Why don't more cars have CVT?
Discussion
As the title, why aren't there more cars available with continuously variable transmissions?
If someone isn't bothered about changing gear themselves, is it not a better solution than a 4 speed automatic transmission or similar?
I haven't looked into it hugely, but they seem to have great potential for efficiency by keeping the engine in its most efficient rev range?
Cheers, Dan.
If someone isn't bothered about changing gear themselves, is it not a better solution than a 4 speed automatic transmission or similar?
I haven't looked into it hugely, but they seem to have great potential for efficiency by keeping the engine in its most efficient rev range?
Cheers, Dan.
I'm not sure how expensive they are, but they have been fitting them to mopeds for years and years...
Obviously, a car would need a slightly different set up than a variator and centrifugal clutch, but in essence it would work.
As for the noise, I'm quite certain that 90% of road users, or purchasers of new cars couldn't give a hoot what it sounds like, especially if the trade off was a few more MPGs.
Obviously, a car would need a slightly different set up than a variator and centrifugal clutch, but in essence it would work.
As for the noise, I'm quite certain that 90% of road users, or purchasers of new cars couldn't give a hoot what it sounds like, especially if the trade off was a few more MPGs.
HellDiver said:
People don't like driving cars that sound like a hair drier. A constant engine note during acceleration sounds bizarre.
Agree 100%, her indoors made me test drive a Civic Hybrid thing a couple of years ago and I was gobsmacked at how noisey and unpleasant the experience was,all down to the nasty gearbox.
ts.Mars said:
Didn't someone produce a car with a CVT but engineered "step" changes into it, because customers didn't like the sound?
... or was I dreaming this?
... or was I dreaming this?
Think Nissan did that with one of the Primera slushboxes, called it a CVT-M6 or something.
Edited by GravelBen on Tuesday 11th January 10:22
GravelBen said:
Think Nissan did that with one of the Primera slushboxes, called it a CVT-M6 or something.
After several conventional autos we had an inherited Primera CVT saloon (the lastest shape).Nice and smooth but horrific fuel consumprion for a 2.0 - 16 mpg urban and 20-22 mpg on careful run.
Glad when probate sorted so it could be sold and to see the back of it.
Paul H
My mother had a MG ZR with a CVT box which was horrid. My gran has always had Micras that for at least the last few have all had CVT's that were horrid.
It's just an unpleasant sensation to drive. Mind you I'm not a big fan of autoboxes in general - the only one I've ever actually liked was the Selespeed in a 156 I test drove.
Having said that, the CVT did suit the A6 2.5 TDI that a colleague had - it pretty much just slapped it in the middle of the torque band and then surged its way quite briskly to motorway speeds down the sliproads.
It's just an unpleasant sensation to drive. Mind you I'm not a big fan of autoboxes in general - the only one I've ever actually liked was the Selespeed in a 156 I test drove.
Having said that, the CVT did suit the A6 2.5 TDI that a colleague had - it pretty much just slapped it in the middle of the torque band and then surged its way quite briskly to motorway speeds down the sliproads.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff