2014 Versa Note SV, just got!

Discussion in 'Nissan' started by RoadWarrior222, Jul 11, 2014.

  1. RoadWarrior222

    RoadWarrior222 rockit serjun

    Hi Folks,

    The search for a recent/decent FEH at a reasonable price was fruitless, and we switched attention to compact and subcompact hatchbacks, for the uber-reliable commuter my wife needs to rely on. I was thinking we were going to go for an Accent hatch. What was on the dealer lots in the area though were the loaded up ones, and they hadn't got all that desperate to get rid of the 14s yet. We found the 1-2-3 year old used market to be in an abysmal state here still. There wasn't enough new cars sold in recent years, and the rental fleets have I think retained a lot of vehicles due to the HUGE amount of recalls on various vehicles meaning there are a lot of people driving rentals while they are awaiting recall work. (Know someone on their 3rd month with a gratis rental waiting for their Chev)

    What I was finding in 12s and 13s generally was very used looking examples, scuffed and scratched up, that only seemed a thousand less than new pricing of the year they were sold.

    Now I've been a beaterholic all my life, I can and have fixed EVERYTHING myself, but the equation isn't balancing, the math does not work any more. Several factors at play, one is that parts retailers only keep the cheapest crappiest parts on hand for older cars, the quality of these is so terrible these days that they should be illegal. Trying to buy a better part 9 times out of 10 gets you exactly the same part in a shiny box... replacing the same parts over and over, year in year out and having some fail in ways that damaged other parts, was getting tedious, frustrating and expensive overall. (With "free" labor!). The second factor is, the wreckers in this vicinity are crushing anything over 8-10 years old, so no used parts either. The third factor is rust, lots of salt, lots of corrosion, the majority of a given model are bursting the yards at the seams 5 years before I need the parts. Fourth factor is, there was a decade approx '95 to 2005 where fuel economy SUCKED, (Quality too) very few cars worth hanging onto from then... Then the '05s and around there aren't especially cheap (Constricted supply filtered down) and knowing you're going to be stuck with **** parts, and increasingly rare used ones soon after you buy it, means it's not encouraging to sink $4000 or so into one. Possibly the sweet spot at the moment might be around '08-'10 but that's maybe only buying you 5 years. So, finding car maintenance to become less of an enjoyable hobby and more of a full time drudge and time vampire, I/we were totally fed up and decided it was time for NEW(ish) with warranty.

    Totally ignored GM's offerings, because to my mind Korea's carmakers Hyundai/Kia/Daewoo can be thought of as Germany's VW/Audi/Trabant and small GMs are Daewoos, know people who had particularly nasty Aveos/Waves etc... mayyybe things are different with these new models... but I need to give them 3 years to tell. Fords, well I have "a thing against" Focuses, due to seeing how rapidly they rust here, must be some design issue because other fords aren't half as bad (Nothing is half as bad) Fiestas, we drove, they seemed harsh, rough over the bumps, noisy motor (And I'm coming from an Escort don't forget) and buzzy on highway, I have no clue why C&D like them. Highway merge performance seemed weak and we couldn't see well enough out of them, poor 360 visibility. Saving grace was handling and seats. Rios we also drove, bit smoother but also visibility issues. Merge performance of that also seemed weak, despite supposed 132 horsey motor, sure didn't feel like it....

    Then we arrived at a Nissan dealer, prime thought at this point was to try the Micra, because we thought we could squeeze one with reasonable options into the budget, ordered new. The Micra drove very nice, very maneuverable, not harsh like the Fiesta. Vision great, rear seat a little less cramped than Fiesta, trunk kind of small, but it was very well laid out, space used efficiently. It is a very competent city car, was fine on highway too, but I'd most recommend it to city dwellers who need maneuverability and small size. However, it transpired that in order to equip it to merely "average" level, stuff that's practically standard the last 10 years, it would take the sticker price up to the same level as similarly equipped Versa Notes.

