Answers: NO and YES.

 

The skyactive Mazda 3's get 40mpg on their automatic transmission, and drive pretty nice.

 

There are CVT's, but they drive like absolute crap.

 

And in Nissan's case, they are, so far, rather unreliable. It wouldn't be that big of a deal if it didn't cost $9,400 to replace them and ~$450+ to perform a fluid change.

 

Does any manufacturer have a 40+ MPG pure gas automatic transmission that shifts well? I ask because it seems like reviewers of high MPG automatics all seem to dislike the shifting.

The automatic in the 2012 Cruze is more than capable of over 40mpg & shifts great after the initial trans "learning period". There is only a couple of things I would say some people might not be used & complain about with this transmission.

First a couple of downshifts cause the car to compression brake & loose momentum if you are off the gas or super light on the gas at those speeds. Its the 6th to 5th shift at 40mph, and the 5th to 4th shift at 30mph. as long as you keep a constant foot in the gas when slowing down this is pretty much eliminated. Another way to stop this compression braking is to pop the car into neutral to continue a nice coast & not loose any speed.
The second issue & the one I HATE the most is the neutral at stop signs. Sometimes when taking off from a stop light trans seems to do a low rpm neutral drop into gear, no matter how easy or hard you are on the pedal. Since this is by design I can't see this doing any major harm to the car, but is a bit unnerving & definitely is not something I am used to.

Cruze eco automatic is rated at 39mpg highway(average) fine print below bold window sticker number is 32-46mpg highway. Non eco automatics loose 1mpg and are rated 38average highway, 31-45mpg highway. As you can see the cruze automatic might not have the bold 40mpg window sticker number, but is more than capable of a real world 40+MPG highway.

 

The automatic in the 2012 Cruze is more than capable of over 40mpg & shifts great after the initial trans "learning period". There is only a couple of things I would say some people might not be used & complain about with this transmission.

First a couple of downshifts cause the car to compression brake & loose momentum if you are off the gas or super light on the gas at those speeds. Its the 6th to 5th shift at 40mph, and the 5th to 4th shift at 30mph. as long as you keep a constant foot in the gas when slowing down this is pretty much eliminated. Another way to stop this compression braking is to pop the car into neutral to continue a nice coast & not loose any speed.
The second issue & the one I HATE the most is the neutral at stop signs. Sometimes when taking off from a stop light trans seems to do a low rpm neutral drop into gear, no matter how easy or hard you are on the pedal. Since this is by design I can't see this doing any major harm to the car, but is a bit unnerving & definitely is not something I am used to.

Cruze eco automatic is rated at 39mpg highway(average) fine print below bold window sticker number is 32-46mpg highway. Non eco automatics loose 1mpg and are rated 38average highway, 31-45mpg highway. As you can see the cruze automatic might not have the bold 40mpg window sticker number, but is more than capable of a real world 40+MPG highway.

No, no, no, no, no. The best way is to pop the shifter to the left and keep it in manual mode. You'll stay in 6th longer AND cutoff the fuel netting you better fuel economy. Popping it in neutral will continue to feed the engine gas. You'll coast a tiny bit longer in neutral but you have to think you're using gas the whole time you're coasting. I'll take the slightly quicker deceleration and no fuel consumption over slightly longer coasting and idling the engine.

 

I know EPA estimates are just that. Given my personal history of consistently beating the EPA highway estimate in every vechicle I have owned, I consider the Cruze 1.4T regardless of trim to be a 40 MPG car. That's also why I didn't specify 40 MPG in the thread title.

So far it sounds like smooth shifting automatics are doable with high MPG, but it's difficult.

 

The Civic 5 speed auto is a smooth transmission. I'm sure they could update it with a 6th cog but it already hits that 40 mpg mark, and Honda has terrible luck with new transmissions for the first few years.

If Toyota finally updates the Corolla with a 6 speed, I could see it hitting 40 too. I'm sure they're aiming for that, as the Camry already gets the same 35 hwy as the Corolla.

Unfortunately both the Civic and Corolla are also crap to drive in current iterations. Both models were spunky and a lot of fun back in the early 2000s.

Automatics on 4 cylinders tend to kill any fun factor the car may have. Especially if people also want them to get 40 mpg. I wonder if Mazda has actually figured out how to do both?


Sent from my Autoguide iPhone app

 

If Toyota finally updates the Corolla with a 6 speed, I could see it hitting 40 too. I'm sure they're aiming for that, as the Camry.

FWIW, the Corolla, despite its 4-speed transmission, in CR's tests (yeah, yeah, cue someone slamming them and me) achieved 40 mpg in their highway test (Best & worst fuel economy).

