The economy is great too. Driving at 120km/h at 2100rpm is nice.
See, that's the thing. Everyone talks about CVT=economy. Is there a vehicle where it had a 4 or 5 speed traditional automatic transmission one year and then replaced by a CVT the next? I'd be curious to see the change in fuel economy. I could see the city rating improving a bit, but highway rating should remain the same I would think...
As a consideration, a CVT being 'more economic' wasn't in my equation (then again, that's why I got the SE-R!). That being said, the difference in L/100 and it's relative competitors with 2.0l+ I4s was not night and day compared to a Mazda 3 5sp Auto tranny. If FE is whatdrives your purchase is more a Fit or Civic.
I know that... but I'd be curious to see just how much more economic a CVT is compared to a regular automatic transmission. It's hard to view a straight comparison because cars are usually completely overhauled/redesigned when a car switches to a CVT... maybe the SX4 when it had the 4-speed auto and now the CVT. I'll look for numbers after lunch.
Alright, here are the numbers for the SX4 with the 4-speed auto and CVT.
2009 w/ 4-speed auto: 9.0 / 6.5
2010 w/ CVT: 8.0 / 6.1
Quite a difference. I wonder how different the numbers would be if Suzuki had gone with a 5-speed auto instead of CVT... somewhere in the middle of those two sets of numbers, I suppose.
Actually, the SX4 also had a new engine in 2010, so that's not a very good direct comparison.
The best way, I think, is to compare the difference between manual and automatic versions of those two years:
2009
Manual: 9,2 / 6,5
4-speed: 9,0 / 6,5
2010
Manual: 9,1 / 6,3
CVT: 8,2 / 6,4
These are the data for the hatchback, the Sedan gets better. Note also that the 4-speed automatic was known for being geared for fuel economy only, it was one of the slowest cars on the road, with a 0-60 mph time of about 11 seconds. The CVT is supposedly much better, not really fast, but decent enough.
That being said, there is a direct comparison that can be made, the Versa is available with a 4-speed automatic and with a CVT.
The 4-speed automatic gets: 8,5 / 6,2
The CVT gets: 7,3 / 5,8
Anyway, a constant in most CVT-equipped cars is much better city fuel economy, but highway fuel economy is not that much better. I'd suppose that the fact of keeping the engine in the sweet spot helps a lot in accelerations and to keep it really low in city driving, but that there may be higher energy loss in the transmission because of how the CVT works, and this manifests in the advantage on the highway being a bit lost.
Also, it's quite easy for someone with an heavy foot to get awful fuel economy with a CVT, you just have to look at feedback from owners to notice that.