    Or actually, better equipped Versa Notes, that CVT came with the SV. So we had to drive the Note, and liked the hell out of it. 360 visibility is great, cabin is very spacious and airy, ride is large car like without being boaty. Merge performance ~45-65 was excellent (Well not rocketship obviously), though don't rely on your butt dyno, that CVT and soooooper flat torque curve will fool it. CVT gets a LOT out of that motor without making it scream it's balls off. If the seats in the Fiesta were a 10/10 these were a close 9.5/10 whereas Kia and others were 8s. Controls and gauges were sensibly laid out, clear to read, it was entirely conventional, but sometimes when it works it should not be messed with, "Innovative and fresh" may annoy the hell out of you in a few months when you realise the intern design student they thought would give it "youthful appeal" or some crap, didn't know his arse from his elbow when it came to ergonomics. Of course this is what gives it "boring" scores with the hacks. The hacks are also I think wrong about the "plasticcy" interior... What they see is untextured solid plastics, they call it cheap. I call it unfussy and durable, that padded leather effect vinyl over foam over compressed fiber/particle or whatever, that crap splits and breaks. Plasticcy plastics have held up awesome in every used car I've known, they might slowly fade a bit, but you can cut them back and polish, they don't typically go brittle these days, may have in the 80s. Anyway, I was seeing "economical yet durable", as a "beaterholic" I think I have a good idea of what's gonna look like **** in 5 years and a few coffee spills compared to how fancy it looks new (This will wipe, and not soak anything up for funky smells in later years).

    So we talked turkey on a new, new one, but being near the end of 14s, they had what they had, which was a squeeze the piggy bank and search the couch for extra change kind of price, and I think they were looking on the dealer network stock listing to figure for more choice, and we we're saying we'd have to go check if we could find a bit more cash... which brung out the deal of the day. Now ideally, I would have liked to have driven the Accent, and looked at the Yaris and Fit and maybe Prius C and Insight closer first, but there were several practicalities involved. One was that Toyota dealers have a "fixed price" scam going on and I wasn't going to get a hint of a discount, and there were very few Yarises in stock in 75 miles or so, the other was that likewise, there were virtually no Fits and Insights sitting around in stock in the area also. The Accent problem was that it had the same drivetrain as the Kias, and if I didn't like the drivetrain so much as this one in the Kias, I likely wasn't going to prefer it in the Accent. Also, having peered into Accents, I doubted I was going to like the interior space quite so much as I liked the Note. The advertised economy was slightly worse on the Accent also. I was thinking prices would be "similar" to the best they could do on in stock new new Versas... but then we got presented with a great deal... They had a demo/courtesy 1.6 SV, with all the essentials plus some desirables without going over the top. Bearing in mind this is Canadian price, it was $16k and change on the road, (Meaning about 14.5 would have been "sticker", plus tax, licensing) and this for a spec which was coming at about 18k "sticker" plus tax and license. So we're looking at a saving of about $4000 (when extra tax considered) and the only downside was that it was white, when we'd prefer a "color"... there seemed to be no sense in buying up the depreciation to have a preferred color (Not when if it really bugs you it's a few hundred to "wrap" it these days), we also knew that regular used pricing on everything '12 and up was up in this area and higher, and most of it was abused looking, and we knew we had enough... so sealed the deal and bought it.

    Other points to consider about it, which I think awesome... it's the 2nd generation Nissan CVT in a light car with a smaller engine, I am expecting none of the problems that plagued the 1st gen ones in heavier vehicles with the larger 4s or 6 cylinders. It appears to do what a CVT should do, of course I have to get used to it to get best out of it, but it's more unlearning the things you used to do to make a 4 speed auto behave how you wanted it to. It has active aero on the CVT SV... yah, like a Veyron! :D The grill shutter closes above 20mph, brings cD down below .30 to .29ish which is about where 1st gen Prius was. LRR tires come standard. It's the best mpg you can get in a "real sized car" without paying many thousands extra for hybrid or diesel drivetrains or special "XFE" type packages. Comes in a hair above this model year VW TDis apparently/surprisingly (Though I don't blame you if you wonder what VW did wrong, rather than what Nissan did right, since there would seem to have been as much backsliding from them as ground made up.) ... There are 2 injectors per cylinder, one tiny one for a super-atomised fine spray and one "bulk" one. This should make for awesome low throttle economy.

