CVT's SUCK!!!
The idea is sound. And they are finally almost worth while. There claim to fame is keeping the car in motion on the torque curve. But what happens if you want to use the HP you ask? They are awful. Worse than a hydo automatic. All the electronic control makes them some what useful.
They first showed up many years ago as a control device's in manufacturing and other applications. And soon fell out of favor. Why would you want a CVT to drive a production line when a VFD / Variable Frequency Drive will do it better.
Ive seen myself 7 or 8 major diff. designs over the years as there thrown out to the junk heap.
Most automotive designs are the simplest and cheapest to build. Common is the belt with two variable pulleys or sheaves if you will. They open and close independently of each other to give you near infinite gearing. I would guess these CVT's production cost are at least as cheap at a manual tranny if not cheaper. So you can bet the auto manufactures are really going to sink the greedy teeth in them.
As for drivablity there ok as long as there in a cheap ,,, no go car. If you want to pass somebody and hammer the throttle on the floor. They kinda freak out as they start whipping things around and the pulley's start open and closing to find the HP ratio if you will. Its a real ebrow raiser if you do it in say a Nissian Murano,,, or what ever that ugly looking cross over SUV thing is they have.
Hybrids seem to get them now days cause there control programing is suited very well to them. But theres no comparing say Insight CVT to a mt Insight or a CVT HCHI to a mt HCHI. And in the CVT Insight I don't think it got lean burn like the mt. What idiot college boy thought that one up?
I really wanted a HCHII till it was announced CVT only. And drum rear brakes. No mt and rear disc brakes. Screw them. I could have possible got drunk and bs'd my way around the drum brakes or retro fitted something on it. But the CVT was a sure fire way to break a deal for me.
And all this flap about slightly higher EPA ratings for AT cars is bogus. I have not seen one AT 8th Gen Civic driver get anywhere close to what I can get out of my mt 06 Civic. Some on extended hwy trips see the 41 to 42 mpg I see in none hypermiling mode. But no better. And there a pain to hypermile. I can go out right now and rip out a 42 mpg segment of 20 miles or so in my wifes slush box 05 Accord EX I4. And then go out and put 3 to 5 mpg on that in a I4 mt Accord. And I did just that at our Honda dealer. Sales force just didn't believe the mpg I could get out of the Accord. So when I bought my Civic. We took a ride in the wifes Accord with the SGI and a ride in a demo LXse I4 5mt. 4 mpg better than the worthless AT in the wifes car.
I hear of folks complaining about there mpg in the new Civics. Most are AT cars in bigger citys. 22 to 27 mpg is there claim of city mpg. Second tank on my car. Car not even broke in. Im out doing 0 to 60 and 60 to 100 mph runs. With and without a/c. All the windows down, a/c on driving the holy crud out of the car. I mean beating on the car hard. Cornering the crap out of it. Spun it out a few times. Just pure abuse! And it posted 29 mpg.
Some folks may need a AT. Health issues and such. But for most its a cop out. Stuff like I live in a big city with bad traffic. I don't want to work a clutch... <<<< Thats a real common cop out. But the fact is most cant drive a MT. Heck they would have to think. And it would limit the cell phone, PDA, laptop, eating and personnel hygiene time.
My hips, knees and feet hurt alot now days. My right ankle is collapsing. Thats why they make tape, splints and surgery. If I get so bad I cant drive a mt. Its time to stop driving.
Cause AT's SUCK!!!!
psy
I dont know how many sale's people I asked to see this car or that car with a MT. The question alone baffled sales people.
Linear Mode
