CVT vs geared automatic
- Thread starter fdcg27
- Start date
- Status
I think they make the EPA test happy. (ie get better MPG over a "normal" auto trans)
Personally, while they drive nicer in some situations I'd rather have a SIMPLE automatic trans with a "stick" on it. No 6-8 speeds and such.
Bill
Personally, while they drive nicer in some situations I'd rather have a SIMPLE automatic trans with a "stick" on it. No 6-8 speeds and such.
Bill
For me the jury is still out on reliability as I keep my vehicles to ~ 140,000 miles.
The CVT in my Mom's Mini Cooper took some getting used to. While they have been very reliable in the Coopers, they are a little rough/jerky at slow speeds. Mainly during driveway, parking lot and neighborhood situations. Very smooth once you speed up.
I would rather have a traditional automatic though.
I would rather have a traditional automatic though.
The CVT in my Mom's Freestyle is just awesome, I wish I could get a similar trans in a RWD setup that could handle 500 ftlbs. There is no such thing as a bad downshift or flat-spot with that trans. The Mustang would be disgusting with a setup like that.
As far as being less expensive, try pricing the mechatronic assembly or the cones for the Ford CFT30. Chain-type CVTs are anything but cheap (over $7000 dealer cost for an assembly), which is one reason Ford phased them out, the other being it couldn't handle the 3.5's torque.
As far as being less expensive, try pricing the mechatronic assembly or the cones for the Ford CFT30. Chain-type CVTs are anything but cheap (over $7000 dealer cost for an assembly), which is one reason Ford phased them out, the other being it couldn't handle the 3.5's torque.
I really like the CVT in my wife's 2009 Outlander. Very smooth, obviously more efficient since the rpm's stay very stable at what I assume is an efficient point.
I'm not sure it is holding up too well in Muranos with their larger engines, but it may be the oils that people are putting in them.
I'm not sure it is holding up too well in Muranos with their larger engines, but it may be the oils that people are putting in them.
I LOVE the CVT in my Altima Coupe. It makes everything so, so smooth. The original powertrain warranty was 5-years/60,000 miles. But at the tail end of last year I got a letter from Nissan saying that it was being extended to 10-years/120,000 miles. They wouldn't have extended the warranties like that on hundreds of thousands of cars if they weren't confident in them lasting.
Originally Posted By: barlowc
I LOVE the CVT in my Altima Coupe. It makes everything so, so smooth. The original powertrain warranty was 5-years/60,000 miles. But at the tail end of last year I got a letter from Nissan saying that it was being extended to 10-years/120,000 miles. They wouldn't have extended the warranties like that on hundreds of thousands of cars if they weren't confident in them lasting.
Big +1
Tom NJ
I LOVE the CVT in my Altima Coupe. It makes everything so, so smooth. The original powertrain warranty was 5-years/60,000 miles. But at the tail end of last year I got a letter from Nissan saying that it was being extended to 10-years/120,000 miles. They wouldn't have extended the warranties like that on hundreds of thousands of cars if they weren't confident in them lasting.
Big +1
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: barlowc
They wouldn't have extended the warranties like that on hundreds of thousands of cars if they weren't confident in them lasting.
If only that were so.
Long automotive warranties are more often offered when there is a problem with buyers faith in the product.
A good example of a manufacturer extending warranty length on their cars with problematic automatic transmissions was Honda/Acura in the early 2000s.
They wouldn't have extended the warranties like that on hundreds of thousands of cars if they weren't confident in them lasting.
If only that were so.
Long automotive warranties are more often offered when there is a problem with buyers faith in the product.
A good example of a manufacturer extending warranty length on their cars with problematic automatic transmissions was Honda/Acura in the early 2000s.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: barlowc
I LOVE the CVT in my Altima Coupe. It makes everything so, so smooth. The original powertrain warranty was 5-years/60,000 miles. But at the tail end of last year I got a letter from Nissan saying that it was being extended to 10-years/120,000 miles. They wouldn't have extended the warranties like that on hundreds of thousands of cars if they weren't confident in them lasting.
Big +1
Tom NJ
+2?
The Jatco CVT in my mom's 2010 Altima V6 is absolutely fantastic. It is NOTHING like the one in the four-cylinder. No offense to Tom and the other poster, but I personally find the CVT in the 4-cyl Altima to be rather annoying and not well-paired with the engine. The CVT on the V6 on the other end, features a high-speed controller with over 700 pre-programmed algorithms. It never lags, never gives you a rubber-band fuel. I think part of the reason why the V6/CVT combination is so good is due to the strong low-end torque from the VQ35 engine.
Originally Posted By: barlowc
I LOVE the CVT in my Altima Coupe. It makes everything so, so smooth. The original powertrain warranty was 5-years/60,000 miles. But at the tail end of last year I got a letter from Nissan saying that it was being extended to 10-years/120,000 miles. They wouldn't have extended the warranties like that on hundreds of thousands of cars if they weren't confident in them lasting.
Big +1
Tom NJ
+2?
The Jatco CVT in my mom's 2010 Altima V6 is absolutely fantastic. It is NOTHING like the one in the four-cylinder. No offense to Tom and the other poster, but I personally find the CVT in the 4-cyl Altima to be rather annoying and not well-paired with the engine. The CVT on the V6 on the other end, features a high-speed controller with over 700 pre-programmed algorithms. It never lags, never gives you a rubber-band fuel. I think part of the reason why the V6/CVT combination is so good is due to the strong low-end torque from the VQ35 engine.
Originally Posted By: Eddie
For me the jury is still out on reliability as I keep my vehicles to ~ 140,000 miles.
May not last that long in any powerful vehicle.
Call me at 200k.
For me the jury is still out on reliability as I keep my vehicles to ~ 140,000 miles.
May not last that long in any powerful vehicle.
Call me at 200k.
I've never driven a CVT, but there are some videos on youtube of some guy in a Nissan doing a full throttle acceleration in full CVT mode. The RPMs go up to something like 3500, and the speedo just keeps going up. Kind of amazing.
(I did rent a Ford Ranger once that drove almost like a CVT. The RPMs stayed in a very narrow range throughout.)
Longevity can be an issue as the technology is new, but manufacturers these days do a better job of vetting the new tech. I wouldn't worry about it.
(I did rent a Ford Ranger once that drove almost like a CVT. The RPMs stayed in a very narrow range throughout.)
Longevity can be an issue as the technology is new, but manufacturers these days do a better job of vetting the new tech. I wouldn't worry about it.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
I have no doubt that the part is expensive as priced.
I believe $7000 was the dealer's cost for the trans (new assembly), retail was higher. This was 1-1.5 years ago, the info comes from my Ford tech buddy as I haven't priced either out myself.
He says the CVT priced out around $1500 higher than the 6F 6-speed auto.
I have no doubt that the part is expensive as priced.
I believe $7000 was the dealer's cost for the trans (new assembly), retail was higher. This was 1-1.5 years ago, the info comes from my Ford tech buddy as I haven't priced either out myself.
He says the CVT priced out around $1500 higher than the 6F 6-speed auto.
I have a '10 Maxima with CVT. They take a little getting used to around town. If I baby it, the RPM's stay in the 1500 range and the drone as the car accelerates while the RPM's stay constant or drop can be disconcerting to some.
I recently had my first opportunity to really romp it. Just after I pulled out to pass someone, a car appeared just over the hill - so I stepped on it. I was stunned at how fast it got from 60 to 80+.
Only 3800 miles on mine, so can't speak well as to reliability, but MSN Autos reliability rating for the Murano (out since 2003) has been pretty good, with only minor issues.
I recently had my first opportunity to really romp it. Just after I pulled out to pass someone, a car appeared just over the hill - so I stepped on it. I was stunned at how fast it got from 60 to 80+.
Only 3800 miles on mine, so can't speak well as to reliability, but MSN Autos reliability rating for the Murano (out since 2003) has been pretty good, with only minor issues.
Here is Clarkson on the Honda insight CVT:
"So here goes. It’s terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more.
The biggest problem, and it’s taken me a while to work this out, because all the other problems are so vast and so cancerous, is the gearbox. For reasons known only to itself, Honda has fitted the Insight with something called constantly variable transmission (CVT).
It doesn’t work. Put your foot down in a normal car and the revs climb in tandem with the speed. In a CVT car, the revs spool up quickly and then the speed rises to match them. It feels like the clutch is slipping. It feels horrid.
And the sound is worse. The Honda’s petrol engine is a much-shaved, built-for-economy, low-friction 1.3 that, at full chat, makes a noise worse than someone else’s crying baby on an airliner. It’s worse than the sound of your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is, you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer.
So you’re sitting there with the engine screaming its head off, and your ears bleeding, and you’re doing only 23mph because that’s about the top speed, and you’re thinking things can’t get any worse, and then they do because you run over a small piece of grit. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6294116.ece
"So here goes. It’s terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more.
The biggest problem, and it’s taken me a while to work this out, because all the other problems are so vast and so cancerous, is the gearbox. For reasons known only to itself, Honda has fitted the Insight with something called constantly variable transmission (CVT).
It doesn’t work. Put your foot down in a normal car and the revs climb in tandem with the speed. In a CVT car, the revs spool up quickly and then the speed rises to match them. It feels like the clutch is slipping. It feels horrid.
And the sound is worse. The Honda’s petrol engine is a much-shaved, built-for-economy, low-friction 1.3 that, at full chat, makes a noise worse than someone else’s crying baby on an airliner. It’s worse than the sound of your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is, you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer.
So you’re sitting there with the engine screaming its head off, and your ears bleeding, and you’re doing only 23mph because that’s about the top speed, and you’re thinking things can’t get any worse, and then they do because you run over a small piece of grit. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6294116.ece
How are these performing on icy conditions? A friend of mine had a CVT on his Saturn Vue, and it was lurching and spinning quite a bit in a parking situation. Could have been the driver, but it sounded awful.
Last edited:
I've driven my Altima 2.5 w/ CVT through 2 Michigan winters and have no complaints. Driving in snowy/icy conditions is the same as it is in vehicles with "regular" automatic transmissions.
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Here is Clarkson on the Honda insight CVT:
"So here goes. It’s terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more.
The biggest problem, and it’s taken me a while to work this out, because all the other problems are so vast and so cancerous, is the gearbox. For reasons known only to itself, Honda has fitted the Insight with something called constantly variable transmission (CVT).
It doesn’t work. Put your foot down in a normal car and the revs climb in tandem with the speed. In a CVT car, the revs spool up quickly and then the speed rises to match them. It feels like the clutch is slipping. It feels horrid.
And the sound is worse. The Honda’s petrol engine is a much-shaved, built-for-economy, low-friction 1.3 that, at full chat, makes a noise worse than someone else’s crying baby on an airliner. It’s worse than the sound of your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is, you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer.
So you’re sitting there with the engine screaming its head off, and your ears bleeding, and you’re doing only 23mph because that’s about the top speed, and you’re thinking things can’t get any worse, and then they do because you run over a small piece of grit. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6294116.ece
"Why I don't like torque converters or CVTs 101" by Jeremy Clarkson. I agree with him. Anytime you have driveline slippage vs. direct drive (i.e. a clutch), the ratio of throttle to speed via gear ratio is never constant or predictable. Kills the response, but also kills the fun in snow or powersliding on a track. it is also a waste of gas and power.
Probably fine in gridlock, but everywhere else, I'll shift myself.
Here is Clarkson on the Honda insight CVT:
"So here goes. It’s terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more.
The biggest problem, and it’s taken me a while to work this out, because all the other problems are so vast and so cancerous, is the gearbox. For reasons known only to itself, Honda has fitted the Insight with something called constantly variable transmission (CVT).
It doesn’t work. Put your foot down in a normal car and the revs climb in tandem with the speed. In a CVT car, the revs spool up quickly and then the speed rises to match them. It feels like the clutch is slipping. It feels horrid.