    So took delivery last night, and wife has gone to work in it today. I got to do some brief economy focussed testing last night. I am not really a fan of using extra gas to see how little gas it uses, pure testing runs, so everything else will be found out "in service" as it were. One thing I guess I should note, Canadian specified stock tire pressure is 36 psi, while US is 33, why? No freaking clue. It's got a continental tire on this one, didn't check exact one yet.

    MPG? Promising! It's the first car I've ever seen that makes the old (Obsoleted with 2015 models) Canadian Fuel economy ratings look honest. Generally they were regarded as making the pre-2008 US EPA ratings look wildly pessimistic. They were presumed to be highest possible theoretical under ideal conditions.... However, I am thus far relying solely on the onboard economy gauge. The highway figure for Canada is 4.8 l/100km which is about 49.5 US MPG. So first test, flattest highway nearby, I just set the cruise at 65 and let the instantaneous settle and it was steadyish on 5 ... this was with the AC on and headwind of 15mph. Interestingly, I discovered that if I set the speed lower on the pedal, then bumped it up with the cruise, it seemed to flicker around 4.8 for same apparent speed, rather than taking cruise set directly... hmmm... then I tried 59mph and it was settling around 4.4, nice, it's over 50mpg on the flat, against a light headwind with the A/C on! Yah the motor is turning real slow, the CVT has gone into the highest range, it was in the low 1000s.

    Impressed so far with the low effort to see these number on highway, I take the exit off... and discover how phenomenally well this thing rolls, it's an uphill ramp to an overpass... and I take foot off the gas at 60mph... and I coast the entire ramp showing 0 on the gauge, and have to brake for the intersection because I'm still doing 50mph, felt little to no drivetrain resistance, but it must have been enough to turn motor, I believe the dual VVT must have cut off air or something. It feels like a neutral coast, but you don't feel/see the motor getting gas again until 20mph. I set my vehicles up for least RR, with higher tire pressures, custom alignment etc before, and I'd be going 40 where this thing is going 50, aero plays a part also but I was damn impressed.

    Then got to do some in city driving, and steady state, but attempting to hold on gas pedal rather than cruise, I was seeing 3l/100 at a steady 30, if you dropped this to 27ish, it appeared to drop to 2.5! ... and I still had A/C on, and these roads were on the rough side. Hot diggety damn, it was appearing you could get 80mpg if you were happy driving 30mph on a flat route, or even 100 if you wanted to crawl... but you get at a point then where it seems to lose what feels like lockup, but probably isn't quite, and also over exercise the grille shutter, especially with variation from slight inclines.

    I would like to try it more on country roads, see what kind of figures it's seeming to get at 50 steady state or 40... I'm thinking pulse and glide should be very productive on it on 50mph roads.

    I'm getting in a longer highway drive tonight, but I have to follow someone, so I'll have to drive it as I need to, rather than as I'd like to to see what you can get for period average in traffic.


  2. EdwinTheMagnificent

    EdwinTheMagnificent Legend In His Mind

    Nice detailed post, Road Warrior. Sounds like you picked a good car.
  3. rfruth

    rfruth Well-Known Member

    Sounds nice, what do you think of the CVT (I had a 2010 Fusion with one, loved it)
  4. RedylC94

    RedylC94 Well-Known Member

    Yes, that's a very interesting and thorough introduction. Thanks! I'm glad you're pleased with your Note so far, and hope to see updates as you become better acquainted with it.

    That post is especially interesting to me, not only because I agree with most of the opinions expressed therein, but also because I need to be shopping for the same sort of car. The Note is one of my prime candidates, along with the Fit, Accent hatchback, used Prii, and anything else with a chance of beating my old car in both fuel consumption and flexibility to haul people, bikes and other stuff.

