CVT Transmissions. Pros And Cons ?
 

Hello,

I have always had cars with automatic transmissions.

If I remember right, only some of,the Nissan's had a CVT type in the "past".

Now, two cars that I am considering apparently have CVT type.
An Accord and the Subaru Outback.

Know nothing re CVT transmissions.

Might someone please outline for me the pros and cons of a CVT vs the regular kind of transmission.

e.g, reliability, smoothness in shifting, etc.
Why don't all cars of this size use fhem ?

Thanks,
Bob

CVT Transmissions. Pros And Cons ?
 

On 12/20/2012 11:51 AM, Robert11 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have always had cars with automatic transmissions.
>
> If I remember right, only some of,the Nissan's had a CVT type in the "past".
>
> Now, two cars that I am considering apparently have CVT type.
> An Accord and the Subaru Outback.
>
> Know nothing re CVT transmissions.
>
> Might someone please outline for me the pros and cons of a CVT vs the regular kind of transmission.

pros:
cheap, reliable, efficient, offer great fuel economy.*

cons:
if you believe the motor press, people don't understand that they're
"continuously variable" and apparently need education that they don't
naturally have "shift points".


>
> e.g, reliability, smoothness in shifting, etc.
> Why don't all cars of this size use fhem ?

they could, and usually do in every other global market except the u.s.
but we seem either to have an acceptance problem [per the above, but
the massive popularity of the toyota prius with true cvt shows that to
be untrue] or the oilcos hate the prospect of significantly reduced fuel
economy. so either we stick with older style fixed ratio transmissions
with their torque converter losses, or we fudge cvt's by programming
artificial "shift points" into them, thus reducing their efficiency.


>
> Thanks,
> Bob


--
fact check required

CVT Transmissions. Pros And Cons ?
 

On Dec 20, 10:51*pm, Robert11 > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have always had cars with automatic transmissions.
>
> If I remember right, only some of,the Nissan's had a CVT type in the "past".
>
> Now, two cars that I am considering apparently have CVT type.
> An Accord and the Subaru Outback.
>
> Know nothing re CVT transmissions.
>
> Might someone please outline for me the pros and cons of a CVT vs the regular kind of transmission.
>
> e.g, reliability, smoothness in shifting, etc.
> Why don't all cars of this size use fhem ?
>
because I-4s with exhaust system that did not receive any love from
egineering
typically sounds like something your dentist uses all the time ->
few folks are looking to the constant 2-3k rpm drone of ****ty
sounding engine.

might've been better with a V-6 and even better with a V-8 but cvts
had problem
handling extra power a few years back

CVT Transmissions. Pros And Cons ?
 

On 12/22/2012 03:53 AM, AD wrote:
> On Dec 20, 10:51�pm, > wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have always had cars with automatic transmissions.
>>
>> If I remember right, only some of,the Nissan's had a CVT type in the "past".
>>
>> Now, two cars that I am considering apparently have CVT type.
>> An Accord and the Subaru Outback.
>>
>> Know nothing re CVT transmissions.
>>
>> Might someone please outline for me the pros and cons of a CVT vs the regular kind of transmission.
>>
>> e.g, reliability, smoothness in shifting, etc.
>> Why don't all cars of this size use fhem ?
>>
> because I-4s with exhaust system that did not receive any love from
> egineering
> typically sounds like something your dentist uses all the time ->
> few folks are looking to the constant 2-3k rpm drone of ****ty
> sounding engine.
>
> might've been better with a V-6 and even better with a V-8 but cvts
> had problem
> handling extra power a few years back

they're like any other transmission - you cheap out, you have problems.
they're not inherently unreliable. as i understand it, they were
first used in industrial drives for things like material conveyors.
heavy average loads, higher peak loads, and long service lives.


--
fact check required

CVT Transmissions. Pros And Cons ?
 

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:07:39 -0800, jim beam wrote:

> On 12/20/2012 11:51 AM, Robert11 wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have always had cars with automatic transmissions.
>>
>> If I remember right, only some of,the Nissan's had a CVT type in the
>> "past".
>>
>> Now, two cars that I am considering apparently have CVT type.
>> An Accord and the Subaru Outback.
>>
>> Know nothing re CVT transmissions.
>>
>> Might someone please outline for me the pros and cons of a CVT vs the
>> regular kind of transmission.
>
> pros:
> cheap, reliable, efficient, offer great fuel economy.*
>
> cons:
> if you believe the motor press, people don't understand that they're
> "continuously variable" and apparently need education that they don't
> naturally have "shift points".
>
>
>
>> e.g, reliability, smoothness in shifting, etc.
>> Why don't all cars of this size use fhem ?
>
> they could, and usually do in every other global market except the u.s.
> but we seem either to have an acceptance problem [per the above, but
> the massive popularity of the toyota prius with true cvt shows that to
> be untrue] or the oilcos hate the prospect of significantly reduced fuel
> economy. so either we stick with older style fixed ratio transmissions
> with their torque converter losses, or we fudge cvt's by programming
> artificial "shift points" into them, thus reducing their efficiency.
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob

Beg to differ with you on the "economy", especially when it needed servicing. The CVT in our Dodge Caliber
fluid change required a special fluid, with microscopic beads in it, and cost $800 for the transmission flush and
fill. Sure, it got over 33mpg on the road, but when servicing came, not so economical.

CVT Transmissions. Pros And Cons ?
 

On 12/24/2012 05:21 AM, sctvguy1 wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:07:39 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>
>> On 12/20/2012 11:51 AM, Robert11 wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have always had cars with automatic transmissions.
>>>
>>> If I remember right, only some of,the Nissan's had a CVT type in the
>>> "past".
>>>
>>> Now, two cars that I am considering apparently have CVT type.
>>> An Accord and the Subaru Outback.
>>>
>>> Know nothing re CVT transmissions.
>>>
>>> Might someone please outline for me the pros and cons of a CVT vs the
>>> regular kind of transmission.
>>
>> pros:
>> cheap, reliable, efficient, offer great fuel economy.*
>>
>> cons:
>> if you believe the motor press, people don't understand that they're
>> "continuously variable" and apparently need education that they don't
>> naturally have "shift points".
>>
>>
>>
>>> e.g, reliability, smoothness in shifting, etc.
>>> Why don't all cars of this size use fhem ?
>>
>> they could, and usually do in every other global market except the u.s.
>> but we seem either to have an acceptance problem [per the above, but
>> the massive popularity of the toyota prius with true cvt shows that to
>> be untrue] or the oilcos hate the prospect of significantly reduced fuel
>> economy. so either we stick with older style fixed ratio transmissions
>> with their torque converter losses, or we fudge cvt's by programming
>> artificial "shift points" into them, thus reducing their efficiency.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bob
>
> Beg to differ with you on the "economy", especially when it needed servicing. The CVT in our Dodge Caliber
> fluid change required a special fluid, with microscopic beads in it, and cost $800 for the transmission flush and
> fill. Sure, it got over 33mpg on the road, but when servicing came, not so economical.

when i say "cheap", i mean for the manufacturer. and it is. the fact
that they're ripping you off at retail is because they can, not because
they're trying to encourage you to tell your friends how great cvt's are.

oh, and your $800 "special" fluid is priced according to the utility
value that you'll pay to keep a car on the road. what it costs to
produce has absolutely nothing to do with it.


--
fact check required

CVT Transmissions. Pros And Cons ?
 

