CarSPIN Forums

How do you feel about CVT's?

Nah, they didn't (or haven't) turned into the MPG and performance boon they could be. Need wider ratio range and more efficient mechanicals.

No.  The new Accord gets close to being as good as a traditional automatic, but I'd still prefer a traditional automativ.

I'm saying Yes; mostly because I am not fond of these automatics with too many speeds. They never know what gear to be in.


Granted, CVT's have their issues too, but I actually love the smoothness of a CVT. The gear spread issue seems to be an issue, but companies like Nissan seem to be getting around it, (Versa has a 2-speed at the end of the CVT).

No.  Had one for a couple of days.  Droning on and on and getting no power, no manual control.  Just awful.  The worst kind of automatic. 

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=28222.msg1791170#msg1791170 date=1349810749
No.  Had one for a couple of days.  Droning on and on and getting no power, no manual control.  Just awful.  The worst kind of automatic.  

I never understood the "droning" issue; regular automatics hold the engine note when under a constant load. And the "no power" sensation is due to the fact that there's no shift shock. They're generally the same performance as a traditional automatic.


I hate CVT's that fake shift points. That is a totally stupid idea.

No. I prefer manuals.

Quote from: thecarnut on October 09, 2012, 01:36:02 PM
No. I prefer manuals.

I mean, in comparison to other types of automatic transmissions. It's a little stupid to throw a tradtional 5-speed in the mix.

It depends on the tuning. My parents SX4 has the CVT. It does good things for gas mileage (31 combined) but "shifts" to the fuel saving ratio at 15 mph. So it always feels and sounds like its bogging. Accelerating always requires planning ahead.

Push pedal, computer thinks about what ratio to use, engine speed increases, then finally it rubber bands forward until you it the speed you want. If you literally don't start this process 5 sec before you want to pass someone, you will miss the opportunity. Frustrating.

At the same time, I owned a Polaris ATV with a CVT and it was awesome. Quick response and always in its powerband.

But I don't think I'll ever own a cvt car. I'm not patient enough

I owned one for 3 years and it took some getting used to, but I didn't like the sensations.  Acceleration was like a snowmobile and I didn't like it at all.  I did like that the speed absolutely never changed going up and down hills with cruise control on because it just varied the ratio to keep the speed without that annoying kick down automatics do.  But, other than that, there was no benefit.

Quote from: Speed_Racer on October 09, 2012, 01:47:30 PM
It depends on the tuning. My parents SX4 has the CVT. It does good things for gas mileage (31 combined) but "shifts" to the fuel saving ratio at 15 mph. So it always feels and sounds like its bogging. Accelerating always requires planning ahead.

Push pedal, computer thinks about what ratio to use, engine speed increases, then finally it rubber bands forward until you it the speed you want. If you literally don't start this process 5 sec before you want to pass someone, you will miss the opportunity. Frustrating.

At the same time, I owned a Polaris ATV with a CVT and it was awesome. Quick response and always in its powerband.

But I don't think I'll ever own a cvt car. I'm not patient enough

Yeah, all CVT's aren't created equal (like all DSG's and traditional automatics). The one in the Dodge/Mitsubishi products sucks balls.


The Nissan ones are generally great.

I think they're great, but obviously they're not all created equal. I've heard they're developing them for large trucks (tractor-trailers) and that sounds like a brilliant idea. Ideally, it'll always be in the meat of the powerband. Providing good performance and economy.

They're great for people who won't be flooring the throttle regularly, because then you don't feel the droning sensation. This works well with bigger engines in part because you don't have to work them hard routinely and in part because they often sound better, like the Nissan V6.

Where they're awful is in a car that's wheezy and slow, because the lack of shifting just accentuates that.

Our snowmobile works fine.

Quote from: 2o6 on October 09, 2012, 01:27:58 PM
I never understood the "droning" issue; regular automatics hold the engine note when under a constant load. And the "no power" sensation is due to the fact that there's no shift shock. They're generally the same performance as a traditional automatic.


I hate CVT's that fake shift points. That is a totally stupid idea.

It was also a Sentra, so that definitely added to the no power issue.  There was no power.  You had to floor that thing everywhere just to get around.

But traditional automatics don't drone like that.  Revs increase and the sound changes, then it changes up as you let off and the revs go down and are quiet again. 

My first exposure was on snowmobiles when I was a kid (and before they ever started using them in mainstream autos).  Didn't care for them in that application, and based on my limited experience with them in automobiles, I'd prefer a fixed number of cogs there as well.

Nasty. They totally sap the soul of a car. They make the engine moan low and long, like the undead.

0mph... uHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhHHHHhhhhhhhh.. 60mph

The inherent slipping nature of them doesn't sit well with me.  A big fat NO.

I only like the Prius' CVT, because it's elegant, efficient, and so perfectly suited to hybrid applications.

I would take a CVT over a 10 speed automatic.

Quote from: 2o6 on October 09, 2012, 03:11:49 PM
I would take a CVT over a 10 speed automatic.

Because there are so many cars out there with 10 speed automatics...:facepalm:

I wonder what the hell is going through your mind when you post things like this.

Quote from: MrH on October 09, 2012, 03:13:35 PM
Because there are so many cars out there with 10 speed automatics...:facepalm:

I wonder what the hell is going through your mind when you post things like this.

:rolleyes:


Last time I checked, Chrysler is developing 9 and 10ATs for FWD applications.




I dont particurally care for the 6AT in the Chevy Cruze; it never knows what gear to select. I cant picture that level of indecisiveness coupled with four more gears to choose from.

Aside from cost and complexity, what's wrong with more speeds? You don't have to go through each one in sequence.

Quote from: Laconian on October 09, 2012, 03:21:47 PM
Aside from cost and complexity, what's wrong with more speeds? You don't have to go through each one in sequence.

Having more speeds = having a greater requirement for good shift programming, something automakers seem to struggle with even with 6-7 speed autos.

The ones I've tried in Fords seem to work pretty well. However I'm completely unconvinced about their longevity compared to traditional automatics.

I think they have their uses.  Good for runabouts, possibly good for heavy vehicles and trucks, but not so much for performance cars or luxo-barges.

Quote from: 2o6 on October 09, 2012, 03:16:42 PM
  :rolleyes:


Last time I checked, Chrysler is developing 9 and 10ATs for FWD applications.




I dont particurally care for the 6AT in the Chevy Cruze; it never knows what gear to select. I cant picture that level of indecisiveness coupled with four more gears to choose from.

My car has six gears and I always know what gear to put it in. Most 6 speed autos are fine.

I like the CVT in the Altimas well enough. It makes a car with mediocre power feel quicker to respond and it was really smooth overall. It seems like they would get a bit of a mileage edge out of them though, and I'm not sure that they do. In the Versa however it was just a volume pedal. Press down more, get more noise. Your rate of speed increase remains low.

I am not sure if the Versa I drove had it. PRetty sure it had a 4AT. In any case not crazy about em. Had one in a 2.5 Altima. Whole car including transmission sucked.

Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 09, 2012, 09:52:50 PM
I am not sure if the Versa I drove had it. PRetty sure it had a 4AT. In any case not crazy about em. Had one in a 2.5 Altima. Whole car including transmission sucked.

Some older models have 4-speeds, some have CVT's. The new ugly sedan is CVT only.

The concept is cool, so I voted yes. The application of them is sort of lacking, however. But I still approve of further tinkering to see if they can end up being a great technology.

What a load of drivel there is in this thread.

The theory of a CVT is that by being able to adjust the gearing constantly, you are always in the right ratio for the speed and engine loading, as opposed to having to be in one of a series of fixed ratios. Early CVTs - and I recall with some horror the Selecta system that Ford used in the 1990s Fiesta and Fiat in the Panda and Uno - were not very good as there was always a lag between what the throttle or brakes did and the transmission catching up, making it very difficult to drive smoothly. They were generally worse when you braked hard than they were when you accelerated hard.

Since those dark days, the technology has improved massively, so most CVTs in my experience are now fairly smooth. As mfrs have moved from standard 4 speed traditional boxes to ones with more ratios, typically with the top 3 or 4 gears quite close together, you can indeed get the scenario where the box does hunt between the gears a bit, but unless you get a particularly torque-less car, since most of them are quite smooth so you should not really be aware that this is going on. If you are driving hard, there is unlikely to be constant ratio shifting.

