[MP81]

Looks like the CVT fuel economy has made its way onto Fueleconomy.gov:

33 combined with 30 city and 38 highway, so an increase of 2 in city over the 6AT, one combined and nothing on the freeway - and only on the sedan. So it is very likely the Eco model will be making a return.

Overall, it looks there are minor changes in the fuel economy.

The diesel sedan sees an increase from 47 to 48 mpg on the highway - the diesel hatch stays the same.

Oddly, the 1.4T sedan drops from 29/40/33 (39 highway with the Premier) to 28/38/32 (the CVT brings it back "up" to 30/38/33).

And the hatch actually sees somewhat of an increase from 27/38/31 (28/37/31 for the Premier) to 28/38/32 (Premier doesn't change).

Doesn't seem to be one trend, really, it's all kind of puzzling.

 

[snowwy66]

Most of us are getting better numbers.

What's puzzling is the fact that america can't build a car to do as good as the japs. Even with all the stupid technology.

My boy has a 16 mazda cx 3 I think it is. His car holds the same amount of gas yet he can go 50 miles more. His radiator fan runs with the ac. And his alternator is always charging.

I"m not a big fan of jap but at least they know how to get better mileage.

 

[jblackburn]

You'd think the CVT would have higher highway fuel economy given that most drop to well below 2k once at at cruising speed.

Not much of an Eco model with those numbers. City number is about the same; i can see that as the transmission programming and gearing is quite tuned for city driving anyway in the 6AT. Should be in mid 40s hwy though. Doesn't seem worth putting up with a CVT for very little gain.

Could be that it does better outside the EPA test, kinda like Mazdas 2.5T motor that delivers real world fuel economy vs other turbo 4s.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[17Hatch6MT]

CVTs are cheaper to build than an n-gear automatic. That's why you're seeing more of them.

 

[jblackburn]

Ran across this the other day in a 2019 Malibu RS review. C&D says the CVT will only make an appearance in fleet Cruzens (because it's cheaper to build?)

Every 2019 Malibu with the turbocharged 1.5-liter inline-four will get the VT40, which is being produced in GM’s facility in Ramos Arizpe, Mexico. The Malibu is the transmission’s first retail application, although it is also paired with a turbocharged 1.4-liter four in the Chevrolet Cruze for fleet customers only.

GM said the new CVT should improve fuel economy in the 1.5-liter Malibu by about 5 percent compared with the former six-speed gearbox. While 2019 Malibu EPA numbers are not yet finalized, the Cruze’s are. The 2019 Cruze CVT model is rated at 30 mpg city, 38 mpg highway, and 33 mpg combined, while the version with the six-speed automatic has 28 mpg city, 38 highway, and 32 combined. Those numbers suggest that a modest gain in city fuel economy is due for the Malibu with the CVT, too.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2019-chevrolet-malibu-rs-cvt-driven

 

[Aussie]

Most of us are getting better numbers.

What's puzzling is the fact that america can't build a car to do as good as the japs. Even with all the stupid technology.

My boy has a 16 mazda cx 3 I think it is. His car holds the same amount of gas yet he can go 50 miles more. His radiator fan runs with the ac. And his alternator is always charging.

I"m not a big fan of jap but at least they know how to get better mileage.

My 2012 diesel has one of the fans run when the a/c is on and they both turn on when the engine needs them. The alternator starts at around 14 and drops to 12.6 once the charge is back in the battery.

 

[MP81]

I'm still somewhat surprised they haven't rolled out the application of the 9-speed to everything. It has to be a pretty good improvement over the current 6-speed, even if it probably would never see 9th gear paired with the 1.4L - mostly in the form of driving experience, not necessarily fuel economy.

That said, it seems like the 6T45 used in the Malibu has a lot less complaints than the 6T35 in the Cruze, and was generally considered to be a good partner to the 1.5T, so to change to the CVT is kind of puzzling. Guess we'll see if it comes with an fuel economy benefits (they're not listed online yet)...

 

[snowwy66]

My 2012 diesel has one of the fans run when the a/c is on and they both turn on when the engine needs them. The alternator starts at around 14 and drops to 12.6 once the charge is back in the battery.

On the gassers. The fan runs off of ac high pressure. Or Radiator temp. Alternator runs at 12.2. Daylight. Around 14.0 with headlights on.

 

[Cruzen18]

Would like to see real world test numbers on the CVT. But, if it LOWERED hwy numbers, then the only benefit seems to be the $$ for the manufacturer, but you know the $$ will go UP on the newer models with the new technology. :question:

 

[MP81]

Would like to see real world test numbers on the CVT. But, if it LOWERED hwy numbers, then the only benefit seems to be the $$ for the manufacturer, but you know the $$ will go UP on the newer models with the new technology. :question:

Well, the 2019 6AT sedan is rated at 28/38/32 with the CVT rated at 30/38/33. Same highway score (highway dropped from 40 and 39 down to 38, across the sedan board, from 2018 to 2019). The CVT bumps up city by 2 and the combined by 1. CVTs don't provide much benefit at highway speeds.

 

[Aussie]

On the gassers. The fan runs off of ac high pressure. Or Radiator temp. Alternator runs at 12.2. Daylight. Around 14.0 with headlights on.

These are the fans in the Australian diesel, the petrol cars only have the one fan. The diesel and the 1.6T have the 6T45 transmission as well and it seems fairly reliable.

 

[karmatourer]

Well, the 2019 6AT sedan is rated at 28/38/32 with the CVT rated at 30/38/33. Same highway score (highway dropped from 40 and 39 down to 38, across the sedan board, from 2018 to 2019). The CVT bumps up city by 2 and the combined by 1. CVTs don't provide much benefit at highway speeds.

Seeing these numbers makes me happy. I have an A9 diesel and my numbers are better than the EPA numbers for my car.