View Single Post
Old 03-19-2013, 06:12 PM   #66
Scooby Guru
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT


Originally Posted by PA452 View Post
I must have used a different gas price average, because I ran the numbers some time ago and figured it would take 5 years to make up for the cost of the CVT in fuel savings.

But yeah, I'm not really factoring in MPGs at all at this point. It really comes down to what I want to drive. I thought maybe I was ready to finally buy my first auto, but I think I'm probably going to put that off to another day. Plus I plan to have this car for a long time if I don't have problems with it, and my gut feeling is that the MT will be more problem-free in the long run.
I just figured 28 combined vs 30 combined at 4.00/gallon. It is only 35 gallons/year difference.

I drive 20-25k/yr so it would be a lot less time, but I hated the cvt, and cvt maintenance is much more expensive
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote