the keen driver 1.5
iVtech with MT is the best power power-train combination.

Even I was a bit surprised when I read that CVT offers better mileage than MT. Honestly speaking I am happy even if it offers the same mileage as the comfort factor is huge. I was under the impression that the mileage may be lower in CVT.

Question to existing owners of BRV. Did any of you manage to squeeze any discounts on BRV? Honda seems to be stubborn (as usual) on providing any discounts. And question to owners in Thane (if any), dealer told me we can avoid paying LBT by signing an undertaking that we are responsible for paying LBT if any demand arises from authorities. Any idea on what are potential implications of this?

[keroo1099]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Saying that MT is more fun than CVT is very cliched.

Please re-read what I said. I said 'for some'.

Originally Posted by smartcat

Basically, the way CVT surges from 40 to 100 kmph is extremely thrilling. You can't experience that with a manual, because of the "pauses" in acceleration as you are shifting to a higher gear.

I haven't driven the Honda CVT but have driven several others, and I will bet my life on it that the Abarth Punto and maybe even a regular T-jet will outsurge it between the speeds you have mentioned, and will carry on well past the point when your CVT runs out of breath. I for one can't stand the rubber band effect under hard acceleration of a CVT.

Originally Posted by smartcat

The thrills are different and not comparable - like how you can't compare the thrills of a diesel with a petrol.

Sorry, but I find your comment very clichéd, so I will again repeat, it is horses for courses. What I will say is that for some the thrill of a smooth, high revving petrol engine screaming at it's redline is intoxicating. A diesel just doesn't cut it.

You have your point of view, and I have mine. Cheers

[-xplora-]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

I don't think it happens this way. The reason why the CVT gives better ARAI mileage than the manual is because it has a more relaxed high speed cruising ability at lower rpms.

But in general the transmission losses are much higher in the CVT compared to the manual. Moreover, the new generation CVTs also incorporate a small torque converter than again has losses, but helps reducing the rubber band effect.

Guess this has already been noted in the City threads as well that the CVT gives slightly less FE than the manual, but still a very respectable figure considering the convenience it offers.

Honda does not use Jatco CVTs which have auxiliary gear system to assist for slow speed / creeping essentially, i.e. a TC unit attached to a CVT. I also mentioned specifically in the "ECO" band defined for the CVT, both are different for MT and CVT.

The current generation Honda CVT has a pretty good computer on-board to make the decisions for you and at cruising speed it will offer the best (lowest RPM) to run at that speed, which you can never maintain constantly with a MT. But the problem with real-world scenario is that no one uses the AT at its best possible, they "floor the pedal" or use S mode or Paddle shifters every now and then, leading obviously to transmission losses and hence little less FE than MT.

But look at ARAI figures, and I still stand by my statement, even though it is not a real-world situation, current generation Honda CVT will be a bit better than MT, Now in BR-Vs case that might be same FE due to MT having 6 speed instead of the city's 5 speed.

I am getting 12 kmpl on an average in heavy city traffic with AC since a month, dont know if MT petrol BR-V gives more in city, maybe. Like I said before FE is tertiary when it comes to the benefits of AT.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by keroo1099

You have your point of view, and I have mine. Cheers

When I mentioned 40 to 100 kmph, its NOT that after 100 kmph, the engine has difficulty breathing or that the transmission somehow flounders. It's just that I haven't crossed 100 - 110 kmph yet!

But you are right - neither can have the "last word". This debate would be as conclusive as us discussing which would be make for a better holiday - a seaside destination or a hill station!

[-xplora-]

Originally Posted by keroo1099

Please re-read what I said. I said 'for some'.
I haven't driven the Honda CVT but have driven several others, and I will bet my life on it that the Abarth Punto and maybe even a regular T-jet will outsurge it between the speeds you have mentioned, and will carry on well past the point when your CVT runs out of breath. I for one can't stand the rubber band effect under hard acceleration of a CVT.

I have driven Linea for several years so I know a bit about Fiat cars. I love MT cars. Why would you compare Abarth T-jet/MJD with iVtec ? Its like comparing oranges and potatoes let alone apples. "CVT runs out of breath" power-train does not run out of breath, the engine does, while trying to manage the power-train.

"hard acceleration" you mean to say "pressing the throttle hard" not the acceleration itself. As in the CVT, there is no need to do that, it is a learning curve, unless you are driving a heavy vehicle with a bad power to weight ratio. Like would your floor the throttle of a Ferrari on normal roads ? As such I am past that age anyway. All developed countries have a super high ratio of AT vs MT USA would be around 95% to 5% and most of the people don't drive in cities or bumper to bumper traffic.

Obviously the more power you have the more fun you will have. Current generation Lamborghinis and Ferraris have ditched the MT totally for a reason. Trust me they have no intention of removing "fun" or "rush" out of the driving experience, infact these customers demand that. AT has evovled tremendously these days.

There is a reason why AT makes sense and its not FE or just being convenient. Current generations ATs be it CVT with Paddle Shifts or DCTs or even TCs are engaging enough to drive, in some cases more fun. I would suggest, since you like red-lining a puny 120hp engine, do a highway S mode run on the current gen City or BR-V and use paddle shifts, and be a little gentle on the throttle, trust me you will have the same fun if not more as the MT.

Sorry, but I find your comment very clichéd, so I will again repeat, it is horses for courses. What I will say is that for some the thrill of a smooth, high revving petrol engine screaming at it's redline is intoxicating. A diesel just doesn't cut it. You have your point of view, and I have mine. Cheers

To each one his own, I agree with you, but MT and Torque are a marriage, Diesel will almost always give you more "rush(read fun)" than a petrol engine, especially a small petrol. Even if the car does not scoot faster than the equivalent petrol.

[keroo1099]

Originally Posted by -xplora-

I have driven Linea for several years so I know a bit about Fiat cars. I love MT cars. Why would you compare Abarth T-jet/MJD with iVtec ? Its like comparing oranges and potatoes let alone apples. "CVT runs out of breath" power-train does not run out of breath, the engine does, while trying to manage the power-train.

I was comparing the acceleration (surge) between 40-100 between a CVT and a manual since it was brought up by smartcat. I don't see the oranges to potatoes comparison?

Originally Posted by -xplora-

"hard acceleration" you mean to say "pressing the throttle hard" not the acceleration itself. As in the CVT, there is no need to do that, it is a learning curve, unless you are driving a heavy vehicle with a bad power to weight ratio. Like would your floor the throttle of a Ferrari on normal roads ? As such I am past that age anyway.

Don't worry, even I am past that age, but it's fun to do it once in awhile.

Originally Posted by -xplora-

Obviously the more power you have the more fun you will have. Current generation Lamborghinis and Ferraris have ditched the MT totally for a reason. Trust me they have no intention of removing "fun" or "rush" out of the driving experience, infact these customers demand that. AT has evovled tremendously these days.

I am not an expert on AT's but you have several different types of AT's, conventional torque converter, dual-clutch, CVT, AMT. The CVT is the most efficient in terms of efficiency, but is one of the worst when it comes to performance.

The Lambo's and Ferrari's that you are talking about, have ditched manuals because it is very very difficult to get a clutch to take up the torque of 500 odd HP. The cars you mentioned don't have CVT's, they have very fast acting DCT's or variations of it that can react faster than a human hand on a manual.

Originally Posted by -xplora-

There is a reason why AT makes sense and its not FE or just being convenient. Current generations ATs be it CVT with Paddle Shifts or DCTs or even TCs are engaging enough to drive, in some cases more fun. I would suggest, since you like red-lining a puny 120hp engine, do a highway S mode run on the current gen City or BR-V and use paddle shifts, and be a little gentle on the throttle, trust me you will have the same fun if not more as the MT.

FYI, the paddle shifts on the City/BRV are 'simulated' to feel like gearshifts. They are just a feature to make you feel better, and are really not required at all.

I actually have a lot of fun red-lining a maruti 800. It's not all about the HP, it's how can I explain it, being in control of the engine and understanding when it likes to be shifted up or down. Something you really can't do with a CVT.

I agree, a DCT transmission with paddles could be fun, but in the right car. Unfortunately, most of the nice ones are expensive.

Cheers.

[SmartCat]

In Jalopnik, there was an article that CVT was banned in Formula 1 because engineers could tune the transmission in such a way that engine keeps spinning at peak power & torque, and still increase/decrease car speed! It was banned because just imagine the racket that would make! Some Formula (not 1) series cars use CVTs though. Basically, CVT technology is flexible enough to incorporate "performance".

Sure, all this is not there on performance cars yet - because the market demands zero rubber band effect (which is not there yet). The second generation CVT (that Honda and Subaru uses) is moving in the right direction though. They do have a torque convertor for reducing rubber band effect, which helps provide near instantaneous acceleration. The third generation CVT will probably nail it and compete with DSGs. Logically, CVT with DSG instead of CVT with Torque convertor is the way to go in the future!

From Honda India's website -

With this light weight and compact new CVT with torque converter, we not only improved the fuel economy, but also achieved smooth and rapid acceleration at the time of starting. Highly precise cooperative control "G-design Shift" with Drive By Wire delivers fun to drive performance. With the application of the new CVT fluid, we achieved wider ratio than the conventional CVT.

https://hondacarindia.com/nextgenengineering/CVT.html

From Honda World website -

With Honda’s CVT, when the car determines it is driving in a sporty manner, such as on a winding mountain road, it automatically maintains a higher engine speed - a Honda-unique feature. This allows a sporty and smooth ride with deceleration that efficiently uses engine braking, stable cornering by maintaining driving power and powerful acceleration at the engine’s most powerful speed range.

http://world.honda.com/automobile-technology/CVT/

[JediKnight]

Originally Posted by smartcat

Saying that MT is more fun than CVT is very cliched. It's like 10 years back when everybody was saying "petrol is more fun than diesel. Buy diesel if you want FE, but if you want fun, buy petrol". I've owned a Honda Civic for 6 years. My brother still owns the 3rd gen Honda City. I know exactly what you are talking about, when you say MT is more fun than AT. But you two have not driven the Honda CVT as much as I have. You can call this a "second gen CVT", whose equivalents are used even by companies like Subaru.

Basically, the way CVT surges from 40 to 100 kmph is extremely thrilling. You can't experience that with a manual, because of the "pauses" in acceleration as you are shifting to a higher gear. The thrills are different and not comparable - like how you can't compare the thrills of a diesel with a petrol.

There is nothing cliched here. I am not making a general statement here.
I am talking about a specific combination here. The Honda 1.5 Ivtech MT
compared to the CVT. The CVT is no doubt smooth and efficient.

What i am saying is the 1.5 motor really shines beyond 3000 rpm.
You just cannot exploit this with the CVT.
The CVT just takes the sporty edge out of the motor.
For the true enthusiast 1.5 iVtech and MT is a stellar combination.

[BUXX]

Though its a bit unrelated , thought of asking this Q :
If I buy a car that is 4L more expensive than my 2nd choice, how much do I lose over a 5 year period??

My answer: I am thinking : 4 L in extra prinicipal obviously +
2 L (interest on 4L ) +
1 Lac in EMI interest costs(differential for 4L extra) +
25K for potential interest earned for this 1 Lac extra which I paid in EMI interest costs?! (Ref: car loan @9.6% , FD rate @8% )