Author Topic: CVT vs MT  (Read 190 times)

ColinS

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 322
  • Country: england
  • My Honda: 2016 EX-Navi Manual
CVT vs MT
« on: August 16, 2018, 10:19:50 PM »
Over the last two days I have been test driving the HR-V.  The first one was a 1.5 Petrol SE Navi CVT and the second a 1.6 Diesel EX MT (they didn’t have a petrol one available).

Difficult to compare mpg but my feelings were that like for like the CVT would be better than the MT.

Without pushing either one hard, the MT seems more punchy than the CVT.  The CVT gave me the impression that it wasn’t accelerating that well but if you watch the speedo it actually was.  It’s all to do with perception.  Driving the CVT harder, especially in S mode, it really performs very well.  Use of the paddles gives it more of a driver controlled drive but to be honest if I was intending to drive like that I may as well get an MT model.

I took the CVT down a steep hill (Spread Eagle just south of Shaftesbury for anyone who knows the area) and used the paddles for engine braking.  That worked really well.  Going back up the hill I got stuck behind lorries but it was an effortless climb.  My jazz would have been down to 1st gear and revving considerably.

The headlights are brilliant on the EX and the automating dipping functions better than my Jazz.  It dips when doing less than 6mph so when you join a road at a junction it is already dipped and doesn’t come back to full beam until you reach 25mph (not that you need full beam with those LED low beam headlights).

The Intelligent Speed Limiter is improved over my Jazz in so much that it reads signs that mine doesn’t (e.g. those partially obscured by tree growth).

One thing that the MT handles better that the CVT is the Auto Idle Stop.  If you make use of the Automatic Brake Hold on the CVT, the Auto Idle Stop never cuts in.

The downside of the Automatic Brake Hold, and only downside as far as I can see, is that the brake lights stay on (one of my pet hates as at night it dazzles the driver behind).  The salesman said “but you’re not in the car behind”. Typical sales type comment I thought.

My wife disliked the SE purely due to the lack of passenger side seat height adjustment.  She said that she felt like a child being allowed to sit in the front as a treat.  She also said that she felt that I was looking down on her the whole time, but said that she was generally used to that!

Overall I will likely go for a 1.5 Petrol EX CVT but will wait now until the facelift in October.  To be honest I would probably stick to the Jazz if they put a 1.5 in the EX but there are no plans to do that as far as I can see.

peteo48

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1129
  • Country: gb
  • I have entered the Jazz Age
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2017 Honda Jazz 1.3 SE CVT Tinted Silver
Re: CVT vs MT
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2018, 09:28:48 AM »
Good review - really useful.

John Ratsey

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1094
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: 2016 Blue HR-V SE CVT
Re: CVT vs MT
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2018, 11:10:53 AM »
Don't forget that the diesel engine has significantly better torque than the petrol engine, particularly at the low end of the revs. That the CVT has largely disguised this difference speaks for itself.

It will soon be 2 years since my CVT Mk 3 Jazz was traded in for my CVT HR-V. The latter provides a more fuss-free drive (none of that Atkinson cycle issue), a slightly higher seating position, virtually eliminates (for me) the dashboard glare problem (a big issue with my hybrid Jazz and reduced, but still a problem, on the Mk 3) plus an even more spacious cabin. I had assumed about 15% thirstier than the Mk 3 Jazz and it's fulfilled that expectation - 50 mpg on A road cruising (in June I did 2000 miles to / from / around Scotland at 55 mpg based on fuel used - orange Jazz gave nearly 63 mpg for a similar trip). However, mpg drops significantly during the winter - the engine takes excessively long to warm up.

My two key issues with the HR-V are (i) the touch panel for controlling the heating and ventilation - difficult to use safely when driving and (ii) the temperamental auto idle stop. I've seen nothing to suggest that Honda may have addressed the former in the refresh while the latter seems to be related to the low battery syndrome (a reluctance of the vehicle to keep the battery properly charged so a week or two of standing means that the battery has dropped below the charge threshold for the auto stop). I should note, however, that my Mk 3 Jazz also had this issue - I now understand it better but, so far, have got no admission from the dealer that anything is amiss as it works OK for them.

I wonder if some of the other differences you are seeing in your comparison between Mk 3 Jazz and HR-V are the result of unreported incremetal tweaks. I didn't notice significant differences with auto headlights or auto wipers when I changed vehicle (the Mk 2 Jazz auto-wipers were much better).

As for those brake lights staying on, a lot of modern vehicles have the same problem. It just needs a rear-looking camera to detect that there is a stationery vehicle behind and then turn the lights off after a few seconds (the EX has the camera but lacks the simple logic).

Personally, from what I've seen so far about the changes coming with the HR-V refresh (turbo option excepted) they seem to be largely cosmetic. Perhaps the infotainment system is also updated? I would personally be inclined to save some money and look around for an ex-demonstrator of the current version https://usedcars.honda.co.uk/en/used-cars/approved-cars (the majority seem to be EX) but I wouldn't want the EX due to loss of rear seat headroom caused by the sun roof even though the front passenger might like the higher seat.

ColinS

  • Topic Starter
  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 322
  • Country: england
  • My Honda: 2016 EX-Navi Manual
Re: CVT vs MT
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2018, 11:22:33 AM »
but I wouldn't want the EX due to loss of rear seat headroom caused by the sun roof even though the front passenger might like the higher seat.
I had noticed a similar comment from you before and logic says you are correct.  But I sat in both and couldn't notice any difference.  I am a bit puzzled over that.  Again my salesman would no doubt say "You don't sit in the back"

Tags:
 

Back to top