In fact, it scored better overall mileage (32 mpg) than the '12 Cruze Eco 6AT they tested (17 city/40 highway/27 mpg overall). It seems clear GM did a better job of optimizing the Cruze Eco for the EPA test (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=25254&id=31315&id=32181). I included the 09 Corolla since that's what CR actually tested.

CR's very short city test usually yields poor/low looking numbers on all cars and can bring down overall numbers.

 

I don't have an issue with the shifting on my 1LT auto. I took a mini vacation last weekend to wayyy upstate NY with an overall trip mileage of about 550 miles, mostly highway. I did not empty my trunk of the hundreds of pounds of work stuff, just threw the luggage, cooler, etc in the back seat. The wife I threw in the front seat. :wtf::th_SmlyROFL: Almost 100% A/C use, and I did not drive conservatively as I normally do, as my wife insisted we follow some friends on the way up, and they drive faster than I normally would. I even, with two passengers, raced a BMW 318 series from a light and was only behind by about a car length at about 60. I think that he was annoyed that an econosheetbox Chevy could be right on his tail. LOL

Anyway, my average for the whole trip was 38.8 mpg calculated at the pump. Just think what I could have done if I had driven easy the whole time without all the passengers in the car and junk in the trunk.

 

cwerdna brings up a good point about older cars, but doesn't quite go far enough. Many pre-pollution control loaded cars got better real world MPG than today's cars. The problem isn't with the engine technology, it's with all the creature comforts that draw power. I know for a fact that the 12V system in the Pontiac Montana AWD couldn't supply quite enough wattage to run the ABS system and the high beams at the same time. I asked about this when I discovered my highs would pulse in time with the ABS.

As for CR testing - when they actually do the testing their results tend to be consistent across cars. It's CR's survey techniques that leave a lot to be desired.

 

As for CR testing - when they actually do the testing their results tend to be consistent across cars. It's CR's survey techniques that leave a lot to be desired.

IMO their testing also leaves a lot to be desired, such as a city driving fuel economy that's actually useful for 90% of owners, not just those who beat and rag on their cars in stop and go city traffic. IIRC, they rated the Cruze for something around 17mpg. I don't think anyone here has ever been able to get that low of a fuel economy in-town. Useless.

 

Respectfully, millions of people are in stop and go traffic every day. Rush hour going to and going home from work. Even the expressways are stop and go, sometimes for hours just to go 20-30 miles.

There is no hypermiling in the city. Courtesy means sticking on the bumper of the car in front of you, getting through the intersection as quickly as possible and no accordion effect. Many cities they talk about the one car red rule, which means the light better be red before the last car gets half way through the intersection. Some stretch that to the two car red rule. There is no stopping on a yellow. Many small cars can end up in the single digits for gas mileage at times. I learned quickly to always keep at least 1/2 to 3/4's of a tank of gas if getting trapped in that kind of traffic. All it takes is a little fender bender to have you sweating, trapped in dead stopped traffic and less than a quarter of a tank.

Always fun when looking at the entrance and exit ramps of the freeway packed with stopped cars and no gas. Also a good time to be grateful if you have a newer battery, a good starter, and a good charging system. Not to mention a good cooling system. Nothing like being in 100 degree heat with the heater on full blast, watching the temp gauge. Not a good time to have faulty aftermarket amps, capacitors or wire draining problems. Santa Monica, the 10, 101, 118, and the 405 in L.A. could give me nightmares if I think about it.

There is really no need to duplicate the CR city test to see if it is at all accurate. Just go through rush hour downtown of a major city and drive around for 16-20 minutes minimum on the busiest streets. Chances are you just might be there an hour later. :grin:


Xtreme, you live in Chicago and lived out in L.A, if I remember correctly, so you have had to have some of those experiences. Aren't you glad where you are now, not having to deal with the extreme downtown driving, and old clunkers? We really do have a lot to be thankful for. I think of some of the clunker cars that my family has had, driving across country, getting caught up in some of the above circumstances and think, wow! Those made some memories with the family. Would not change it for the world!

 

The fact is that the majority of people don't live, yet alone DRIVE in those conditions. LA is a basket case of a city and the whole region is one large traffic jam---err---parking lot. I moved away from there for a reason. My worst stop and go driving in Chicago when I used to commute downtown in heavy snowstorms didn't even average that low. I seriously don't know what CR is smoking.

I drove 5 people in my car in 100+ degree weather, averaging 18 miles per hour in my Cruze for a tank of gas and STILL managed 30.5mpg. This whole 17mpg fuel economy in-town is utter BS.

