Impressed with Dodge Caliber

On Sep 25, 4:42 pm, Joe Pfeiffer > wrote:
> Jalapeno > writes:
> > On Sep 25, 12:44 pm, Josh S > wrote:
> > > In article >,
>
> > > CVT is the way of the future, it just makes sense.
>
> > Ha. Not if Chrysler has their way. Dual clutch, here it comes:
>
> >http://www.allpar.com/corporate/auto...nsmission.html
>
> You're confusing the future with the present. CVTs aren't there yet
> for serious torque output -- I don't think Chrysler is using it for
> anything bigger than a 2.4? While I expect them to get there, I also
> expect it to take long enough that a new transmission family can be
> developed, produced, amortized, and regarded as "old" first.

I'm going by this statement in the article:

The transmission will be used with the Phoenix V6 to create one of the
world's most advanced powertrains. If it works well, and sees customer
acceptance, it could replace both conventional automatics and CVTs at
Chrysler.


To me, that says that CVT's may have a short future at Chrysler, if
customers like the dual-clutch transmissions.

I could be wrong, of course, because I don't know the background of
the article's author and who his source is.

In article . com>,
Jalapeno > wrote:

> On Sep 25, 12:44 pm, Josh S > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> > CVT is the way of the future, it just makes sense.
>
> Ha. Not if Chrysler has their way. Dual clutch, here it comes:
>
> http://www.allpar.com/corporate/auto...nsmission.html

I've see it. More complexity, but useful for high power large vehicles.

In article >,
Steve > wrote:

> Josh S wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Steve > wrote:
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > we love the CVT smooth shifting
> >>
> >>"CVT" and "Shifting" (no matter how smooth) don't belong in the same
> >>sentence. Is it true that the Caliber CVT "fakes" shifts rather than
> >>just holding the RPM constant as speed increases? And if so, have you
> >>checked into the rumor that the controller can be re-flashed to make it
> >>*really* be a CVT?
> >
> >
> > You will have to resist resisting change.
> > CVT is the way of the future, it just makes sense.
>
> You COMPLETELY boofed your understanding of what I was saying. Read it
> again, with feeling.
>
> My whole point was that its looney to take a perfectly good CVT (which I
> agree is the way of the future apart from hybrids) and then program it
> to "shift" like a regular automatic just so customers won't think it
> "feels odd."

I got your point, but what's wrong with shift points?
You appear CVT negative, with negative feeling.

Josh S > writes:

> In article >,
> Steve > wrote:
> >
> > My whole point was that its looney to take a perfectly good CVT (which I
> > agree is the way of the future apart from hybrids) and then program it
> > to "shift" like a regular automatic just so customers won't think it
> > "feels odd."
>
> I got your point, but what's wrong with shift points?

He said what's wrong with shift points in a CVT quite clearly: you're
compromising the CVT -- the whole purpose of which is to better match
the ratio to the engine than you can do with any number of separate
gear ratios -- to provide an artificial feeling for customers who
don't understand what's going on.

> You appear CVT negative, with negative feeling.

How exactly do you get from "the way of the future" to "negative"?

Josh S wrote:

>>
>>My whole point was that its looney to take a perfectly good CVT (which I
>>agree is the way of the future apart from hybrids) and then program it
>>to "shift" like a regular automatic just so customers won't think it
>>"feels odd."
>
>
> I got your point, but what's wrong with shift points?

The whole idea of a CVT is to let the engine get to an optimum RPM for
the power demand, and let it STAY at that RPM until the power demand
changes. For example, merging on the freeway, the engine revs up to near
its power peak, and stays there as the vehicle accelerates, with the
CVT changing ratio so that it progressively gets closer to 1:1 but the
engine speed doesn't vary. Then when you're at cruise speed, the CVT
lets the engine RPM drop to a high-efficiency RPM while holding the
vehicle speed constant. By putting in shift points, you make it act
just like any old automatic would- engine revs up, and then lugs back
down to a sub-optimum RPM and has to dig itself out of the hole all over
again.

> You appear CVT negative, with negative feeling.

No, I LIKE CVTs.... provided that they're allowed to do what they're
best at and not have "fake" shift points to make them feel like a
regular automatic.