Although I should reset the computer to remark to this, I can state that my *revs-to-speed* association for my FDII tranny and the 2.4L mill is 2900 rpm in drive at 110 kmh. Using the EVIC display which is a guesstimate at best hovers at the 10.5 L/100km marker. Typical mileage is 60 kms per day with a 50/50 mix highway/city driving.

 

I would think theres a power loss through the auto which could explain the mpg

 

Do the CVT's have a Converter Lock-up? That would explain part of the difference, the other part may be added weight from the Auto?

 

I wondered about the converter lockup myself.
The weight difference is less than 100lbs so that can't explain 3mpg on the highway.

It's funny because in the Patriot brochure it talks a lot about the higher efficiency of a CVT. While thats true in theory, is all you have to do is look at the mileage ratings to see this particular CVT is actually quite a bit less effecient than the 5 speed. Gotta love marketing!

Also when you look at most other modern vehicles the difference between the mileage ratings of the manual vs conventional automatics is quite small or non-existent.

I guess I am surprised by the lack of popularity in 5 speed Patriots given what I feel is a pretty significant difference in mileage. I am also surprised why the CVT isn't closer to the 5 speed in the Patriot.

 

The only reason the 5 speed isn't popular is because Jeep didn't build them in any numbers in other than the base model. Try finding a 4x4 5 speed Sport-E anywhere in the US right now...

 

Found one! It's in my driveway! 25E sport package... :smiley_thumbs_up:

 

I get 23 city and 28 highway with my FDI cvt 4x4. I drive the speed limit and coast down hills.

 

I guess I am surprised by the lack of popularity in 5 speed Patriots given what I feel is a pretty significant difference in mileage. I am also surprised why the CVT isn't closer to the 5 speed in the Patriot.

Think the poor shift quality of the 5sp has something to do with it's unpopularity. I've got a stick and one of my kids has a CVT. Wish I'd gone CVT.

I've been driving sticks since age 14 (my brother's Austin Healy), and the Pat is clearly the worst I've ever shifted, including VW's, Simcas and an old Benz 4on the tree. Mine is like an old milk truck - need a Google search to find 5th.

Hope yours is better, but wait until the 1st cold morning in Denver and I'll bet you wish you'd have gone CVT (or Honda).

 

I've been driving sticks since age 14 (my brother's Austin Healy), and the Pat is clearly the worst I've ever shifted, including VW's, Simcas and an old Benz 4on the tree. Mine is like an old milk truck - need a Google search to find 5th.

The only two autos I have owned that were/are automatics was my very first car my 1966 Mustang and my 2007 Patriot.

I have no issues with my CVT whatsoever. Took a little getting used to but my clutch foot is basking in its new found semi-retirement. I say semi-retirement, because once in a while I do enjoy driving someone else's standard transmission.

 

Simply, the 5-speed transmission is mechanically more efficient than the CVT. Generally, manual transmissions use about 10-15% of the engine's power while automatics in the 25-30% range. Measuring the power at the wheels on a chassis dyno has proven this for all manufacturers. The MK transmission choices seem to have a wider spread than other vehicles, so maybe closer to 10% for our manual and closer to 30% for the CVT. Less available power at the wheels, means more fuel needed to maintain any given speed. So despite the 3000rpm @ 70mph for 5-spd, it still gets better FE than the CVT @ 2100.

 

I suspect the reason may be that on hills the CVT will increase its RPMs, where the manual would not unless you downshift. Frequently at lower speeds or on a winding/hilly road I will bump my CVT up a notch to lower the engine speed, but not so much as to lug it. She'll perk along fine at 1700. Over 50MPH that doesn't work because there is no higher 'gear', so if you're driving turnpike speeds, a CVT is going to rev on the hills where a 5-spd will stay where it is. This is when a 4cyl really misses the torque.

 

My KJ CRD got about 26 MPG when it was bone stock. When I added some very heavy 32" MT/Rs, lift, armor and about 400#s of bumpers the MPG dropped to 18 MPG.

When I changed the gears from the stock 3.73 to 4.10, the MPG went to 21 MPG even though the engine revs higher.

 

The lack of manuals is because US citizens are too lazy. Of vehicles sold in the US that offer a choice of manual vs. auto, the manuals represent only about 10%. Even of sports cars, manuals are rarely the majority of the vehicle model.

Harbor, this manual is as good as any other FWD manual vehicle, which is to say, not great, but just fine.

Ignatz, your theory about hills is not useful. The EPA test has no hills and the CVT should be closer to the manual in the city because the engine speed is always optimized due to the infinite gearing within the range.

It's all about transmission mechanical efficiency, or mechanical losses.

 

The lack of manuals is because US citizens are too lazy. Of vehicles sold in the US that offer a choice of manual vs. auto, the manuals represent only about 10%. Even of sports cars, manuals are rarely the majority of the vehicle model.

This is getting off topic but although what you say is probably partially true, and I am not sure if this applies for all vehicles/manufacturers, but I am fairly certain it costs the manufacturer more to produce a manual transmission vehicle. Yet, they sell it for less so they can have the cheap "base" model price for marketing purposes... There is much more incentive for the manufacture to produce much more volume of the automatic version which they can then mark up an extra $1000 or so even though thier actual costs are even less than the manual. When I bought my car (yesterday epper, there were no manuals even on the lot.

