First CVT experience

[HondaRULZ]

Originally Posted By: dblshock
CVT another born of CAFE..that said I guess they're comming around, mine has good effeiciency, never stumbles..great on a steady cruise up and over hills and then it flies when I nail it for such a small displacement. I get north of 40mpg. traveling hard passing and left lane often. I'm sure the CVT is a big part of that.


don't forget the quieter ride of the CVT, less bouncy and jerky due to no gears making it VERY compliant ride. oh, 1 more, no engine braking.

 

[miden851]

No complains of CVT here in our CRV

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: HondaRULZ
Originally Posted By: dblshock
CVT another born of CAFE..that said I guess they're comming around, mine has good effeiciency, never stumbles..great on a steady cruise up and over hills and then it flies when I nail it for such a small displacement. I get north of 40mpg. traveling hard passing and left lane often. I'm sure the CVT is a big part of that.


don't forget the quieter ride of the CVT, less bouncy and jerky due to no gears making it VERY compliant ride. oh, 1 more, no engine braking.


Not so sure about the lack of engine braking.
Our Forester loses speed almost as readily as a stick when you take your foot off. By comparison, the Accord coasts enough more that you often need to use the brakes in situations where you wouldn't need to with the Subie.
I was a bit apprehensive about the CVT but from my first test drive, I thought it was okay.

 

[FutureDoc]

Yeah, I can totally engine break in the Outback (CVT).

CVT are not "new" CAFE items"... those are the 7+ speed trannies. CVT were developed in Germany near the turn of the century. Heck, I think there were pre-automobile adaptations for various uses.

However, they gain popularity in ATVs and then Subaru started development in the 80s. There are significant advantages for a AWD/4WD system (that is not expected to tow a lot) to have a CVT. Sure, the early CVTs needed work as the Justy's transmission was designed for lower-power kei cars and not all that durable. Still, other manufacturers have tested and developed their own variants. They trick is that they are cheaper, compact, provide better application of power, and are high efficiency.

Don't get me wrong, I want to keep the manual in my cars. However, if given the choice between transmissions (and not for towing purposes), the CVT would be #1.

 

[pandus13]

Originally Posted By: E150GT
...but my wife has a yaris with pitiful power and a traditional 4 speed auto. Its a drag to drive in my opinion and I bet the engine has just as much to do with the terrible experience as the transmission.

[off-topic]
I bet is really scary when a big semi comes closer, and the auto-trans programming didn't catch up and you just cannot go over 50mph quick enough....
I bet It would have been a better deal to take the 0.6-0.9% financing corolla's with the 1.8 engine, then the base Yaris (I have the sedan, so a bit more weight)
p.s. the 1.5L engine seems to do good in manual/stick-shift form, with a good driver.

I think the auto was done as safe/boring as possible....
[/off-topic]

 

[SeaJay]

Let me see, I am driving a car with a little over 100HP, a CVT and I don't like its performance, particularly going up hills.

Well sir, if there was a regular automatic transmission in that car, it would zip up steep hills faster than you want to go and it would beat those new muscle cars that the big 3 are making (Camaro, mustang, challenger, etc.) off the line.

For sure!

 

[jeepman3071]

My biggest problem with CVTs and many current econobox automatics is the economy tuning. They are designed to stay in the most efficient gear possible and almost make it difficult to downshift them.

My mom's Fit is a perfect example of this. If you try to pass someone on the highway, the car will not downshift unless you basically floor it making the engine scream. It either downshifts 2 gears, or stays in 5th gear and bogs down while going up hills. A terrible transmission in my opinion. Sometimes it is almost dangerously slow because it is stuck in the wrong gear. I find when I drive the car I pretty much have to use sport mode with the paddle shifters so it doesn't hold the highest gear and feel gutless. My sister's 2005 Civic has only a 4 speed auto, and gets better fuel economy while also not having this problem.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
My biggest problem with CVTs and many current econobox automatics is the economy tuning. They are designed to stay in the most efficient gear possible and almost make it difficult to downshift them.

My mom's Fit is a perfect example of this. If you try to pass someone on the highway, the car will not downshift unless you basically floor it making the engine scream. It either downshifts 2 gears, or stays in 5th gear and bogs down while going up hills. A terrible transmission in my opinion. Sometimes it is almost dangerously slow because it is stuck in the wrong gear. I find when I drive the car I pretty much have to use sport mode with the paddle shifters so it doesn't hold the highest gear and feel gutless. My sister's 2005 Civic has only a 4 speed auto, and gets better fuel economy while also not having this problem.


I hear ya. What puzzles me is my son's, 2000 Buick Century [hand me down] with the 4 speed auto would get 36-38 mpg on the highway with a V6 engine, and eighteen year old technology. There are V6 vehicles today with twice the gears and twice the headaches getting less mpgs.

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
My biggest problem with CVTs and many current econobox automatics is the economy tuning. They are designed to stay in the most efficient gear possible and almost make it difficult to downshift them.

My mom's Fit is a perfect example of this. If you try to pass someone on the highway, the car will not downshift unless you basically floor it making the engine scream. It either downshifts 2 gears, or stays in 5th gear and bogs down while going up hills. A terrible transmission in my opinion. Sometimes it is almost dangerously slow because it is stuck in the wrong gear. I find when I drive the car I pretty much have to use sport mode with the paddle shifters so it doesn't hold the highest gear and feel gutless. My sister's 2005 Civic has only a 4 speed auto, and gets better fuel economy while also not having this problem.


