"The CVT: Learn it and Love it"
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
I'd much rather have a manual myself, but for the less mechanically inclined it's a fine idea. My ex has a 2013 Elantra. One day she decided it wasn't shifting right, and despite my reassurance that everything was fine, she would "fix" it by jamming it in and out of manual mode a few dozen times as quickly as possible. A lifeless driving experience would help keep her demons at bay.
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Saying that a MT is not suitable for towing is ridiculous. You either have never done it or didn't do it right. The old Cummins Ram and Power Stroke Super Duty with the MT were awesome tow rigs. I had both and I miss them. I won't even bring up the big rigs with their transmissions...
Only reason why I hated my Jetta for towing my small camper was its way too high geared reverse. I recently was looking at Tacoma's and there is a mod to engage the transfer case to make 2Lo, for the purpose of not burning up the clutch. The torque convertor seems better suited here, with upwards of 2:1 torque increase at starting, albeit it will make lots of heat doing so.
Once going though a manual transmission can be rather pleasant. Assuming the motor makes reasonable torque so one isn't constantly shifting. One thing that bugs me about my truck is inability to load the engine down. I realize it really does not make much below 2k but honestly I'm fine with scrubbing some speed off while cresting a hill, rather than dropping a gear (and any resultant clutch wear) or worse, the usage of unlocked torque convertor (and resultant heat generation due to inefficency), or vastly worse, its usage of "flex" lockup (which is like riding the clutch in a stickshift).
*
Question: what would proper "manual" control of a CVT be like? A lever, like the speed control on a lawnmower or snowblower?
Saying that a MT is not suitable for towing is ridiculous. You either have never done it or didn't do it right. The old Cummins Ram and Power Stroke Super Duty with the MT were awesome tow rigs. I had both and I miss them. I won't even bring up the big rigs with their transmissions...
Only reason why I hated my Jetta for towing my small camper was its way too high geared reverse. I recently was looking at Tacoma's and there is a mod to engage the transfer case to make 2Lo, for the purpose of not burning up the clutch. The torque convertor seems better suited here, with upwards of 2:1 torque increase at starting, albeit it will make lots of heat doing so.
Once going though a manual transmission can be rather pleasant. Assuming the motor makes reasonable torque so one isn't constantly shifting. One thing that bugs me about my truck is inability to load the engine down. I realize it really does not make much below 2k but honestly I'm fine with scrubbing some speed off while cresting a hill, rather than dropping a gear (and any resultant clutch wear) or worse, the usage of unlocked torque convertor (and resultant heat generation due to inefficency), or vastly worse, its usage of "flex" lockup (which is like riding the clutch in a stickshift).
*
Question: what would proper "manual" control of a CVT be like? A lever, like the speed control on a lawnmower or snowblower?
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Stomping on the gas yields no surge of power, just a rush of revs and noise from the engine. Without steps in the gearing, like those in the CVT that Subaru uses with its more powerful engine, the Forester drones away even as it makes sluggish progress. It finished dead last in acceleration testing, doing zero to 60 mph in 8.6 seconds and turning in a 16.7-second quarter-mile.
Bunch of nonsense. If there was no surge in power, the car would not do 0-60 in 8.6 seconds. People demand fast cars, but in real life, people drive them slowly doing 0-60 in like 1 minute or longer.
Stomping on the gas yields no surge of power, just a rush of revs and noise from the engine. Without steps in the gearing, like those in the CVT that Subaru uses with its more powerful engine, the Forester drones away even as it makes sluggish progress. It finished dead last in acceleration testing, doing zero to 60 mph in 8.6 seconds and turning in a 16.7-second quarter-mile.
Bunch of nonsense. If there was no surge in power, the car would not do 0-60 in 8.6 seconds. People demand fast cars, but in real life, people drive them slowly doing 0-60 in like 1 minute or longer.
I wasn't aware the new Honda Accord now had CVT transmissions. For that reason, I have been avoiding Nissan cars.