I've only driven the Mercedes Autotronic CVTs. on the W169 and W245 A/B-Classes.

On the powerful gasoline models they're ok.

On the weaker gasoline models they're a pain in the ass.

On all diesels they're ok.

I drove a Subaru Legacy with a "Lineartronic" CVT twice over the summer (repeat customer!).  I didn't mind it, but the thing was so damn powerless to begin with that the CVT made the acceleration feel like a turtle's.  I opted to use the paddle shifters/artificial gears instead. :lol:

Quote from: Colin on October 10, 2012, 04:23:05 AM
What a load of drivel there is in this thread.

The theory of a CVT is that by being able to adjust the gearing constantly, you are always in the right ratio for the speed and engine loading, as opposed to having to be in one of a series of fixed ratios. Early CVTs - and I recall with some horror the Selecta system that Ford used in the 1990s Fiesta and Fiat in the Panda and Uno - were not very good as there was always a lag between what the throttle or brakes did and the transmission catching up, making it very difficult to drive smoothly. They were generally worse when you braked hard than they were when you accelerated hard.

Since those dark days, the technology has improved massively, so most CVTs in my experience are now fairly smooth. As mfrs have moved from standard 4 speed traditional boxes to ones with more ratios, typically with the top 3 or 4 gears quite close together, you can indeed get the scenario where the box does hunt between the gears a bit, but unless you get a particularly torque-less car, since most of them are quite smooth so you should not really be aware that this is going on. If you are driving hard, there is unlikely to be constant ratio shifting.

Ah HA! Thank you....someone who feels the same way I do.


Granted, not all CVT's are equal; some aren't adept at particularly great throttle response. But the CVT will always pick the most efficient ratio for the load and power demand at the time. That (plus the smoothness) really gets me going. I really don't understand the "drone" issue; when you stop accelerating, it backs off and finds a better ratio for economy (and sound). Heck, with big engines, like the Nissan V6es, I can't get it to redline "shift".


Besides, artificial gears usually make the car slower.

Quote from: Raza  on October 09, 2012, 05:57:24 PM
My car has six gears and I always know what gear to put it in. Most 6 speed autos are fine.

(http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/images/11/2011/09/picture_1_05.jpg)

Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 10, 2012, 07:07:47 AM
(http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/images/11/2011/09/picture_1_05.jpg)

At understanding what gear to use.  I mean, if I can always know what to do with my 6 speed, surely the almighty computer can know what's best for me without fail, right?

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=28222.msg1791509#msg1791509 date=1349874969
At understanding what gear to use.  I mean, if I can always know what to do with my 6 speed, surely the almighty computer can know what's best for me without fail, right?

:rolleyes:

Quote from: 2o6 on October 10, 2012, 07:24:37 AM
:rolleyes:

If a 6 speed is hunting gears, then it's a bad program.  It's not that 6 gears is too many, since loads of people drive 6 speed manuals and never don't know what gear to use. 

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=28222.msg1791515#msg1791515 date=1349876892
If a 6 speed is hunting gears, then it's a bad program.  It's not that 6 gears is too many, since loads of people drive 6 speed manuals and never don't know what gear to use. 

And the thread's topic is about AUTOMATIC transmissions. Who cares if the human knows what gear to pick, it's not what this thread is about. There are a lot of indecisive transmissions (especially with little engines) that never know what ratio to select.

Quote from: 2o6 on October 10, 2012, 07:49:50 AM
And the thread's topic is about AUTOMATIC transmissions. Who cares if the human knows what gear to pick, it's not what this thread is about. There are a lot of indecisive transmissions (especially with little engines) that never know what ratio to select.

You were speaking as if the problem were inherent to the number of gears.  It's a programming issue, not a number of gears issue.  If the Sonic had shitty AT programming, that's software, not hardware.

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=28222.msg1791540#msg1791540 date=1349882163
You were speaking as if the problem were inherent to the number of gears.  It's a programming issue, not a number of gears issue.  If the Sonic had shitty AT programming, that's software, not hardware.

