Honda Insight Automatic vs Manual

[bwillie1007]

What is the difference in gas mileage from a AUTOMATIC to a manual? I've heard the automatics only get 47 whereas the manuals can get upwards to 55-60.

[flymuck]

Depends on how it's driven, of course, but the manual can do a lot better than 55-60. I get 62-64 in mine in my very hilly commute (daily 1300+ foot change in elevation). Our automatic gets about 48-50 for the same commute.

Others have gotten 55-60 in an automatic, although even on my best day I'm not able to get this in ours. And of course, many people on here get 70+, 80+, even 90+ in the manual.

[IMAhybrid]

According to a certain site the CVTs average 54 and the manuals average 64. However the Insights also have the largest standard deviation by far above the other hybrids, meaning you could just as easily do much better, or much worse (though really still not bad by any means).

[boogetyboogety]

LMPG, 55.9 (down from a high of 56.6, destroyed in a single twelve mile, 100+ mph run in late 2006... don't ask)...

43,000 miles...

50# per tire, A/C on Econ./72° setting and never turned off...

My usual commute, 50% city with stops at 35-50 mph, 50% highway at 65-75 mph for 15 miles one way total, yields high 50s-low 60s mpg consistently...

[IamIan]

The CVT is not as good as the MT in a direct comparison.

But in the total system of the car and the way you use it it is a bit more complex. There are secondary effects.

-----------------------------------------
Manual Transmission (MT):

Pros:
More Efficient torque-speed conversion.
Lighter Weight Unit.
Lower Cost to make.

Cons:
Relies on the driver to shift correctly.

-----------------------------------------
Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT):
( The improved type of automatic in the Insight )

Pros:
Shifts for the driver automatically.

Cons:
Less Efficient torque-speed conversion.
Heavier Unit.
Higher cost to make.

-------------------------------------------

Over View / secondary effects:

A ICE like the one in the insight can range from ~15% Efficient to ~40% Efficient of converting the chemical energy of the gasoline into torque.

Some of the variation in ICE % efficiency is directly related to the RPM speed and Load on the ICE. This is where the CVT makes up some ground on the MT. A CVT can try to keep the ICE in a more efficient zone so the driver doesn't have to. A MT depends on the driver to stay in the more efficient ICE zone. If the MT Driver gets too far out of the ICE better zone he ends up getting worse MPG and FE than the CVT which would have kept the ICE closer to its zone.

But there are two different ICE zones.... one for emissions and a different one for FE / MPG.

The other side of the CVT effects is that Honda built the Insights CVT to lower emissions more so than increase MPG. This means that the CVT generally does not use the Lean Burn mode Available to the MT.

The lack of Lean Burn is a big hit to the CVT for MPG. The Drivers who get to and stay in lean burn mode are often the MT drivers who are getting over 75+ LMPG.... those who rarely if ever get into lean burn are often the ones getting under 60- LMPG....

[red1dr]

It would be helpful to the OP (and me) if you guys would list in your sig (or elsewhere) whether you have an MT or CVT. After a bit of research I figured out that boogetyboogety has a CVT but am not sure what iamian has.

For the record, I have an MT and LMPG is 78 for the 23,000 miles I've had it. But I'm blessed with a long-ish highway commute (35 miles each way) over gently rolling terrain. As pointed out above, the mpg you'll get from an Insight is more dependent on where and how you drive than the mpg you will get from most other cars. I know of several Insight owners who have LMPGs of 95-ish for an MT, but hear of others in the 50's.

[joecvt]

Originally Posted by IamIan

The CVT is not as good as the MT in a direct comparison....

I am guessing IamIan has a manual transmission Insight.

Just kidding IamIan...I know you have a manual transmission because of the 2000 model year and that your first statement is just talking about the transmission itself and not the total difference between the two models.

I think both models have good qualities about them but overall I think it boils down to:

If the highest miles per gallon is what you are interested in and not as particular about the emissions rating and you don't mind shifting gears yourself, then get the manual transmission model.

If you like higher miles per gallon than most every other car on the road and you like one of the least pollutant gasoline cars available and don't want manual shifting, then get the CVT model.

By the way....47MPG seems low even for a CVT...My lifetime @ 75,000 is 57.8 and dropping. The reason it is falling is because I work from home now and just short trips to the store and such will kill the average for either model of the Insight. When I was driving 22 miles to work, my highest average over the length of mid spring, summer and early fall was 64MPG. Then came winter in New Hampshire


JoeCVT - Just your average CVT owner

[flymuck]

Another big difference between the manual and automatic is the auto-stop. In a manual, you can go into auto-stop as early as 19-20 mph (depending on the gear from which you came), and you'll drop back into auto-stop as soon as you put it in neutral (e.g. in stop & go traffic). In the automatic, it won't go into auto-stop until around 6 mph (I don't know the exact number, it may be slightly higher), and if you don't accelerate to 8 mph, you won't usually go back into auto-stop (again, in stop & go traffic, of which there's plenty here in LA).

Conversely, the automatic will do regenerative braking all the way down to auto-stop, whereas the manual will cut it off depending on the gear you were in (e.g. 5th gear = 30 mph, 4th = 25 mph, and so on). So, unless you have time to drop down to a lower gear and goose the accelerator, you get cut off for regen braking. Maybe that's why the battery in my '01 shows no sign of deterioration, whereas the '00 had to have its battery replaced this past year, and it really needed it!

This is all just my observation, so take it for what it's worth...

[Dgate]

Regarding the difference in mpg of the auto to the five speed, I believe the two main factors is the lack of lean burn facility on the Cvt and the automatic drivers habit of just shoving the go pedal down.

With any Cvt if you accelerate quickly up to say 40 mph then back off it will change ratio up to virtuall overdrive.result economy.
However if the pedal is held down the revs will stay in orbit until either the car catches up or the driver backs off.result no economy.
Its down to technique just as in the manual version but auto drivers tend not to practice this probably due to being educated on past inferior systems. If you listen to the engine and feel the ratios of the Cvt and strive to get into top ratio as soon as possible I'm sure there are some good returns to be achieved.

DGate

[joecvt]

Dgate: Besides the lack of lean burn, there are many other differences that play a factor besides the driver's habbits.

1) The CVT engine has slightly less horsepower and torque.
2) It takes more power to turn the CVT transmission than the manual.
3) The CVT model is heavier than the manual even if the manual has A/C.
4) The CVT seems to background charge more often to keep the battery nearly full.
5) The CVT is programmed to typically use less battery assist than the manual model.

Each one of these by themselves (besides number one) can reduce fuel economy when compared to the MT. Put them all together and consider lack of lean burn and there is your difference.

Number 2 means that it takes more power to rotate the input shaft of the CVT transmission because of the tightness and resistance of the drive belt.

Not sure about CVT model years 2001 and 2002 but the 2003 and upwards hardly use any battery at all and mostly the charge indicator reamins at one bar down from the top (as discovered by other CVTers in this forum as well.)

Even on my best day in the summer trying to drive for MPG, I could "only" get 74MPG on a 20 mile loop at approx 40MPH in my CVT....I say the word only but that is pretty good darn good for a CVT. I bet there are tons of manual transmission drivers out there that could get 85-90MPG on the same trip on the same day. On the positive side of that trip with the CVT, I put less pollutants in the air than I would have with the manual version.

There is one more thing that is just a theory of mine. I believe that the manual design (lean burn technology and battery programming) is causing more failures than the CVT model. From what I read here daily, it seems to me there are more EGR problems, catalytic converter and battery failures. I believe that the first two are caused by the lean burn cycling of lean mixtures and rich mixtures during the purge. The catalytic converter is different between the two models because of lean burn and I believe that the EGR valves are getting more clogged due to the cycling of rich and lean as well. For the battery failures, battery management and usage is much different between the two models. The manual model programming will normally use more assist and not background charge as much until it has to (when it's very low). By doing this, it causes more deeper discharges of the pack than compared to the CVT. I think that there have been more battery failures / replacements in the manual transmission due to the above reasons. If it wasn't for warranty extensions, I believe on average, the begining dollar savings of higher MPG for the MT may be balanced out by fewer high cost battery / CAT replacements of the CVT. The CVT transmission may be a high cost replacement value as well but I only heard of one or two needing to be replaced in this forum (knock on wood).


JoeCVT - Just your average CVT owner