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:40:59 -0800, jim beam wrote:

> On 12/24/2012 05:21 AM, sctvguy1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:07:39 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/20/2012 11:51 AM, Robert11 wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I have always had cars with automatic transmissions.
>>>>
>>>> If I remember right, only some of,the Nissan's had a CVT type in the
>>>> "past".
>>>>
>>>> Now, two cars that I am considering apparently have CVT type.
>>>> An Accord and the Subaru Outback.
>>>>
>>>> Know nothing re CVT transmissions.
>>>>
>>>> Might someone please outline for me the pros and cons of a CVT vs the
>>>> regular kind of transmission.
>>>
>>> pros:
>>> cheap, reliable, efficient, offer great fuel economy.*
>>>
>>> cons:
>>> if you believe the motor press, people don't understand that they're
>>> "continuously variable" and apparently need education that they don't
>>> naturally have "shift points".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> e.g, reliability, smoothness in shifting, etc.
>>>> Why don't all cars of this size use fhem ?
>>>
>>> they could, and usually do in every other global market except the
>>> u.s.
>>> but we seem either to have an acceptance problem [per the above,
>>> but
>>> the massive popularity of the toyota prius with true cvt shows that to
>>> be untrue] or the oilcos hate the prospect of significantly reduced
>>> fuel economy. so either we stick with older style fixed ratio
>>> transmissions with their torque converter losses, or we fudge cvt's by
>>> programming artificial "shift points" into them, thus reducing their
>>> efficiency.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bob
>>
>> Beg to differ with you on the "economy", especially when it needed
>> servicing. The CVT in our Dodge Caliber fluid change required a
>> special fluid, with microscopic beads in it, and cost $800 for the
>> transmission flush and fill. Sure, it got over 33mpg on the road, but
>> when servicing came, not so economical.
>
> when i say "cheap", i mean for the manufacturer. and it is. the fact
> that they're ripping you off at retail is because they can, not because
> they're trying to encourage you to tell your friends how great cvt's
> are.
>
> oh, and your $800 "special" fluid is priced according to the utility
> value that you'll pay to keep a car on the road. what it costs to
> produce has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Well, we got rid of that car and now have a standard rear-wheel drive Charger, with the 8 speed auto.

CVT Transmissions. Pros And Cons ?
 

On Dec 23, 8:27*am, jim beam > wrote:
> On 12/22/2012 03:53 AM, AD wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 10:51 pm, > *wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
> >> I have always had cars with automatic transmissions.
>
> >> If I remember right, only some of,the Nissan's had a CVT type in the "past".
>
> >> Now, two cars that I am considering apparently have CVT type.
> >> An Accord and the Subaru Outback.
>
> >> Know nothing re CVT transmissions.
>
> >> Might someone please outline for me the pros and cons of a CVT vs the regular kind of transmission.
>
> >> e.g, reliability, smoothness in shifting, etc.
> >> Why don't all cars of this size use fhem ?
>
> > because I-4s with exhaust system that did not receive any love from
> > egineering
> > typically sounds like something your dentist uses all the time ->
> > few folks are looking to the constant 2-3k rpm drone of ****ty
> > sounding engine.
>
> > might've been better with a V-6 and even better with a V-8 but cvts
> > had problem
> > handling extra power a few years back
>
> they're like any other transmission - you cheap out, you have problems.
> * they're not inherently unreliable. *as i understand it, they were
> first used in industrial drives for things like material conveyors.
> heavy average loads, higher peak loads, and long service lives.
>
apparently they are not without a problems or their use would be more
widespread and conventional automatics will die off.
but that does not happen. primarily because a premium car
automatic work is pretty much indistinguishable to continuously
variable type. case to the point is the tune of bmw 335 8 speed.
i don't think many people can feel when that thing shifts.

of course an automatic in a bmw is an abomination but proves
the point that you don't really need a cvt even on a car
with prodigious sound deadening all around
(having lots of power for cvt to digest does not help either
though I'm sure that bmw would've found a way if they
were hurting for a cvt to go into their bread a butter car)

CVT Transmissions. Pros And Cons ?
 

O
>
>they're like any other transmission - you cheap out, you have problems.
> they're not inherently unreliable. as i understand it, they were
>first used in industrial drives for things like material conveyors.
>heavy average loads, higher peak loads, and long service lives.

If they are like PIV drives I would think they are less able to
accommodate high power levels.

http://www.pivdrives.com/?gclid=CJvT...FckWMgodMWQAsA