I hear ya. What puzzles me is my son's, 2000 Buick Century [hand me down] with the 4 speed auto would get 36-38 mpg on the highway with a V6 engine, and eighteen year old technology. There are V6 vehicles today with twice the gears and twice the headaches getting less mpgs.


I feel it has to do with 2 things:

1. Cars are heavier today
2. A lot of the mpg nannies probably act differently in testing vs. real world situations

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I hear ya. What puzzles me is my son's, 2000 Buick Century [hand me down] with the 4 speed auto would get 36-38 mpg on the highway with a V6 engine, and eighteen year old technology. There are V6 vehicles today with twice the gears and twice the headaches getting less mpgs.


I feel it has to do with 2 things:

1. Cars are heavier today
2. A lot of the mpg nannies probably act differently in testing vs. real world situations


There is no great mystery here. According to wiki, the engine in that Buick made a whopping 175HP when the average V6 today makes around 300hp.

Get an average 4cyl equipped car with the same HP and it will match the gas mileage of that Buick or beat it. HP numbers is what determines the fuel economy for the most part, not V6 or I 4 configurations.

 

[Dave Sherman]

Originally Posted By: SeaJay
Let me see, I am driving a car with a little over 100HP, a CVT and I don't like its performance, particularly going up hills.

Well sir, if there was a regular automatic transmission in that car, it would zip up steep hills faster than you want to go and it would beat those new muscle cars that the big 3 are making (Camaro, mustang, challenger, etc.) off the line.

For sure!


Right. Joking aside, a 1988 Pontiac 6000 with 98 horsepower and a 3 speed didn't seem to have as much trouble going up hills as this poor Nissan. That was a midsize sedan, not a compact, and while it didn't have a tach in it, I don't think it had to wind up to 4000 RPM just to maintain 55 MPH up a hilly highway. I never expected it to be a screamer, it was the shifting characteristics that I found most annoying.

Maybe the previous renter left behind some lead bricks in the trunk

.

 

[SeaJay]

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
My biggest problem with CVTs and many current econobox automatics is the economy tuning. They are designed to stay in the most efficient gear possible and almost make it difficult to downshift them.

My mom's Fit is a perfect example of this. If you try to pass someone on the highway, the car will not downshift unless you basically floor it making the engine scream. It either downshifts 2 gears, or stays in 5th gear and bogs down while going up hills. A terrible transmission in my opinion. Sometimes it is almost dangerously slow because it is stuck in the wrong gear. I find when I drive the car I pretty much have to use sport mode with the paddle shifters so it doesn't hold the highest gear and feel gutless. My sister's 2005 Civic has only a 4 speed auto, and gets better fuel economy while also not having this problem.


For your driving requirements, you should be driving a high horsepower vehicle with impressive performance off of the line.

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: SeaJay

For your driving requirements, you should be driving a high horsepower vehicle with impressive performance off of the line.


Not really, most vehicles I drive are fine. The Fit just seems under powered on the hilly terrain around here mainly because of the transmission programming.

My sister's 2005 Civic has an ample amount of power and it has 115HP, the 2011 Fit is rated at 117HP. The difference is the transmission will downshift without flooring it.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Dave Sherman
Originally Posted By: SeaJay
Let me see, I am driving a car with a little over 100HP, a CVT and I don't like its performance, particularly going up hills.

Well sir, if there was a regular automatic transmission in that car, it would zip up steep hills faster than you want to go and it would beat those new muscle cars that the big 3 are making (Camaro, mustang, challenger, etc.) off the line.

For sure!


Right. Joking aside, a 1988 Pontiac 6000 with 98 horsepower and a 3 speed didn't seem to have as much trouble going up hills as this poor Nissan. That was a midsize sedan, not a compact, and while it didn't have a tach in it, I don't think it had to wind up to 4000 RPM just to maintain 55 MPH up a hilly highway. I never expected it to be a screamer, it was the shifting characteristics that I found most annoying.

Maybe the previous renter left behind some lead bricks in the trunk

.

The old motors did have more torque than hp, and at lower rpm. Now anything NA has about the same hp and torque, but the torque peak is at higher rpm and the engine has much smaller displacement. Also your pontiac 6000 probably weighed less than the Versa, and the 6000's top gear was more like 2400 rpm at 60mph, than 1800 rpm in the versa.
I find the Forester CVT quite good though, seems pretty responsive and shifts when I think it should.

 

[Aichiguy]

I really dislike spending $$ to fix cars so until CVT's routinely go 200k I will be buying vehicles with traditional automatics. I have yet to drive a vehicle that has one so I'm not sure of the drivability factor. I've heard replacement costs are pretty high.

 

[jnewkirk77]

I'm not big on CVTs, having had one self-destruct in a Ford Freestyle (a thoroughly rotten pile of [censored] from front to rear and top to bottom). But I've driven several Versas with them and like the way they operate (especially the gas mileage!), so I bought a '15 SV sedan last year. I've done a little over 20K miles in it and it's been rock solid.

I don't like that it doesn't have grade logic, but I have a feeling Nissan could perhaps program that in, much the way they did the "shifts" of the "D-step" logic modification that they all come with now.