    I'd lean toward the manual Note or Fit, despite their ridiculously short gearing, on the theory that the fuel consumption advantage of the CVT versions, even IF it's real, would never compensate for their higher initial price and the risk of post-warranty catastrophic CVT failure. If anybody can show solid data to reassure me these new CVTs finally are reasonably durable, that would be great. See http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...YQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFdeTQXROgOaNv3nJMO8nUCdwF6fA for an interesting article from Bosch on CVT belts. Searching for "CVT-7" yields, among other things, a page on the JATCO site with everything JATCO wants us to know about the CVT in the Note (and Mirage, and various smaller Japanese cars we don't get), including pretty pictures.

    All my "prime candidates" are flawed on some way. The new Fit seems to be a better car than the Note in most respects, but I doubt it's sufficiently better to justify the premium prices Honda dealers are likely to demand. I'd resent being asked to pay above MSRP, or pay for overpriced dubious "required" add-on features.

    The current generation regular Prius is intriguing, and evidently reliable in its first decade, but ... Besides its well-known deficiencies and the risk of eventual failure of expensive specialized components, I suspect its goofy flying buttress might give me claustophobia. Also, resale values of 2-to-4-year-old ones are still high.

    From photos, it's unclear whether the Note would function as well as my elderly Mazda for hauling bikes, due to its huge step-up from the rear cargo floor to the folded-down rear seatbacks. For a different reason, the Accent cargo space also looks iffy. The smaller hatchbacks (Fiesta, Mazda2, Prius C, Rio, Mirage, Yaris, XD, Sonic ... ) appear unworkable on that count.

    It's interesting you found the Note's acceleration less "weak" than that of the Fiesta and Rio, which supposedly have better power-to-weight ratios. Auto scribes enjoy belittling the Note's acceleration, although that may be partly because the smoothness of the CVT fools them. In a drag race, any of those cars could trounce any car I've ever owned.

    Agree mostly with your comments on interior design, ergonomics, and plastics. Overemphasizeing cushy-feeling interior bits as a measure of automotive quality is a current fad among auto scribes. Before that, they were similarly hung up on body panel gaps, and before that, some other superficial detail.

    Congratulations, good luck, and keep us posted.
  5. jcp123

    jcp123 Caliente!

    Not bad, I had always dismissed the Versa owing to the previous generation's lack of impressive FE, but sounds like Nissan has put itself back in the game.
  6. RedylC94

    RedylC94 Well-Known Member

    The JATCO web site does show a torque converter in their CVT7. Other than to show the torque converter's location in the housing and to brag about its thinness, they don't say much about it. Perhaps it has a lock-up clutch similar to those in conventional automatics? Can you tell when it locks?

    If the grill shutter position is based on speed (vs. temperature), it seems they'd program it to close at a slightly higher speed than the speed below which it opens, to avoid "over exercising" it when you're traveling near the switching speed.
  7. RoadWarrior222

    RoadWarrior222 rockit serjun

    So after my trip out of town I had the long(er) term average showing 5.9l/100 ~40mpg not entirely sure if it's the tank, or a rolling X kilometer or X time average... If it's the tank, it might come up on first real tank because it was idling forever at the dealer while he was showing us stuff etc. I'm gonna be getting a bluetooth OBD dongle and putting apps on an android for better/fuller stats. One thing I'm not liking on the "instant" average is that it takes a couple of seconds to change, and when you're coming off idle and accelerating from a stop, you can't tell how aggressive you are with fuel use because it's dropping from 30l/100 it was at at idle.

    Yup, loving it so far, still training my foot. Though after a couple of days with it now, I can get a steadyish 2000 RPM "launch" rather than hunting between 6000 and 1000 rRRRRrrrrRRRRrrrrr LOL

    I guess I'm on a slight wing and a prayer with this, but I trust in the idea of the CVT and don't think smaller less powerful cars have had a particularly large amount of trouble with them.

    Bingo, a Honda is only a Chevy to the Japanese after all.