I guess this is the wave of the future and I better get on board sooner or later. I will wait a few years for sure to make sure Honda works all the bugs out before I purchase a CVT Honda.
The Acura TSX is the upscale version of the Accord. I see that Acura is still using the old 5 speed transmission for some reason. Maybe the CVT can't handle the extra horsepower of the TSX engine?
I guess this is the wave of the future and I better get on board sooner or later. I will wait a few years for sure to make sure Honda works all the bugs out before I purchase a CVT Honda.
The Acura TSX is the upscale version of the Accord. I see that Acura is still using the old 5 speed transmission for some reason. Maybe the CVT can't handle the extra horsepower of the TSX engine?
Does 0-60 really matter? When I blew the turbo in my car I lost over half the hp (stock tune is more than 7psi, but the ECU pulls fuel hard in failsafe mode). Meaning, I went from 100hp in a 3,000lb car to something less than 50hp. Yet I had no problem pulling away from the traffic at the one toll I had to stop at.
I really enjoy the CVT in my nissan. i really think if more people spent more time in them they would not like a traditional auto. Or if the CVT was the norm and they had just come out with autos....i think most people would complain about them.
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Saying that a MT is not suitable for towing is ridiculous. You either have never done it or didn't do it right. The old Cummins Ram and Power Stroke Super Duty with the MT were awesome tow rigs. I had both and I miss them. I won't even bring up the big rigs with their transmissions...
Originally Posted By: BHopkins
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
I hold CVT at about the same level as FWD. I'll never buy a vehicle with one.
Problem being that unless you'll settle for a pickup or are willing to spend some pretty long dollars, FWD is hard to avoid and CVTs may soon be as well.
You are spot on here. Sports cars, which have traditionally had a MT, are now going to dual clutch automatics, which are heavily computer controlled. Even BMW, who 20 years ago was known as being the holdout in stick shifts, with almost 70% of BMW's being built with a MT, now sells very few cars with a traditional MT.
Really, fewer pickups are being offered with a MT. Most people that buy a truck want it to be capable of towing. And the MT just isn't suited for towing.
Give it another 5 years, and I doubt you will be able to find a MT. It will all be CVT, dual clutch AT, or whatever is going in hybrids.
You're right. I haven't done a lot of towing myself. But, I do know that when I used to sell Chevy trucks, among all the items that were spec'd out when we ordered a truck with a towing package, an AT was included. If a guy wanted a MT in a truck that was going to be used for towing, we had to delete the towing package, and individually add back in the HD cooling, HD batteries, HD brakes, etc. And really, that rarely happened. Most everyone that I met that had any experience towing big horse and travel trailers all wanted the AT.
That's back then. Try to order a new Ford Super Duty or GMC 2500. No MT available. A MT is available in a Ram, but only with the diesel - not with the gas engines.
Regarding heavy trucks, you may find it interesting that most heavy trucks sold today have either fully automatic transmissions or automated manual transmissions, with shift assist. Not many manual transmissions in the new trucks any longer.
Saying that a MT is not suitable for towing is ridiculous. You either have never done it or didn't do it right. The old Cummins Ram and Power Stroke Super Duty with the MT were awesome tow rigs. I had both and I miss them. I won't even bring up the big rigs with their transmissions...
Originally Posted By: BHopkins
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
I hold CVT at about the same level as FWD. I'll never buy a vehicle with one.
Problem being that unless you'll settle for a pickup or are willing to spend some pretty long dollars, FWD is hard to avoid and CVTs may soon be as well.
You are spot on here. Sports cars, which have traditionally had a MT, are now going to dual clutch automatics, which are heavily computer controlled. Even BMW, who 20 years ago was known as being the holdout in stick shifts, with almost 70% of BMW's being built with a MT, now sells very few cars with a traditional MT.
Really, fewer pickups are being offered with a MT. Most people that buy a truck want it to be capable of towing. And the MT just isn't suited for towing.
Give it another 5 years, and I doubt you will be able to find a MT. It will all be CVT, dual clutch AT, or whatever is going in hybrids.
You're right. I haven't done a lot of towing myself. But, I do know that when I used to sell Chevy trucks, among all the items that were spec'd out when we ordered a truck with a towing package, an AT was included. If a guy wanted a MT in a truck that was going to be used for towing, we had to delete the towing package, and individually add back in the HD cooling, HD batteries, HD brakes, etc. And really, that rarely happened. Most everyone that I met that had any experience towing big horse and travel trailers all wanted the AT.
That's back then. Try to order a new Ford Super Duty or GMC 2500. No MT available. A MT is available in a Ram, but only with the diesel - not with the gas engines.
Regarding heavy trucks, you may find it interesting that most heavy trucks sold today have either fully automatic transmissions or automated manual transmissions, with shift assist. Not many manual transmissions in the new trucks any longer.
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: buster
I drove a 2014 Forester with the CVT and it wasn't bad.
"The problem is twofold but starts with the transmission, a CVT that displays all the worst qualities of these units. We’d take the four-speed from the old RAV4 over this thing. Heck, we’d even take a two-speed Powerglide. The Subaru CVT tricks your ears into believing the Forester has good throttle response, but the accelerator pedal is about as nuanced as a light switch. Stomping on the gas yields no surge of power, just a rush of revs and noise from the engine. Without steps in the gearing, like those in the CVT that Subaru uses with its more powerful engine, the Forester drones away even as it makes sluggish progress. It finished dead last in acceleration testing, doing zero to 60 mph in 8.6 seconds and turning in a 16.7-second quarter-mile."
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-subaru-forester-25i-touring-page-2
I strongly disagree with this, unless they had a bad one. The Subaru CVT is getting praise in pretty much everything it's being used in. There were even some positive reviews in the new 2015 WRX, which is surprising.
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/suv/1312_2014_suv_of_the_year_subaru_forester/
Quote:
When the drive loops began, one of the most pleasant surprises was revealed: This CVT is really good. Lieberman explained, "I was incredibly impressed with the CVT on the XT, especially when it's in Sport# and fakes up to 8 'gears.' Subaru went ahead and programmed it as aggressively as Porsche's PDK. When I was really flogging away on the XT, I'd look down at the gear indicator and observe that I was in '2.' Impressive." Not only is the CVT good, but editors had an absolute blast driving the Forester, describing it as being "quite tossable," and they enjoyed the XT's road feel and sportier suspension. It was quick at the track, too, where the XT reached 60 mph in 6.2 seconds. That's faster than the Acura MDX and the BMW x1 xDrive28i.
Originally Posted By: buster
I drove a 2014 Forester with the CVT and it wasn't bad.
"The problem is twofold but starts with the transmission, a CVT that displays all the worst qualities of these units. We’d take the four-speed from the old RAV4 over this thing. Heck, we’d even take a two-speed Powerglide. The Subaru CVT tricks your ears into believing the Forester has good throttle response, but the accelerator pedal is about as nuanced as a light switch. Stomping on the gas yields no surge of power, just a rush of revs and noise from the engine. Without steps in the gearing, like those in the CVT that Subaru uses with its more powerful engine, the Forester drones away even as it makes sluggish progress. It finished dead last in acceleration testing, doing zero to 60 mph in 8.6 seconds and turning in a 16.7-second quarter-mile."
