Page 1 of 2
First hand experience on CVT and Manual
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:30 pm
by undecentum
I was in a car accident in August and my poor MY14.5 ES CVT was a total loss.
I received a new replacement vehicle which is MY15 ES Manual and I wanna share my experience on both configurations.
First of all, CVT was a very smooth ride and I loved sports shift!
There is a slight lag which I did not notice before until I drove Manual (more responsive)
It is also noisier and with a full tank till an empty sign I could drive about 580km.
I just drove a tank after I got my new car and it feels like a whole new different car!
As I mentioned above, when stepping on the pedal, it is more responsive.
I had driven an Accord 2.4L manual before and the clutch on ES is much smoother and the friction point is much higher in my opinion. However the gear stick shift is not as smooth and I always feel like I am pushing the stick too hard.
I have heard CVT is a very efficient auto however I was stunned when I drove the manual and got whopping 680km with a tank!!! (Right till Empty sign came on)
Oh also on the paint... I had red before and I was disappointed by the quality of the paint.
I got a solid white on it now and it looks beautiful.
Overall I am so glad I got a manual. I miss sports shift though haha.
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:56 pm
by Lancer1993
I've always wondered what the difference really was like. I've always preferred a manual shift but have driven a few autos from a Torana to Pathfinder and the current CVT Pulsar. The traditional autos just felt better, you still had clear change points but the Pulsar feel like it was revving too hard, from a manual POV it felt like the clutch was slipping. It had no sports shift mode, not sure if that is even an option on the Pulsar.
I've said for a long time the only auto I would buy is the Ralliart, but that has a whole different gear box compared to the other Lancers.
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:00 pm
by VRX_08
I have driven both too and find the manual a lot easier to get it going and more responsive! The CVT is slightly better in terms of economy but I prefer to lose the economy and have manual where it seems I have more control over the car! And I find the manual a lot quitter when running!
It comes down to personal opinion, but after owning 2 manual CJ's, both a 2 and 2.4 litre I always love the manual CJ!
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:03 pm
by Lancer1993
Maybe a little off topic here but is there a big difference between the 2 NA engine options.
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:15 pm
by VRX_08
Lancer1993 wrote:Maybe a little off topic here but is there a big difference between the 2 NA engine options.
I find there is a difference between the 2 and 2.4 litre options, the 2 has a bit more guts and acceleration in the manuals!
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:23 pm
by undecentum
Sorry I did not make my post clear.
CVT 580km with a tank and Manual 680km with a tank!
CVT is not as economic as people perceive/advertised.
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:29 pm
by VRX_08
undecentum wrote:Sorry I did not make my post clear. CVT 580km with a tank and Manual 680km with a tank! CVT is not as economic as people perceive/advertised.
They do get lower readings from what I have her in terms of how many litres per 100km!
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:36 pm
by ken_angelo
i guess i pick the right car then =)
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:03 am
by Mooman
One thing I've found with the CVT is that with a free flow exhaust it is a different car yet again.
With a stock exhaust on WOT there is no push, the car will accelerate smoothly. Free flow and you will feel yourself pushed into your seat.
Also with a free flow when in sports mode shift shock is all but eliminated making for a smooth clutchless manual imitator, a big bonus IMO.
But the CVT is heavier and has higher drive train losses so it is thirstier than a manual driven well.
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:11 am
by squala
Having a Platinum CVT as my previous car and rented a manual, I can possibly compare both as well. Each has its pros and cons.
The CVT is good for cruising, can make use of the engine better than a conventional 4-speed auto. You're at the right rpm all the time. The sport shift is very useful for uphill climbs. But it does lag, feels a bit unresponsive, and that mooing sound while accelerating can be irritating unless you get used to it.
The manual, on the other hand, feels a lot lighter. There is no hesitation while accelerating, and even if there are only five gears, the ratios are spaced very well. But I found the shifts quite notchy. It just doesn't have the Honda slickness in it. The pedals also seemed to be positioned too low on the floor, and with the thick OEM mat, it's tough to heel-and-toe, but this can be subjective.
I also found the manual more economical overall. It's probably because my throttle application was not as much, owing to the better response compared to the CVT. But I think the latter would have better efficiency on a highway cruise due to the lower revs. For example, the manual will stay at around 2800 rpm at 100 kph, while the CVT is at a much more relaxed 2000 rpm.
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:45 am
by Lancer1993
Would it take much for Mitsy to put a 6 speed manual in the Lancer? Do they have a suitable GB in there range?
Only time I fine my manual sluggish is as low RPMs, below 3k, but this is an advantage in traffic, you can pot along slowly and when the speed picks up find the right gear and you're off.
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:21 am
by himynameisdaniel
the previous evo's 8 & 9 had 6 speed manuals offered in addition to 5 speed.
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:43 am
by Metalstrix
I'm just like you man. I went from a CVT to a Manual. Best thing ever.
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:47 am
by Lancer1993
himynameisdaniel wrote:the previous evos 8 & 9 had 6 speed manuals offered in addition to 5 speed.
So it's probably something Mitsy could have reintroduce to the CJ to bring it in line with many other manual cars on the market.
Reports are the MY16 CVT has been improved so why still no change to a 6 speed manual?
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:25 pm
by wolfeey152
undecentum wrote:I was in a car accident in August and my poor MY14.5 ES CVT was a total loss. I received a new replacement vehicle which is MY15 ES Manual and I wanna share my experience on both configurations. First of all, CVT was a very smooth ride and I loved sports shift! There is a slight lag which I did not notice before until I drove Manual (more responsive) It is also noisier and with a full tank till an empty sign I could drive about 580km. I just drove a tank after I got my new car and it feels like a whole new different car! As I mentioned above, when stepping on the pedal, it is more responsive. I had driven an Accord 2.4L manual before and the clutch on ES is much smoother and the friction point is much higher in my opinion. However the gear stick shift is not as smooth and I always feel like I am pushing the stick too hard. I have heard CVT is a very efficient auto however I was stunned when I drove the manual and got whopping 680km with a tank!!! (Right till Empty sign came on) Oh also on the paint... I had red before and I was disappointed by the quality of the paint. I got a solid white on it now and it looks beautiful. Overall I am so glad I got a manual. I miss sports shift though haha.
Did you ever notice any clunking or crunching or notchiness in the 1/2 shift in the manual?