    Yah, I'm on and off about the Prius, dug the first gen, then the second gen and "normal" Prius line seems stuck in the middle of trying to be a large car and small car at the same time, and handling tests I've seen of those are ugly, like driving a minivan on Geo Metro tyres or something. BUT, I do like the Prius V and the Prius C, actually taking it both ways and leaving the "compromise" in the middle seems to have made better cars.

    Actually, it doesn't look all that deep in person. I was getting the impression of higher trunk lips and narrower gates in the others, didn't exactly measure though, probably about a "shoebox" high, which is less than is normal between the pedal crank bearing and the road, so I would have thunk it would have made a well for either wheel to sit it. According to salesman though, all the pieces to make it a dual level deally (i.e. flat with the cubby underneath) can be got as parts/accessories, so you don't HAVE to buy the SL or SV with convenience package or whatever it was to get it.

    The CVT means in effect that you can have your 107Hp or 109tq at any time you like, you don't have to wait any longer than the time it takes to free rev the motor, whereas even with lots of gears to choose from in a 5 or 6 speed auto, you're likely to end up a couple of thousand off peak, then have to wind it through to the sweet spot, so you start at maybe 70HP then wind it up to 120 HP, so you get the feeling it's not going to go quick enough for a little while, then it catches up... planned acceleration you'll get every gear falling into the sweet spot as it changes, so it's quicker in a 0-60, when you're trying to find a gap, or get out of trouble, you don't want the "wait a second, wait a second, there it is" , it's just *stomp* "There it is" with this.... Also you do have a bit of a problem of "your foot thinking wrong" driving the CVT, it's dropped to 1200 RPM say and you think it's on the verge of lugging, yah, it actually is, right on the verge and it will freaking stay there right on the verge if it thinks that's what you want to do (After all it's probably quite efficient there) So your foot's thinking you've gone too slow in high gear in an auto, or you're in 5th when you should be in 4th in a manual, might be thinking "Gee I'l try and nurse this out of here, because it will splutter if I give it too much gas too fast, which should be quicker than changing down then back up again" .... which you don't need to do, because squeezing it gently will just make the revs climb super slow.... so it will feel like it's on the verge of lugging all the way up... nah, just give it a bit more pedal, you're not stuck in this ratio, it will just accelerate, no need to baby it if you want to "go"...

    Heh, I think it had to have 4 cupholders per occupant to make car of the year back in the day, and thanks.

    Maybe just about, it needs playing with, I guess I need to be accelerating above TC stall speed until partial or full lockup to keep it efficient.

    It's actually really hard to hear, I caught it twice in a few minutes and guess might have been paranoid about how many time I didn't hear it. It sounds like it's something they would have prevented.

    Thanks all,

  8. RoadWarrior222

    RoadWarrior222 rockit serjun


    I am thinking I am feeling a lockup around 25mph. Also below that speed you can feel a sort of brief lag/slip, like a normal auto, where you feel the motor isn't mechanically connected to the wheels. Also coasting down, you seem to get a slight double bump around there, with RPM falling to a thousand, where it seems the motor gets gas again and the lockup may be disengaging.... (Escort F4-EAT does that around 1800RPM by the way)

    Also, finding I have to be careful on downhill stretches when large vehicles are ahead, not all that close even, 4 second gap, the l/100 will drop to 0, and it will start gaining on them in the draft.

    Actually finding it a bit annoying for city driving, that you don't seem to get a nice coast below 25, not thinking L will help all that much, supposed to be mostly for engine braking according to manual.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
  9. RedylC94

    RedylC94 Well-Known Member

    Verrry interesting! Could part of what you're sensing be the 2-speed planetary gearset shifting? Can you tell when it upshifts during acceleration? I'm a bit puzzled how they keep the CVT7's shifts subtle enough that reviewers don't all comment on it. The CVT7 transmission is sort of like a normal CVT in series with a Powerglide (old Chevy 2-speed automatic).
  10. RoadWarrior222