Cruze.

It tends to go hand in hand to a certain extent.

Quote from: 2o6 on October 10, 2012, 09:42:53 AM
Cruze.

It tends to go hand in hand to a certain extent.

Bad software is bad software, it's not bad hardware.  It's like blaming computer's processor for your OS being bad.

Our Sonata transmission seems to know what it's doing. Always ready for a downshift and knows what gear it should be in.


The Honda hunts.

Quote from: CJ on October 10, 2012, 09:46:07 AM
Our Sonata transmission seems to know what it's doing. Always ready for a downshift and knows what gear it should be in.


The Honda hunts.

My dad's 8 speed hunts, my mom's 7 speed doesn't, my brother's 6 speed (DSG) doesn't. 

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=28222.msg1791515#msg1791515 date=1349876892
If a 6 speed is hunting gears, then it's a bad program.  It's not that 6 gears is too many, since loads of people drive 6 speed manuals and never don't know what gear to use.  

If a 6 speed is hunting then the ratios are too tight, it's bad programming, or the engine isn't powerful enough to hold gears.

Quote from: Raza  on October 10, 2012, 09:45:05 AM
Bad software is bad software, it's not bad hardware.  It's like blaming computer's processor for your OS being bad.

+5000

I've got no complaints about the 6-speed A/T in the BMW 118i. Works rather well with the "little" motor and it's "underpowered" 143-horsepower.  :praise:

I forget where I saw it but there's a vid of the 528i with the 8AT operating beautifully

The problem is really them trying to game the trannys to beat the EPA fuel economy test... w/o that programming would be simple

Quote from: cawimmer430 on October 10, 2012, 03:47:33 PM
I've got no complaints about the 6-speed A/T in the BMW 118i. Works rather well with the "little" motor and it's "underpowered" 143-horsepower.  :praise:

Why do you continue to say these things, when many if not most folks here drive cars w/less horsepower

I just did a positive review on a 75HP Fiat Panda

How long are you going to drag these stupid jokes on

Quote from: sportyaccordy on October 11, 2012, 05:57:31 AM
How long are you going to drag these stupid jokes on

1/4 mile...  :devil:


Lighten up!  :cheers:

I would have a CVT.  I think they're better on fuel than a "normal" CVT and sometimes better than the manual.  It depends on the car though as always

I want a manual CVT.

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=28222.msg1791572#msg1791572 date=1349883905
Bad software is bad software, it's not bad hardware.  It's like blaming computer's processor for your OS being bad.

:hesaid:

I don't mind the existence of CVT transmissions, but they just aren't for me.

I don't enjoy the audio experience mainly. I'm not a fan of the electric train sounds that I associate with CVT geared vehicles. I know there's a lot of poorly programmed auto transmissions out there, but there's a certain satisfaction of hearing the revs drop and rise.

With the costs of everything computer-related coming down, WHY OH WHY do they not put "inclinometers" in the cars? Then the auto transmission knows as you are going up a hill it will need to shift- and as you are still on the shift, don't shift up/down/up/down/up/down until the hill is done.

Some with coasting DOWN a hill- if you're hard on the brakes over and over it could keep it in a lower gear..

??? They certainly do have that. Toyota ATs have been pitching in with engine braking since at least 2004 (when I noticed it in a Scion xB).

Quote from: AutobahnSHO on October 24, 2012, 07:15:52 PM
With the costs of everything computer-related coming down, WHY OH WHY do they not put "inclinometers" in the cars? Then the auto transmission knows as you are going up a hill it will need to shift- and as you are still on the shift, don't shift up/down/up/down/up/down until the hill is done.

Some with coasting DOWN a hill- if you're hard on the brakes over and over it could keep it in a lower gear..

They put those in. Since a long time ago. My E46 323i (automatic) held gears beautifully in D.

My car blip-downshifts and engine brakes when I go down hills in Sport.

When will the rest of them get inclinez????

Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on October 24, 2012, 07:21:15 PM
They put those in. Since a long time ago. My E46 323i (automatic) held gears beautifully in D.

My dad's old '97 Civic would hold the perfect gear going up hills. It wasn't programmed to downshift to help on downhills though.