 

I have a CVT in my Ford Freestyle also. Ford told me at the time that the CVT was worth 10-15% better mileage vs a conventional 4 - 6 speed automatic transmission. The CVT uses a "belt and pulley" system that is ancient and reliable, commonly used in the conveyor and manufacturing equipment drive industry. However, all automatic and CVT transmissions have "slippage" and create "heat" (which is unused energy) and therefore will get worst mileage than a manual transmission in most cases when driven properly. And it looks like that 15% mpg loss figure is about right for the Patriot (2 - 3 mpg less with the CVT).

 

CVT Mileage

I don't get you guys arguing about 25 or 28 MPG. My FDII CVT gets 20 -21 MPG highway and I go 55 to 60 mph and never pass. In fact, I drive like there's an egg under my foot.

The dealership says it's normal. Yeah right........

 

I don't get you guys arguing about 25 or 28 MPG. My FDII CVT gets 20 -21 MPG highway and I go 55 to 60 mph and never pass. In fact, I drive like there's an egg under my foot.

The dealership says it's normal. Yeah right........

The EPA estimated fuel economy for the FDII is 20 city and 22 highway. Your numbers align with that. I do not understand the complaint?

 

With my stock wheels i average about 26 city and 29-30 highway usually. With the 20's on it drops to about 22/26 respectively. During one tank while driving down to mississippi, I actually pulled in 32.8 mpg, but that was cruising in 5th gear for an entire tank of gas without stopping at all. Meanwhile, still had the Escort at that point and on the same stretch that one pulled down 39mpg. If i could do all my driving at once and never hit any lights or slow down just imagine how much gas i could save

 

Do the CVT's have a Converter Lock-up?

I live in fairly hilly country. It's not Colorado, but its not Florida, either. I cruise the freeway every day to work. My experience is this... I kick the cruise control on and roll along at 65. 2200 rpm. When I come on a hill I let the revs build to 2500, then I slap the Autostick right and it DROPS into 6th and holds 2500 rpm at 65 all the way to the crest. At the crest I slap right again into "D" and the Pat's revs DROP back to 2200. That sounds like a converter lock-up to me. BTW..Using this technique has raised my avg fuel consumption to 24 mpg from about 22. Might just be due to less friction as the engine/transaxle breaks in, I'm not sure. I only have 3100 miles. The Pat will normally go all the way to 3000 rpm in these same hills leaving it in "D" and the cruise on.

 

Think the poor shift quality of the 5sp has something to do with it's unpopularity.

I'm sorry you are having problems with your manual transmission, have you brought it in to a shop and complained about it? My manual transmission is just fine and I like the mileage I get with it.

 

You being in Fort Bragg know most of this drive I'm sure, it's Mountainous, it's Hairpin, it's looooong.

I went from Antioch, Ca (East Bay, if not familiar) up 101 to Redcrest (Avenue of the Giants) back down 101 to 1. I filled up in Cleone and took 1 down to Bodega Bay before cutting back to 101 via Valley Ford Rd/Bodega Ave to get home.

I had 2 adults, 3 kids, 48qt Chest and various other stuff.

In Cleone I was at 29.31mpg.

From Cleone to home I got 30.49mpg.

 

Another thing to ponder is that maybe the 2500-2700 RPM range is the sweet spot for this engine?

My 3/4 ton Diesel gets better MPG's at 1900RPM than it does at 16-1700 or at 21-2200...My Redline is 3200RPM's if I recall correctly, haven't driven her since August.

 

I have a Manual 2008 with 38k on it and i get 24 city 28 highway, on one trip i got 31MPG on a 300 mile stretch. At this point I feel the engine very well broken in and the milage is very predictable. The manual still shifts great and with the K&N I feel the manual is peppy and the 4x4 is solid in the snow. Hope that helps.

 

Afmcronnie, I'm totally with you on notching up the CVT to keep the RPMs down. I do it all the time. 6 will usually do it, 5 if its more steep, but keeping the RPMs down is key to fuel economy.

APT I must respectfully disagree on Americans being too lazy to shift a manual tranny. Maybe some are, but I chose a CVT in my Patriot because 1) I thought it was nifty and 2) my wife has a 5spd in her Wrangler: God forbid one of us ever breaks a leg, we'd be down to one vehicle. I remember how frustrating it was in high school -- I'd just gotten a car and couldn't drive it because I had surgery on my clutch foot. I'm sure you're right about the EPA not including hills in their tests -- that's way too 'real world' for the government.

 

There are several considerations in my mind:

• If you want the "Trail Rated" = CVT/Automatic
• If you are cannot use a clutch due to health reasons or not willing to learn = CVT/Automatic
• If you like having both hands free at all times = CVT/Automatic
• If you are concerned about fuel economy = Manual
• If you like more power for passing or like to control when you have more power = Manual
• If you enjoy the feel of a stick (i.e. stick shift) = Manual

 

Anyone know anything about tranny filler neck. My issue is mine is broken off . This is the second tranny . Are the filler necks replaceable . It's a cvt and should I trust it if they just flush the system . Not sure how long it's been broken . Please can anyone help me with useful info she sit at my local dealers


Sent from AutoGuide.com App

 

My GF likes the cvt. She didn't realize it never had shift points until after driving it a few days.