[The Godfather]

Until today, I had the wrong idea that manual transmissions were the most energy efficient around. I was even planning to get the MT option in my next year's car: Civic Hybrid.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/cvt.htm

They are supposed to be cheaper and simpler than ATs and MTs when they get mass produced

[Spliffdaddy]

CVT's have been around for decades. They just haven't been able to cope with the torque of modern automobile engines. Most of them used a belt and sliding pulley arrangement - with the belt being the weak link.

They are far more efficient than manual transmissions, which have just 5 or 6 ratios. Essentially, a CVT is a manual transmission with infinite gear ratios. It allows the engine to operate at its most efficient RPM.

Back in the mid-70's I had a Rupp minibike with a 'torque converter' drive - which was essentially a CVT transmission.

They apparently have refined the CVT to the point where it can absorb the torque from a Nissan Maxima without self-destructing - which is quite a feat.

[MacMan4000]

My cousin has a Nissan murano with a CVT. ugly car...

[macforray]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Back in the mid-70's I had a Rupp minibike with a 'torque converter' drive - which was essentially a CVT transmission.

I loved those Rupp minibikes. Late 60's for me. That brings back memories.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

Until today, I had the wrong idea that manual transmissions were the most energy efficient around. I was even planning to get the MT option in my next year's car: Civic Hybrid.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/cvt.htm

They are supposed to be cheaper and simpler than ATs and MTs when they get mass produced

The MTs are energy efficient because they're so simple...pretty much engine > a couple gears > diff > wheels, whereas with the auto, there's a lot of parasitic loss. But nowadays they're engineering much better, so the difference is negligible in most cars. I'd like to see the numbers on a small car like the Civic. Generally the AT version of those cars tend to be slower and get a couple fewer MPG, but IDK how a CVT would stack up.

[ghporter]

The Civic Hybrid is ONLY offered with the CVT. To me, that says Honda thinks it's THE way to go. And I'll be a couple years behind you, Godfather-gotta pay off the Civic Coupe I have now first.

[IceEnclosure]

Audi A4, CVT, Daft Punk, and Gasoline tanker explosion.

(save to your desktop thanks)

[hickey]

"It's a school bus!"

[Sage]

CVTs are probably the future of automatics – I think that within 25 years (probably less, but I’m covering my butt here) the CVT will completely displace the automatic, unless VW has its way and every car has a DSG. In theory, a CVT should be more efficient than a DSG, but we’ll have to see what happens.

In the meantime, I’ll keep buying manuals while they’re still making them – nothing more satisfying than a perfectly-executed heel-’n’-toe downshift while scooting.

[IceEnclosure]

Originally Posted by hickey

"It's a school bus!"

(good thing it wasn't I guess)

[Apfhex]

Yay. I mean the idea of a CVT really makes sense to me, I definitely think it will be standard in the future. I'm only curious in how well it handles a variety of road conditions (specifically steep up and down hills) and how long it will last. A friend recently got a '06 Civic Hybrid but it's his first car so I can't get a comparison outta him. Sounds like it functions well though.

And yeah, if you're buying a hybrid is seems you're more likely than not to get CVT. I think Toyota has it in 100% of theirs. For the foreseeable future I'm stuck with 4 speed AT but my next car will probably be a CVT hybrid. Not a Civic though, unless they give the driver more leg room or I get shorter!

[Eug Wanker]

Yay.




P.S. Whenever I drive an automatic nowadays, they just seem jerky, in comparison to CVT. (I don't drive stick because of a shoulder injury, and my car doesn't come in manual anyway.)

[Sage]

Originally Posted by Apfhex

I'm only curious in how well it handles a variety of road conditions (specifically steep up and down hills)

Uphill is where CVTs shine – no straggling between two gears.

Downhill less so, depending on the circumstances – thing is, CVTs don’t know when you want engine braking. I don’t know if current CVTs allow you to select a “low” range, à la modern automatics.

and how long it will last.

That’s what has held back CVTs for the last few decades, but now automakers are making major strides, and I think longevity is close to being a non-issue. (I might be a bit optimistic though.)

[Snooperino]

Subaru used them in the 80s with it's Justy model... seemed to work fine. I think they're pretty neat, they just aren't sporty, but a much better idea than a regular automatic.

[baw]

Snowmobiles have had them for years.

[Snooperino]

Originally Posted by baw

Snowmobiles have had them for years.

Thank you for not contributing to this thread.

[Judge_Fire]

Originally Posted by Snooperino

Thank you for not contributing to this thread.

Well, the comment highlights that commercially viable technology has been around for longer than you'd assume from looking at just cars.

[Snooperino]

Point was that was already said, that's all.

[Eug Wanker]

My Prius has a B setting for downhill engine braking.

However, it's not a traditional CVT, and it's not a traditional engine braking either.

[memory-minus]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

I was even planning to get the MT option in my next year's car: Civic Hybrid.

As was mentioned, you no longer have the choice if you want a Civic Hybrid. My 2005 has an MT but starting with 2006 they only come in CVT. I didn't test drive the CVT though because I prefer a manual, however, during my research I came across quite a few people who needed major trasmission work due to the CVT. It seems to fail within warranty if it's going to fail, though. Of course, people with faulty transmissions are more likely to bitch on the internet about them. YMMV.