Yeah, we do have a lot to be thankful for, but those fuel economy numbers are only valid for people who live right in the city or commute into downtown, and if you live in Chicago, you don't drive around; you take the metra, or the CTA, or the bus lines. If you live in New York, you have alternate means of transportation as well that are available to you. I understand that some people drive in these kind of conditions, but they're nowhere near close to what the majority of people will see. On that regard, I don't understand what use CR's testing is to us when it's only applicable to a minority of people.

 

CR's truth **** is... not true. Extreme circumstances. My worst tank was 20 MPG and I sat in traffic in a city for 80% of it. The city EPA testing is carefully outlined... less than 2 traffic lights per mile -_-. Take it or leave it.

 

So you got really good gas mileage the other 20%?:1poke::tututtongue4:

 

35+ MPG in Denver, even during rush hour.

 

I live in northern denver I average 34.5 mpg on my daily drive to DIA.

Sent from my HTC Sensation 4G using AutoGuide.Com Free App

 

Cwerdna, yes, thank you for the links, but I was already aware of the differences. :smile: I am already long-winded enough without getting into the weeds about CVT's, their differences, and their various manufacturers. And yes, Jatco might produce most of the CVT's for other vehicles, it does not change the fact that the application in the Caliber is vastly less desirable than in the Altima, and there are many factors that cause that.
When it comes to Toyota CVT's:
I am pretty sure we are talking more than one cvt here, the non-hybrid Super Cvt-I VDP "Reeves" drive and the Multidrive, and the hybrid Power Split Hybrid Synergy Drive
Links you may enjoy:
Driven: Toyota Verso gets CVT 'box - IOL Motoring | IOL.co.za
Details of 7 Speed CVT of Toyota Corolla Altis 2011 Automatic
Greener Altis with a Super CVT-i 7 Speed Transmission
http://www.toyota.co.za/ContentPage...ntPage.aspx?PageId=43&ArticleContentId=1762&PrevPage=ContentPage.aspx?PageId=43

 

[ my ears were burning this morning ]

...both of our Vibes have been automatics, and yet, we've had NO problem "beating" their EPA milage numbers, especially with the help of a ScanGuageII™! I was routinely getting 37-39 mpg...even 40 on trips without a/c. However, my recommendation would lean toward a manual ECO for maximum FE; remember, the Vibe is a "...motherle$$ GM- / Toyota-ba$tard-child..." with neither really happy to repair it.

 

Excellent! I have to get a ScangaugeII. Great point about the Vibe and repairs. I will never buy another re-badged car for that reason. As it is, we are stuck trying to get service for our cars with techs that do not deal or have much experience in them. The correct fluid top off and replacement issues getting it serviced at a dealership is also bothersome. Another thing to consider is the availability of sheet metal and "Vibe" centric body parts. I started a long winded post last night and mentioned these points about our orphaned car and decided nobody wants to read a book.

I wonder if my less than stellar highway gas mileage has to do with my more aggressive nature of merging onto the freeway. I am a little heavy footed and want to get up to speed fast and early. Once I am merged, I set the cruise at two or three over the posted limit, usually, and only adjust to keep a good distance between the car in front of me.

Is that 37-39mpg going 65, 70, 75? I also wonder how much weight and luggage affect the mileage. I only had about 450 pounds of passengers in my car when I went for the little trip to another city and put on 270 miles or so round trip. Less than 33mpg was a little disappointing. I was using Shell 87 without ethanol, and I have Mobil 1 0w-20. I am just now a little less than 15k on the odometer. If it is warm, the A/C is on.

 

My assessment that The Toyota Matrix is not price competitive as a new car might be a little harsh. On Edward's site their true market value for what others are paying on a new Matrix is about $500.00 under invoice. Right now I am not seeing any specific rebates or incentives, but that may vary in the region that you live in. There is a $1000.00 recent college grad incentive and a $250.00 gift or debit card.
If one can indeed expect to get 37-39mpg on the highway, that is pretty competitive. The plus side is it is also a very reliable car. The biggest selling point concerning gas mileage would be that it does really well for most in city and suburb driving, and overall gas mileage averages is very good. Another point to consider is that the Matrix has pretty good cargo volume compared to recent newly designed competitors. It is like everybody is starting to shrink the hatches and wagons. There was a person on another forum that was pushing 500k miles on his 2004 and has done very little to it.
For the content, reliability, simplicity in design and controls, cheaper parts and availability versus a lot of other imports, it is a solid vehicle to own and is more price competitive depending on the way you look at it.
Maybe it does not have a newer transmission with more gears or an EPA rated competitive highway mileage, but real world for many seems to be very good. The benefit of Toyota dragging their feet with newer technologies in this segment is that it does help keep the price down and the parts are cheaper.
Since 2012, most of the safety features people want are already mandated and the Matrix has one more positive attribute in my opinion, and that is rear disk brakes.
It is always tough to make these decisions.

