Last post on Dec 09, 2013 at 3:18 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
#9875 of 10048 Re: saw some stats today [nippononly]
Mar 13, 2013 (8:13 am)
They do have 6/8 simulated steps and paddles to let you choose.
#9876 of 10048 Re: saw some stats today [nippononly]
Mar 13, 2013 (11:20 am)
Well, the Forester decision was based on experience, apparently. I don't remember the numbers on the 2008 model, but I want to say the take rate was sub-five-percent, which is why they nixed the manual option in 2009. So, while me and you might want one, we didn't put our money where are mouths are when it mattered.
I'm curious at what percent of the manual takes on the BRZ were premium trim level vs. limited.
The Forester's XT variant only comes in the gussied-up versions, and I'm generally not a big fan of "gussy."
Mar 13, 2013 (1:55 pm)
A little more proof of manual superiority.
TOV dyno tested an Accord Sport with CVT. It is rated at 189 hp and put down 159 on the dyno.
They also test an Accord EX with the 6MT. It is rated at 185 hp and put down 179 on the dyno.
No wonder the 6MT I4 hit 60 in 6.6 seconds. Not only does it look like the engine is underrated, but it is also much more efficient at getting power down with the 6MT.
#9878 of 10048 Re: - [dudleyr]
Mar 13, 2013 (2:45 pm)
179 at the wheels is 200 plus gross, wow.
#9879 of 10048 Re: - [dudleyr]
Mar 13, 2013 (3:15 pm)
The CVT MIGHT be better than a similar but discontinued Accord 6 speed A/T slush box.
Parasitic losses are basically unchanged (min of 11.2% to more like 13.3% ) and still HIGH OVER the 6 speed M/T, despite the more "efficient" CVT. My further take is that the "higher" power output still doesn't help too much.
#9882 of 10048 CVT Inferiority
May 01, 2013 (10:30 am)
CVT's are terrible 99-cent type transmissions.
I just found out my friends 2007 Nissan with the generic 4-banger motor is going to soon be on its third CVT transmission at about 65,000 miles. The first one didn't last longer than 24 hours, as they replaced his engine and transmission on day 2.
Now again he needs to get it checked as it's making all kinds of noises. He also was told to replace his AC, and recently replaced his CAT converter.
He has paid for the AC ($1,400), but Nissan has the long emissions warranty thanks to CA, so that was covered (saved him about $1,400 too), Nissan obviously paid for the 2nd engine and 2nd transmission replacement when the car was new, and he tells me Nissan decided to warranty these 99 cent disposable CVT transmissions to 10 years or 120,000 miles. So it looks like he'll be covered again.
I told him Nissan has no quality control, his car has lost the equivalent of its brain, heart, lungs, and penis in less than 66,000 miles! Although they've been lucky and had no issues until recently, these 4 HUGE issues are like having 4 different stage 4 cancer diagnosis'.
Even the Neon's ancient 3-speed was good for about 60K miles, the Nissan CVT is averaging 32,500 miles per unit for my friend, who doesn't drive it hard, and only has the meager and weak 2.5 4 cylinder engine.
#9883 of 10048 Re: CVT Inferiority [andres3]
May 01, 2013 (10:43 am)
I doubt that's typical, but that really sucks!
#9884 of 10048 The First CVT Transmission . . .
May 01, 2013 (12:24 pm)
that I ever heard of was one described in Popular Science back in about '59 or '60. The issue they cited at the time was longevity, especially if significant power was involved. For a lawn mower, they were perfect.
I'm going to guess that the 50 year haitus from then until CVTs became production pieces on actual cars had to do with figuring out how to keep all those variable components and the belts (or whatever) from packing it in. Perhaps there is more work to do.