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-subaru-forester-25i-touring-page-2
I strongly disagree with this, unless they had a bad one. The Subaru CVT is getting praise in pretty much everything it's being used in. There were even some positive reviews in the new 2015 WRX, which is surprising.
http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/suv/1312_2014_suv_of_the_year_subaru_forester/
Quote:
When the drive loops began, one of the most pleasant surprises was revealed: This CVT is really good. Lieberman explained, "I was incredibly impressed with the CVT on the XT, especially when it's in Sport# and fakes up to 8 'gears.' Subaru went ahead and programmed it as aggressively as Porsche's PDK. When I was really flogging away on the XT, I'd look down at the gear indicator and observe that I was in '2.' Impressive." Not only is the CVT good, but editors had an absolute blast driving the Forester, describing it as being "quite tossable," and they enjoyed the XT's road feel and sportier suspension. It was quick at the track, too, where the XT reached 60 mph in 6.2 seconds. That's faster than the Acura MDX and the BMW x1 xDrive28i.
Originally Posted By: BHopkins
You're right. I haven't done a lot of towing myself. But, I do know that when I used to sell Chevy trucks, among all the items that were spec'd out when we ordered a truck with a towing package, an AT was included. If a guy wanted a MT in a truck that was going to be used for towing, we had to delete the towing package, and individually add back in the HD cooling, HD batteries, HD brakes, etc. And really, that rarely happened. Most everyone that I met that had any experience towing big horse and travel trailers all wanted the AT.
That's back then. Try to order a new Ford Super Duty or GMC 2500. No MT available. A MT is available in a Ram, but only with the diesel - not with the gas engines.
Regarding heavy trucks, you may find it interesting that most heavy trucks sold today have either fully automatic transmissions or automated manual transmissions, with shift assist. Not many manual transmissions in the new trucks any longer.
Pablum! EVERY tractor at work is a standard. Every CDL box truck is, so is one of the non-CDL trucks. (Others are Ryder rentals...two Allison 2100's, one dreadful Eaton Autoshift.) Some are Autoshifts, but the vast majority of heavy trucks are still manual shift.
All the wreckers where Liz works except one are manual shift...and the one is only an automatic because the GMC dealer checked the wrong box on the order form!
You're right. I haven't done a lot of towing myself. But, I do know that when I used to sell Chevy trucks, among all the items that were spec'd out when we ordered a truck with a towing package, an AT was included. If a guy wanted a MT in a truck that was going to be used for towing, we had to delete the towing package, and individually add back in the HD cooling, HD batteries, HD brakes, etc. And really, that rarely happened. Most everyone that I met that had any experience towing big horse and travel trailers all wanted the AT.
That's back then. Try to order a new Ford Super Duty or GMC 2500. No MT available. A MT is available in a Ram, but only with the diesel - not with the gas engines.
Regarding heavy trucks, you may find it interesting that most heavy trucks sold today have either fully automatic transmissions or automated manual transmissions, with shift assist. Not many manual transmissions in the new trucks any longer.
Pablum! EVERY tractor at work is a standard. Every CDL box truck is, so is one of the non-CDL trucks. (Others are Ryder rentals...two Allison 2100's, one dreadful Eaton Autoshift.) Some are Autoshifts, but the vast majority of heavy trucks are still manual shift.
All the wreckers where Liz works except one are manual shift...and the one is only an automatic because the GMC dealer checked the wrong box on the order form!
It seems inevitable that new fuel economy standards will result in fuel-saving automatic tranmissions everywhere.
From my perspective, they choices ranked from best to worst are:
1) 8 or 9 speed conventional automatics
2) CVTs
3) Dual clutch transmissions
Not coincidentally, this ranking probably also is from most to least expensive.
I own a car with a DCT. Won't make that mistake again.
From my perspective, they choices ranked from best to worst are:
1) 8 or 9 speed conventional automatics
2) CVTs
3) Dual clutch transmissions
Not coincidentally, this ranking probably also is from most to least expensive.
I own a car with a DCT. Won't make that mistake again.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Twenty years ago, stick Hondas were common on dealer lots.
Well, when I bought mine in 1979, the only choices available were an embarrassing two speed automatic, or an embarrassing 5 speed manual that felt like it was made of rubber.
As bad as the five speed was, it was still an easy choice.
Back on topic: CVT? Never again, I had a Kawasaki Mule with one and couldn't stand the feel of a CVT.
