Author Topic: WLTP fuel figures and CVT  (Read 2331 times)

peteo48

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1961
  • Country: gb
  • I have entered the Jazz Age
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2020 Honda Jazz 1.3 EX Navi CVT Shining Grey
WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« on: December 31, 2019, 12:03:14 PM »
https://www.honda.co.uk/content/dam/local/uk/cars/WLTP-PDF/19YM%20JAZZ%20-%20WLTP%20Data.pdf

Some interesting stats here. Now my car - a 1.3 SE CVT on a 17 plate - isn't on here but the 2019 model, which is pretty much identical in every respect is.

Under the old NEDC figures, Honda claimed that the CVT was more efficient than the manual but, it is clear that, under the new and more accurate measures a Manual is marginally better than a CVT.

Kind of confirms my gut feeling. My current car is a bit more economical than the Mk2 1.4 Manual it replaced but that's largely due to efficiencies in the engine. I spend a lot more time at higher revs in the CVT, even with careful driving, than I ever would in a manual and common sense dictates that more fuel is being burned especially when accelerating. The CVT is more efficient at 70 mph but, in day to day driving, a manual is best and the WLTP figures confirm this.

Kenneve

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 483
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: 2019 Mk3 EX CVT, Red
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2019, 03:00:29 PM »
Had occasion to drive today, in my EX CVT 19 plate down to Banbury from Solihull, a round trip of 71 miles mostly on the M42/M40 with about 2 miles each end on local roads. Kept the speed down on the motorway to around 60-62 MPH
Filled up before i started, so the 'Fibometer' was set to zero.

Now reading 70.8 miles, 57.3 MPG, which I don't think is bad. I noticed that engine speed on the motorway was a tad over 2000 RPM which gives a very relaxed style of motoring.
I accept that the 'Fibometer' may be a bit out, but i would suggest on that style of motoring, not much.

As regards day to day motoring, the 'Fibometer' rarely drops below about 48-50MPG, so more than happy!

peteo48

  • Topic Starter
  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1961
  • Country: gb
  • I have entered the Jazz Age
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2020 Honda Jazz 1.3 EX Navi CVT Shining Grey
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2019, 04:48:50 PM »
Good figures. I got a 57 plus real world mpg on a trip to Scotland in September.

jazzaro

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 453
  • Country: it
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2019, 04:52:54 PM »
https://www.honda.co.uk/content/dam/local/uk/cars/WLTP-PDF/19YM%20JAZZ%20-%20WLTP%20Data.pdf

Some interesting stats here. Now my car - a 1.3 SE CVT on a 17 plate - isn't on here but the 2019 model, which is pretty much identical in every respect is.

Under the old NEDC figures, Honda claimed that the CVT was more efficient than the manual but, it is clear that, under the new and more accurate measures a Manual is marginally better than a CVT.

Kind of confirms my gut feeling. My current car is a bit more economical than the Mk2 1.4 Manual it replaced but that's largely due to efficiencies in the engine. I spend a lot more time at higher revs in the CVT, even with careful driving, than I ever would in a manual and common sense dictates that more fuel is being burned especially when accelerating. The CVT is more efficient at 70 mph but, in day to day driving, a manual is best and the WLTP figures confirm this.
The higher consumption of the CVTs is not due to higher revs, but to the power drain of the cvt. A manual transmission  is very efficient, only bearings and gears drain a little bit of energy,while  a CVT needs more power both for the scratch between chain and pulleys than  for the hydraulic pump (pulleys need a high pressure circuit to regulate their diameter).
So even if the engine runs in a slighty more efficient way, the trasmission runs in a highly worst way, so the sum is better for the manual.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2020, 12:50:56 AM by jazzaro »

peteo48

  • Topic Starter
  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1961
  • Country: gb
  • I have entered the Jazz Age
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2020 Honda Jazz 1.3 EX Navi CVT Shining Grey
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2019, 05:06:18 PM »
In general, though, the WLTP figures are a huge improvement over NEDC which would have the average consumer believing that the Jazz is a genuine 50 mpg + car. The 47.9 combined figure for the 1.3 SE CVT is much nearer what most people get (Fuelly bears this out). My lower figures reflect my pattern of driving - I note there is 43.3 figure for the short type stuff and I'm reasonably happy that I better this in real life.