And the sound is worse. The Honda’s petrol engine is a much-shaved, built-for-economy, low-friction 1.3 that, at full chat, makes a noise worse than someone else’s crying baby on an airliner. It’s worse than the sound of your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is, you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer.
So you’re sitting there with the engine screaming its head off, and your ears bleeding, and you’re doing only 23mph because that’s about the top speed, and you’re thinking things can’t get any worse, and then they do because you run over a small piece of grit. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6294116.ece
"Why I don't like torque converters or CVTs 101" by Jeremy Clarkson. I agree with him. Anytime you have driveline slippage vs. direct drive (i.e. a clutch), the ratio of throttle to speed via gear ratio is never constant or predictable. Kills the response, but also kills the fun in snow or powersliding on a track. it is also a waste of gas and power.
Probably fine in gridlock, but everywhere else, I'll shift myself.
Originally Posted By: saaber1
Here is Clarkson on the Honda insight CVT:
"So here goes. It’s terrible. Biblically terrible.
Clarkson is a comedian, not a competent analyst of cars.
That said, the Insight is a hybrid, not a CVT. There's a whole world of differences, even though hybrid drivetrains allow the internal combustion engine to operate similarly to how a CVT would allow it to operate. But its completely different because the battery system and electric motors add and subtract (regenerative braking) power from the driveline, which is what makes them feel "biblically terrible" to some people. That doesn't happen with an ordinary, true CVT.
Real CVTs like the ones in Nissans, some Mopars, and Fords are different. I've driven a JATCO-equipped Nissan, and after a little bit of getting used to the different feel, I decided that I really like it. Frankly, its not even all that different- modern conventional automagics with 4, 5, or 6 gears plus wide-range torque convertors an staged lockup clutches feel almost like a CVT.
My one minor gripe about the CVT is that when you first get into an unfamiliar car with a CVT, you can't really immediately tell much about the car's ultimate limits. In normal driving, the powertrain controller twiddles the CVT and the electronic throttle to get the car to do what it thinks you want- and it does a great job of making a very small, economical engine feel VERY peppy in ordinary driving. But what its hiding from you is that it might be using a whole lot more throttle opening than you realize, so that if you then slam your foot to the floor expecting it to give you MORE, there might not be any more left to give. At least that happened with my rental Nissans. But you learn what the car can do very quickly, and from then on just appreciate how much "go" power it has under normal conditions realizing that it wouldn't be nearly so frisky without the CVT and electronic throttle.
Here is Clarkson on the Honda insight CVT:
"So here goes. It’s terrible. Biblically terrible.
Clarkson is a comedian, not a competent analyst of cars.
That said, the Insight is a hybrid, not a CVT. There's a whole world of differences, even though hybrid drivetrains allow the internal combustion engine to operate similarly to how a CVT would allow it to operate. But its completely different because the battery system and electric motors add and subtract (regenerative braking) power from the driveline, which is what makes them feel "biblically terrible" to some people. That doesn't happen with an ordinary, true CVT.
Real CVTs like the ones in Nissans, some Mopars, and Fords are different. I've driven a JATCO-equipped Nissan, and after a little bit of getting used to the different feel, I decided that I really like it. Frankly, its not even all that different- modern conventional automagics with 4, 5, or 6 gears plus wide-range torque convertors an staged lockup clutches feel almost like a CVT.
My one minor gripe about the CVT is that when you first get into an unfamiliar car with a CVT, you can't really immediately tell much about the car's ultimate limits. In normal driving, the powertrain controller twiddles the CVT and the electronic throttle to get the car to do what it thinks you want- and it does a great job of making a very small, economical engine feel VERY peppy in ordinary driving. But what its hiding from you is that it might be using a whole lot more throttle opening than you realize, so that if you then slam your foot to the floor expecting it to give you MORE, there might not be any more left to give. At least that happened with my rental Nissans. But you learn what the car can do very quickly, and from then on just appreciate how much "go" power it has under normal conditions realizing that it wouldn't be nearly so frisky without the CVT and electronic throttle.
- Status