Twenty years ago, stick Hondas were common on dealer lots.
Well, when I bought mine in 1979, the only choices available were an embarrassing two speed automatic, or an embarrassing 5 speed manual that felt like it was made of rubber.
As bad as the five speed was, it was still an easy choice.
Back on topic: CVT? Never again, I had a Kawasaki Mule with one and couldn't stand the feel of a CVT.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: buster
How is the CVT in the Audi A4?
Honestly...that's about half what I'd expect!
I thought it would be a lot more too.
Originally Posted By: buster
How is the CVT in the Audi A4?
Honestly...that's about half what I'd expect!
I thought it would be a lot more too.
Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Twenty years ago, stick Hondas were common on dealer lots.
Well, when I bought mine in 1979, the only choices available were an embarrassing two speed automatic, or an embarrassing 5 speed manual that felt like it was made of rubber.
As bad as the five speed was, it was still an easy choice.
Back on topic: CVT? Never again, I had a Kawasaki Mule with one and couldn't stand the feel of a CVT.
Strange.
Our '76 and '86 Civics had great shifters.
Nothing rubbery with those rod linkages.
Easily as good as any BMW I've ever driven.
They had a very light and positive action and could even be shifted pretty easily up or down without using the clutch.
Now, the cable shifters in our '97 and '99 Accords were not nearly as good.
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Twenty years ago, stick Hondas were common on dealer lots.
Well, when I bought mine in 1979, the only choices available were an embarrassing two speed automatic, or an embarrassing 5 speed manual that felt like it was made of rubber.
As bad as the five speed was, it was still an easy choice.
Back on topic: CVT? Never again, I had a Kawasaki Mule with one and couldn't stand the feel of a CVT.
Strange.
Our '76 and '86 Civics had great shifters.
Nothing rubbery with those rod linkages.
Easily as good as any BMW I've ever driven.
They had a very light and positive action and could even be shifted pretty easily up or down without using the clutch.
Now, the cable shifters in our '97 and '99 Accords were not nearly as good.
CVTs are like Communism. While it may be good in theory, it just doesn't work in practice.
They are unreliable and awkward.
If someone could make one reliable and last, I could deal with the awkwardness.
I drove a '11 Versa REALLY hard in the city and it just would not go below 34MPG. This was stopping for stoplights and stopsigns.
However, if anyone can make a CVT work in an automobile, it *WILL* be Toyota or Honda.
They are unreliable and awkward.
If someone could make one reliable and last, I could deal with the awkwardness.
I drove a '11 Versa REALLY hard in the city and it just would not go below 34MPG. This was stopping for stoplights and stopsigns.
However, if anyone can make a CVT work in an automobile, it *WILL* be Toyota or Honda.
Quote:
While it may be good in theory, it just doesn't work in practice.
How so? You may be right and it could be short lived, but that's not what I've been reading.
Long term durability of the latest CVT is unknown, but so far it seems very good.
The Subaru CVT is about $8,000 to replace (per someone on the Outback forum that asked the service manager). It is not a component that techs can work on. If it breaks, the entire unit gets replaced.
I'd get an extended warranty and not worry about it.
No doubt MT's are more durable. Unfortunately, most people don't want a MT. They are disappearing. Subaru could have made a better 6spd MT, but they know more people will want the CVT.
While it may be good in theory, it just doesn't work in practice.
How so? You may be right and it could be short lived, but that's not what I've been reading.
Long term durability of the latest CVT is unknown, but so far it seems very good.
The Subaru CVT is about $8,000 to replace (per someone on the Outback forum that asked the service manager). It is not a component that techs can work on. If it breaks, the entire unit gets replaced.
I'd get an extended warranty and not worry about it.
No doubt MT's are more durable. Unfortunately, most people don't want a MT. They are disappearing. Subaru could have made a better 6spd MT, but they know more people will want the CVT.
- Status