WLTP also very useful for EV buyers. The almost criminally laughable claim that a 24 kwh Nissan Leaf could do 124 miles would not happen under the new criteria.

Downsizer

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 642
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: Jazz 1.3 SE cvt - Feb '16 - Blue
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2020, 09:33:32 AM »
In general, though, the WLTP figures are a huge improvement over NEDC which would have the average consumer believing that the Jazz is a genuine 50 mpg + car. The 47.9 combined figure for the 1.3 SE CVT is much nearer what most people get (Fuelly bears this out). My lower figures reflect my pattern of driving - I note there is 43.3 figure for the short type stuff and I'm reasonably happy that I better this in real life.

WLTP also very useful for EV buyers. The almost criminally laughable claim that a 24 kwh Nissan Leaf could do 124 miles would not happen under the new criteria.
WLTP figures suggest that the going rate for small electric cars is 4 miles per kWh of battery capacity.  For example: Nissan Leaf - 40 kWh hour battery with 168 mile range;  e Honda - 35 kWh battery with 135 mile range.  I think the new hybrid Jazz will have a battery of about 1 kWh capacity, so the engine will soon kick in as a generator.

Jocko

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6699
  • Country: scotland
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2006 GD5 Jazz 1.2 i-DSi S in Vivid Blue Pearl
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2020, 10:15:04 AM »
I think hybrids are just the car manufacturers pretending they are going green. PHEV are different, in that they have a battery capable of powering the car for most users daily driving about town. Provided they are "plugged in" and not just run like a conventional hybrid.

Downsizer

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 642
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: Jazz 1.3 SE cvt - Feb '16 - Blue
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2020, 10:34:06 AM »
The WLTP figures for the CR-V show an overall fuel consumption of 40.9 mpg for the hybrid as against 38.7 for the 1.5L turbo.  So the hybrid gain is only 2.3%.  We'll see later this year how the new Jazz compares.

culzean

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6459
  • Country: england
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2020, 10:38:27 AM »
I think hybrids are just the car manufacturers pretending they are going green. PHEV are different, in that they have a battery capable of powering the car for most users daily driving about town. Provided they are "plugged in" and not just run like a conventional hybrid.

The downside of PHEV is that battery lasts about 20 miles,  but when running on engine the vehicle is carting around 500Kg+ of empty battery and MPG is about 30... ( and unlike most things, empty batteries weigh the same as full ones ).. and 500Kg is pretty much 50% of the weight of a normal ICE Jazz.  Most company car drivers had a PHEV for tax and ULEZ purposes but never charged them up..
« Last Edit: January 01, 2020, 11:15:25 AM by culzean »
Some people will only consider you an expert if they agree with your point of view or advice,  when you give them advice they don't like they consider you an idiot

Jocko

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6699
  • Country: scotland
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2006 GD5 Jazz 1.2 i-DSi S in Vivid Blue Pearl
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2020, 10:46:03 AM »
So the hybrid gain is only 2.3%.
Yes, and a careful driver could easily make that gain driving a petrol version.

peteo48

  • Topic Starter
  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1961
  • Country: gb
  • I have entered the Jazz Age
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2020 Honda Jazz 1.3 EX Navi CVT Shining Grey
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2020, 11:32:12 AM »
I think hybrids are just the car manufacturers pretending they are going green. PHEV are different, in that they have a battery capable of powering the car for most users daily driving about town. Provided they are "plugged in" and not just run like a conventional hybrid.

The downside of PHEV is that battery lasts about 20 miles,  but when running on engine the vehicle is carting around 500Kg+ of empty battery and MPG is about 30... ( and unlike most things, empty batteries weigh the same as full ones ).. and 500Kg is pretty much 50% of the weight of a normal ICE Jazz.  Most company car drivers had a PHEV for tax and ULEZ purposes but never charged them up..

That's definitely true. My brother is a BMW man and he was told by his local dealership that most of the PHEV beemers they sell are for company tax and ULEZ purposes only and they have taken them back after leases/pcps have expired and it's clear that the battery has never been charged.

The Toyota hybrids (self charging LOL!) are another case in point. Use them on the motorway with any regularity and the mpg figures are actually worse than a conventional ICE. Round town, a completely different story which is why they are so good as taxis.

These days, there is a car for every type of driving scenario but you do need to go through the critical thought process first. A PHEV would suit me as I probably only use the ICE about 7 or 8 times a year with most of my trips being 5 miles or less.

ColinB

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 597
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: 2015 Jazz 1.3 SE manual in Milano Red
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2020, 12:18:39 PM »
Has there been any clarification yet about how hybrids sit with the ban on ICEs in 2040? Logically, a ban on all ICEs would ban all hybrids and PHEVs. But I recall seeing something suggesting that hybrids would still be OK provided the battery was big enough to travel 30 miles. No current hybrids can do that, and I suspect many PHEVs would struggle as well. Anyone know with any certainty?

Regarding charging PHEVs, I believe BEV owners can get quite grumpy when they find public charge points blocked by PHEVs that donít really need it.

Downsizer

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 642
  • Country: gb
  • My Honda: Jazz 1.3 SE cvt - Feb '16 - Blue
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2020, 12:53:56 PM »
Power for electric vehicles has to be generated somewhere.  Using the WLTP figure of 4 miles/kWh, an EV doing 10,000 miles in a year will need 2500 kWh of electricity.  There are 8760 hours in a year, so this averages 285 watts.  A simple calculation shows that a wind farm in a stiff breeze can generate about 2 watts/sq metre, or say 1 watt/sq metre allowing for weather variation.  So each EV will need 285 sq metres of windfarm.  A million EV's would need 285 sq km if we are to go carbon-free and we don't want more nuclear power.  Are our politicians thinking about these things?

peteo48

  • Topic Starter
  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1961
  • Country: gb
  • I have entered the Jazz Age
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2020 Honda Jazz 1.3 EX Navi CVT Shining Grey
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2020, 03:21:56 PM »
Power for electric vehicles has to be generated somewhere.  Using the WLTP figure of 4 miles/kWh, an EV doing 10,000 miles in a year will need 2500 kWh of electricity.  There are 8760 hours in a year, so this averages 285 watts.  A simple calculation shows that a wind farm in a stiff breeze can generate about 2 watts/sq metre, or say 1 watt/sq metre allowing for weather variation.  So each EV will need 285 sq metres of windfarm.  A million EV's would need 285 sq km if we are to go carbon-free and we don't want more nuclear power.  Are our politicians thinking about these things?

I don't have the scientific background to assess these figures. I read a lot about EVs using the grid at night when the drain from other sources is minimal and there is work going on around smart grids with EVs giving power back at certain times and taking it away at others.

Having said that, I am reading a lot of stuff from people who are quite clear that the idea we replace the nations fleet of approximately 30 million passenger cars with a fleet of 30 million EVs is for the birds. In short I have read many environmentalists saying that EVs are absolutely not the answer. Lower car ownership, more walking, more cycling, more working from home and cheap and efficient public transport are what is required. Lashing out £100,000 on a Tesla is just a very expensive form of virtue signaling.

Jocko

  • Approved Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6699
  • Country: scotland
  • Fuel economy:
  • My Honda: 2006 GD5 Jazz 1.2 i-DSi S in Vivid Blue Pearl
Re: WLTP fuel figures and CVT
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2020, 04:33:16 PM »
Car ownership has got to fall and an interesting thing is that young adults are tending to shun car ownership. When my kids came of age they couldn't wait to get a driving licence, but not so much these days. Young Millennials and Generation Z are public transport minded. Their lifestyle, and the preponderance of private hire taxis and "Ubers" makes it more convenient and good economic sense not to own a car. When I started to drive our town (pop 6,000) had one taxi. It was only available when the owner's garage/petrol station was open (not on a Sunday), unless you booked it in advance. Since most people did not have a phone back then, you had to visit the garage to make a booking. Hardly convenient.

Tags:
 

Back to top