My husband and I bought an 05 Insight CVT in July and *assumed* that the mileage for the manual would be about the same as the auto but I am soooo wrong! I've always had manual cars and with gas-only cars, the difference between manuals and autos is almost nothing to speak about. I see though that this isn't the case with the Insight as the manual folks are the ones getting 70-100 mpg while I'm consistent at 53mpg with my 40 mile (one way) work commute (18 miles highway + 22 miles of windy, 2-lane mountain road). We did have about 10 miles of 70 mpg during one road trip which really surprised me. I pay attention to the real-time gauge and lightly touch the gas (feathering as you guys call it I see) and now I almost always drive in the far right lane content to stay away from the SUV's driving 80+ mph.

(I'm blaming purchasing the CVT on my husband as he prefers an auto and we got it so we can commuter together, not just for me.)

Even odder to me is the whole idea of 'continuously variable' transmission makes it sound like the electronics should be better at finding the right gear than someone with only 5 to choose from.

Please straighten me out, oh wise Insight gas-sipping geeks

Deb

 

The manual Insight also is different in that it has the 'lean burn' function, saving additional gas but causing enough extra pollution to make them unworthy of the new federal income tax rewards. There are additional losses (friction etc) in the CVT tranny as well, when compared to the manual so that accounts for some of the difference too, but manuals tend to be 'harder' to put into a high consumption mode, like flooring it -- in the CVT it just goes, revs pick up and off you go, but the manual would require a downshift to jump up the consumption, so it's somewhat less likely to 'guzzle' as easily, if that word can even apply to an Insight.

 

I have always noticed a GREAT difference between auto and MT mileages. For instance the geo metro's I've owned were different by about 5 or 10 mpg. Automatics have always given worse mileage than MT. Maybe other cars are different.

Also note that your economy will go up as you learn to drive it better so the difference between you and the people getting 70-100mpg will shrink.

There are some people on here with CVTs that are doing better than people with MTs as well. The driver is as big a part of the equation as the transmission.

 

Have you done the little tricks mentioned here on the board?

53 is still great mileage but I bet you can get a little better. You don't mention speeds, traffic situations (freeway, hills, city w/ constant stopping etc.). 53 "might be" stellar for your particular situation.

You're right though, most people can acheive better mileage with a stick.

I have faith you can squeeze just a few more MPG's out of that Insight.

 

I agree with Rigger, it sounds like you guys are doing a great job with the MPG's.

The 5-speed having lean burn is probably the biggest reason for it's MPG advantage.
The CVT is an efficient design, but still has more losses than the manual transmission.
I also hear that the charging scheme on the CVT is different from the manual, as in it's harder to pull the battery pack's state of charge down with the CVT.

And as everyone says, the driver has the largest impact on fuel economy.

Regards,

 

My driving conditions.... 40 mile one way commute, half of which is a two-lane mountainy road (15 miles up the hill, 8 miles down) then the rest of the 17 miles is pure highway which I try to stay at 60-65 (while most traffic is going much faster). I've always had manual transmissions (Toyota MR2, Honda DelSol, Mazda RX-7, Celica) and at least on those cars, the mileage diff between manual and auto was barely noticeable (maybe a few mpg but as you say), but may it does matter on the car model.

I have changed how I drive though as my last car was the MR2 and with its speed and quickness, I never drove in the slow lane (like I do now). I do watch the real-time display (it's addictive, eh?) and understand what you guys are saying about barely touching the gas pedal to keep it higher. I also coast as much as I can and try not to accelerate hard (which isn't easy if I'm first at a traffic light with SUV's piled up behind me).

I certainly can't complain about 53mpg but am a bit jealous of the hyper-milers out there. My 2002 MR2 got me 34 mpg consistently (same commute as with Insight) and though I loved that car, it just wasn't practical (oooh, I don't like that word 'practical') for two commuters to ride together in (not with each of having laptops, bags, etc.)

This is a great site, I get lots of good ideas and info. Hopefully this car will last us a long time. Our 1998 Pathfinder sits in the driveway, getting used once/month just to keep the oil moving

Deb

 

deb: i was getting 58 mpg with my "new" 2000 MT insight. a little showing off the uumph in first and second gear didnt help. then my FE went up to 60. then 65. and last tank was 69 mpg, for 707 miles, last night.

there IS a learning curve. you'll get there. just not quite as high as the MT version.

also, try insightcentral.net for lots of insight-specific info.

andy g.

 

Hey Deb. How about the tires as well? Sounds as though you've done your homeowrk so I'm sure you've aired them up a bit more.

With my Insight, for my conditions I average about 60 with a stick. I have recals about every 200 miles so that helps kill my mileage AND I also have non-LRR tires (new tires will be in Thursday! WooHoo!) AND I do use the A/C.

53mpg is super, and honestly from me guessing off the top of my head you'll only be able to bring it up to around 58 (some people would argue you can do vastly better). Then again you said it was a '05. Have you made it past your first oil change? Did you replace with synthetic as well? In my HCH I had a good jump in MPG when I changed my oil the first time and swapped to synthetic. With the good mileage you're getting it's obvious you haven't accidentaly left it "S" either.