Last post on Dec 03, 2013 at 10:03 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
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 10039 Re: - [dudleyr]
Mar 13, 2013 (2:45 pm)
179 at the wheels is 200 plus gross, wow.
#9879 of 10039 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 10039 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 10039 Re: CVT Inferiority [andres3]
May 01, 2013 (10:43 am)
I doubt that's typical, but that really sucks!
#9884 of 10039 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.
#9885 of 10039 Re: The First CVT Transmission . . . [cdnpinhead]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
May 01, 2013 (12:38 pm)
I think their biggest (non-car) use is on snowmachines. Something you really don't want to break down on you.
#9886 of 10039 Re: CVT Inferiority [ateixeira]
May 01, 2013 (2:12 pm)
for the record, it was an amateur mistake of mine to not mention it was an Altima Nissan model, 2007 model year.
I'm sure it's not typical, but I bet given the voluntary warranty extension it isn't uncommon either.
As to how an engine could die on the 2nd day........ I have no idea.
I told him he was lucky. My Neon had to be towed to the dealer on the 2nd day (first morning we had it), and from now on, if that ever happens again, it's staying at the dealer as a lemon law claim .
I've learned my lesson; a bad start often is a signal for worse things to come.