    RoadWarrior222 rockit serjun

    Ahhhh, there's a 2 speed in there too? You know I thought I was imagining a shift when getting out of an intersection in a hurry. I thought it was just the CVT jumping up a couple of ratios quickly or something it is so soft. The whole box is super smooth though, and so quiet on the highway apart from some wind whoosh from the side mirrors... My wife will be driving, and I notice we're passing stuff like it's standing still and I'll look over at the speedo and yah, a little excessive there hon, I think she expects the motor to have a 3000 RPMish hum to it.
  11. RedylC94

    RedylC94 Well-Known Member

    Yep; see http://www.jatco.co.jp/ENGLISH/products/cvt/cvt7.html . That allows a wider highest-to-lowest "gear" ratio range without the drawbacks of extreme effective pulley sizes. However, the new Fit's CVT manages an overall range nearly as wide without (as far as I know) the 2-speed complication.
  12. RoadWarrior222

    RoadWarrior222 rockit serjun

    Well on the "free" tank from the dealer it scored 547.3 Km and drank 34l at the gas station, for about 38.2mpg. Not sure that was all the way full when trip zeroed though. Period average was showing 5.8l/100.

    Ah, manual says it's average since last reset. So with 6.2 av, not sure if it's off by that much or that tank was 2l less full than it is now.
  13. RoadWarrior222

    RoadWarrior222 rockit serjun

    Think I misunderstood manual, average didn't reset when trip was reset, must need independent resetting, so if never reset, could be "lifetime" showing at the moment, which I've got down to 5.7 now.

    Another thing, not sure if this thing is "learning" that I like to try and coast, or whether the motor was cold when I last observed it was switching fuel on at 25mph... it was holding out down to 15mph this morning.

    Drafting is a dirty word, where the assumption is you're doing a NASCAR 6" off the leaders bumper draft. So I'll explain my version... which is solely limited to drafting long vehicles, the reason is because "draft" persists about 3-4 lengths of the vehicle making it... so being 3 lengths behind a minivan is exceptionally unsafe, whereas being 3 lengths behind a semi-trailer combo isn't. "2 seconds" puts you about 180-200ft away, which is just inside 3 lengths of a truck usually.... anyway, first time there was no crosswind this morning, and that I found a truck "available" as it were... got in behind him and was seeing instant gauge flicking between 3.5 and 3.8 on the flat.

    Something that might work well with this car, which I probably won't be able to tell until I get a better gauge, is what I like to think of as pulse and glide in draft, where you close up to 2 second gap, drop to 4 second gap, close up again... though for the glide with this, it's ignition on, fuel cut glide.
  14. EdwinTheMagnificent

    EdwinTheMagnificent Legend In His Mind

    Drafting is like fondling the swans in the park : if you do it, keep quiet about it.
  15. RoadWarrior222

    RoadWarrior222 rockit serjun

    Nah, tailgating is like fondling swans, responsible drafting is like watching the swans from across the lake and being accused of fondling them.
  16. EdwinTheMagnificent

    EdwinTheMagnificent Legend In His Mind

    Either way , the stigma carries a rude aroma.
  17. RoadWarrior222

    RoadWarrior222 rockit serjun

    I'm getting the hang of this thing now...

    Current long term average is now showing 5.4l/100 ~44mpg. This looks like being a good tank.

    Highway technique: Cruise control near speed limit. Blowthrough ventilation used unless temperature over about 25C then AC on. (Dependent on solar gain) Instantaneous will oscillate around about 4.4l/100 on flat. Gaining speed on cruise control, blip it a little at a time, it's a bit aggressive otherwise. Gaining speed on pedal, lightly, otherwise the revs climb excessively and it drinks more. Seems to reward smoothness. Hills: cruise seems a little aggressive on larger grades, it will storm up them at 3-3.5k rpm, sucking 12-15l/100, knock off the cruise, gain a touch, and bleed off 5-10mph with a real light touch on the gas and you can get up them at 7-8l/100... not found a "sweet spot" RPM/speed like some cars seem to have where they'll just keep plugging up, it might be slower or faster than it feels safe to be going on my roads. Very long grades, you might have to play it by ear wrt amount of trucks and other traffic, would tend to think you wanna keep it on about 50mph/80kph, and stay out of the right if the trucks are slowing down past that, and stay out of the left if the leadfoots are storming it at 80 or 90mph.... it's more a safety than mileage thing at that point, 50/80 should be okay to duck in between the trucks, or mash the gas and jump into the flow.