 

What? You mean to say that we'll never be blessed by the sight of ER tooling around in a "HELLO-KITTY" pink FIT? But, I've heard it's "Fit" for a King (wink,wink)!

 

Earlier compact cars scare me. I was in a crash in a friend's 2004 Cavalier. It did NOT fair well - hit in the rear and then pushed into an intersection and T-boned, but luckily I was uninjured (driver had a broken leg from where the car was hit in the side). I also had a Camry that was T-boned in an intersection by a drunk driver that ran a red light 30 sec after it changed and walked away from that one without a scratch (just a few bruised ribs from the seatbelt).

I would never buy anything like the Chevy Spark, Smart Car, or whatever. I like Minis, but I'd have the same concerns with being hit by a gigantic SUV or something.

The crash tests that I've seen with the Cruze impressed me - a lot. I came from a Volvo where they're renowned for safety and built like tanks, and the Cruze's structure in the side impact test wowed me.

 

Chevy old vs. new
2009 Chevy Malibu vs 1959 Bel Air Crash Test - YouTube
Camry vs. Yaris
IIHS Crash Test Of Toyota Camry Versus Toyota Yaris - YouTube
Accord vs. Fit
IIHS Crash Test Of Honda Accord Versus Honda Fit - YouTube
SmartFortwo versus C-class
IIHS Crash Test Of Mercedes C300 Versus Smart ForTwo - YouTube

 

^^^
Yep. Not too surprising since kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity^2.

The "minicars" they carshed were in the ~1800 lb. (Smart ForTwo) to sub-2650 lb. range. The other cars were in the low to mid-3000s lbs. range. The 09 C300 tested is actually a compact per the EPA, while the Camry is a midsized car and Accord is a large car.

 

Ya I know all about DFCO, but in allot of instances the trans will compression brake & slow the car requiring more gas than just using neutral since I have to be on the gas just to make it to the stop/turn. In neutral the car only is burning idle fuel consumption, without AC the 1.4T only uses like 1/2 gallon an hour in warm temps.

It is not a tiny distance farther you can coast(obviously you have not tried it). These cars do coast 8X better in neutral than in gear. at 30mph I can coast almost a mile on a few streets in my town, try that in gear & I will not make it even a 1/4 that distance before I am crawling. These streets are not hills, they are flat. On a down hill road I would leave it in gear to utilize DFCO since the cars weight & the hill will keep me going forever without any throttle input.

 

In neutral the car only is burning idle fuel consumption, without AC the 1.4T only uses like 1/2 gallon an hour in warm temps.

Try 0.16 gallons/hour at warm idle with the A/C off while sitting still, and 0.23 gph while moving. If it's in N while moving, the ECU is keeping the engine at 1000 RPM to lessen the shock when the transmission is re-engaged.

Not sure when DFCO happens in the automatics. At least from what I believe is DFCO, it's pretty picky.

 

I know my 1LT auto could do a whole lot better on the highway if it had the gearing of the Eco. I can start from a stoplight while in 3rd gear in manual mode. That is just ridiculous. If they had spaced out the lower gears a little better, my rpm's at a highway speed of 65 could be a lot lower in 6th.

 

The 2012 has a much lower final drive ratio than the 2011(3.83 to 3.53 in 2012). at 65mph I get above 40mpg with the cruise set. I think those first three gears are purposely set close together so you can get the car moving without having to rev the RPM past 2500 in each gear.

 

I have measured the DFCO range in my 2012 ECO MT to be 1200 RPM to over 4,000 RPM. I did this by putting the car in Metric and monitoring the instant MPG readout. Coasting down Vail Pass in 3rd gear I was well over 4,000 RPM showing 0.0 L/100KM. I have also monitored while slowing to a stop sign going uphill on an exit ramp. The ECU resumes fuel injection when the RPMs fall to 1,200 RPM. Downshifting during DFCO incurs a 2-5 second 0.3-0.4 L/100KM fuel injection penalty.

 

My 2012 NON ECO Auto does quite well, (real close to 40 mpg) look at my fuelly stats.

 

So I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on a 2012 LT 2LT RS with an auto. The dealer is listing it as used, with 6000 miles on it for $20,900.

What are the differences between this and the ECO auto? I've got them down to a reasonable interest rate of 1.9%. There is an ECO auto in the area with a few options like NAV, but not all the features of the 2LT and RS package.

So is there a big difference in MPG? I do a 100 mile commute RT/ day mostly highway, like 95% or so.

Thanks for the help!

 

The Eco auto won't have a large difference in MPG compared to another automatic Cruze. The Eco manual will still be the highest-MPG Cruze by a significant margin.