    City: Main technique, pulse and glide in fuel cut. Drop the windows and turn A/C off, you're barely seeing it make a diff on the highway but city running will be 2-3l/100 higher and fuel cut will not happen below 25mph. Fuel cut holds down to about 15mph with AC off. To "get out of first gear" seem to have to accelerate modestly to over 25mph, then you feel it bump very softly... A/C on or off it seems like you have to get over this speed from a stop for fuel cut enable. So short blocks and stop signs, give about 2000rpm to hit 25 then take your foot off and coast at 0.0 to the next stop, which will fire engine again if you drop below 15mph, so I try to be aririving at 15mph 20ft from the line and hit the brakes then, for shortedst fuel-on/idle time. Untimed/sensor traffic lights, typically you'll be driving at traffic speed when you see them change... or you'll be coming to a light that's already red... what I'm attempting to do since you get quite a long coast on this car anyway, and you typical coast distance until you have to stop is not all that long, is to brake immediately I see the light down to about 25mph/40kph then coast from that lower speed, which gives you the longest "hang time" as it were before you have to stop, saves a second or two if idleing... if you're lucky you get the change while you're still rolling.... again try to judge it so you hit the 15mph in the last 20ft and brake. Moving in traffic, you can pulse and glide a little, blurp and coast with light touches on the gas. Needing to "get into" traffic from an intersection, up to 3000 rpm "seems adequate" for most gaps that a sane person would attempt, and not burn too much, so no need to go overboard.... you need a really light foot with this thing, it will do what you ask, but you have to be careful what you're asking. At a steady 30 you'll see it flicking between about 2.2 and 3.0 on the flat, but if pulse and coasting probably the least you can give it is about a 3.5l/100 blurp for a couple of seconds then coast about 5 secs, which I guess should give you a 1l/100 while you're doing that, but not sure how accurate and responsive the gauge is.... but such conditions don't persist long in city driving of course, so soon you're idling again. (Kinda thinking it would be REAL NICE if this was a BAS light hybrid, since it seems to drink a lot at idle. Well maybe not all that much in reality, but seeing it sit at 30l/100km tends to concern you)

    About the 2000 rpm acceleration... the instant figures are jumping around everywhere after a stop and don't settle very quick, so this is a bit of a gut feel, based on letting it get into higher gear/lockup quick and being up the torque curve enough to get good BSFC. Real instrumentation may prove me wrong.

    May need to fill the tank again later this eve, so we'll see how it really did.

  18. PaleMelanesian

    PaleMelanesian Beat the System Staff Member

    2000 rpm acceleration is likely pretty close to optimal.

    You might try using neutral coast instead of leaving it in gear. What rpm does it sit at when you "coast" in gear? Does it drop to idle or hold it high? Unless it drops down to idle rpm, you've got excess drag from the engine. You'll coast farther in neutral. True, you won't have fuel cut, but you'll have to burn gas to regain the lost momentum. Better to keep any momentum you have than to have to reacquire it later.
  19. RedylC94

    RedylC94 Well-Known Member

    That's true, but if it simply stays in its highest "gear" when coasting, the "drag from the engine" would be a lot less than with the manual in 5th, thus not a big problem.

    What exactly happens when you return to "D" after a spell of coasting in neutral? I'd hope they have it programmed so you can do that without any clunks, bangs, engine racing, or other signs of distress.
  20. PaleMelanesian

    PaleMelanesian Beat the System Staff Member

    Yeah, you'll have to test it to see how it handles that. Hondas do pretty well with reengaging at speed.

Share This Page