Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I really do wish we had some selection of small diesels in NA, but consumers are very closed minded here. It was a small displacement diesel which might make some difference to the drive feel, but it did get great FE for a large vehicle, and it never balked even at 75mph+ on the motorways. Pushing the accelerator meant instant go without any mushiness or delay to downshift, so it gets full A's there.
I didn't see any lift throttle oversteer nor did I loose traction braking, so I can't comment on those for the current discussion.
thusly when the rear tires cut loose due to deceleration, the rearward friction force on front tires is more than that on rear tires. basic force-vector analysis shows that this induces spin: the rear and front are maintaining forward momentum identically but the stuck-to-road front tires are being pushed backwards stronger than the sliding rear tires are being pushed backwards - by the road. this is the force delta which induces the spin.
aside from reattaining rear traction, the way to avoid spin is to keep the car pointed perfectly straight by countersteering..
the risk of such a spin is larger in a RWD with manual transmission, but some automatics could probably be forced to do the same thing. software probably prevents it in most modern automatics though.
But yes, if you have a situation wherein more braking is applied at the front versus the rear, rear skiding, front not, the rear is likely to try to pass the front, more certainly so on a slippery roadbed. But apply rear braking ONLY, skiding or not, and the behind will stay behind.
Wrong! Anyone who has ever slalomed a car will tell you applying the hand brake kicks out the rear.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
How is it that you don't understand this simple fact?
The only reason you'd choose a CVT over a dual clutch gearbox is if you wanted to be penny wise and pound foolish, and get something cheaper.
While I'd prefer a DSG, a CVT is cheaper, requires less maintenance, and arguably is more fuel efficient.
DSG gearbox oil is expensive ($22/quart x 5.2 if you use the right stuff; it's not ATF or fluid, but oil; just had a change last week), however, it seems it's okay to go 30 to 50K miles per change (hate to admit I let it go 50K miles between changes; oil smelled a bit burnt, but not terribly so). How little maintenance does CVT require? The DSG filter is nothing particularly special or expensive. Most places quote 1 hour labor to change my DSG oil and filter, though I know they should probably figure 2 hours (if they follow Audi's guidelines).
81K miles, 2006 A3 kicking butt!
I'll be happy to remove my front brake and demonstrate. 10 speed, mountain bike, old cruiser with the Bendix brake in back. Sliding the rear end around is trivial, and 45 years ago I intentionally did it dozens and dozens of times.
I can still stop at a stop sign and not move (much :shades: ), without putting my foot down.
I also think shifting 21+ gears is a bit excessive.
I can only think of 3 reasons:
1) They don't know how to use a stick shift or 3rd pedal.
2) They want the convenience and ease of use of an automatic (is their a regular auto option to CVT?)
3) The CVT may possibly get an extra mile or two per gallon depending on the 6-speeds gearing ratios.
1) If they can't drive a stick yet, then there's a $1,200 incentive to learn.
2) I've driven Nissan rentals with a CVT, and while it is a good automatic, maybe one of the better automatics actually, it still "shifts" at inconvenient times and is just plain weird.
3) While I've seen any number of automatic transmissions beat their manual brethren in the EPA tests, I've yet to see or hear about even a single case where the Automatic bests the Manual in the real world. That may happen sooner or later, but I don't believe we're there yet. :shades:
How about a Prius
Pretty soon all vehilces will be some form of hybrid with CVTs.
With the advent of the widespread use of FULL fuel cut, accompanied by automatic downshifts, appropriate downshifts(***), during speed coastdown periods the automatic's FE exceeds the manual quite handily.
Initially used as early as 2000.
*** final upshift as you, if you, approach a low enough roadspeed that the engine would otherwise stall.
And if you began rear braking while holding the stearing wheel neutral..?
Or a method to restart the engine when throttle is re-applied.
Is that so; name me one car (just one) which is offered with both a manual transmission and any flavor of automatic where the real-world reports from drivers shows the automatic exceeding that of the manual.
FWIW, your "FULL fuel cut" argument is yet another one of your red herrings; drive any modern car with a stick and a ScanGauge and you'll see indications that the fuel flow to the engine is in fact fully cut.
The car would still enter a spin 99 times out of 100. Fact of life, deal with it and move on.
The beauty with a CVT is that the computer can find and maintain the most optimal ratio between engine rpm and wheels augmented by the battery in hybrids. If you had a manual transmission on a hybrid it would be less efficient because the driver wouldn't be aware of when to shift because it would depend on if the battery was providing assistance to the engine, or if the engine was also being used to charge the battery in addition to moving the car along. Hence the use of the CVT. And show me a manual that can average 50mpg in mixed use driving and I'll buy one.
I get 50 mpg in mixed driving with smaller injectors (larger was standard in European models) and a 5 speed manual (6 speed manual was standard, both together have the capacity of 2 mpg more aka 52 mpg). It has been on the market since 2003.So I have actually DONE (for 167,000 miles) what you threaten to do. So yours is an empty threat. 50 mpg is the norm in Europe (again I have read in passing 47 mpg is the current standard) so that is also nothing new.
A very common statement made by the CVT crowd. The fallacy with that statement is that given the broad power and torque curves of today's engines, the difference between pushing a car along at say 65 at say 2,200 RPMs versus say 2,500 RPMs is virtually immeasurable (all else being equal). Said another way, there really is no "perfect" rpm for any given power output; there is however an optimal range.
VW Jetta/2012 Passat has essentially the same EPA numbers for DSG/6 speed manual. In the past, most to all cars normally posted less mpg for automatics.
Another issue one can chose a car that is MINUS-1,100 cheaper. If a CVT is mandatory or more pc the only choice, then structually one is paying a minimum of PLUS+ 1,1000 MORE. That can be a pretty high percentage more.
Agreed, the issue here is that when one reviews anecdotal reports from folks out in the real world, I consistently see higher MPG claims from the folks with three pedals under the dash (regardless of whether the Automatic variant is equipped with a DSG, Slushbox, or CVT).
Long story short, I've read numerous allegations suggesting the EPA testing is biased in favor of Gasoline fueled cars with Automatic transmissions. Change the mix by opting for a Diesel and/or a Manual transmission, and the EPA tests seemingly drift further and further from reality. While the allegations and the anecdotal reports are proof of nothing, they do present some compelling areas for further examination regarding the accuracy of the EPA testing models vis-à-vis Diesel and/or Manual transmission equipped vehicles.
You said, "So yours is an empty threat" What threat?
So when is it "measurable" The fact that they're going with 6spd transmissions indicates to me that finding the optimal ration IS important.
And you forgot to mention the battery aspect in hybrids. With a manual transmission, you may downshift to 5th to get more power, while the hybrid may provide the boost with the battery and slightly adjust the CVT ratio.
The fact of the matter is that a computer with CVT and hybrid technology will surpass the average driver with a six speed manual transmission doing his best to guess when he should shift gears.
And BTW if you're using diesel, you're paying more at the pump than RUG, which equates to a higher cost per mile.
And while there may be SOME folks out there really good at getting the maximum efficiency out of a manual 6spd, the aveage American driver won't.
And since the only diesel out there is the VW TDI, even if it did someone AVERAGE 50mpg with someone maximizing shift points and probably doing most of their driving on the highway, the reliability of VWs based on CR, JD Powers, mechanics, etc., all indicate that VW is a brand to stay away from. Yeah the engine may last a long time, but you'll really rack up repair costs on the other components. (with the exception of one poster who will remain nameless :P ).
All that being said, if I lived in Europe, I'd probably be driving a 6spd manual diesel like several folks I know who live there, but not in the USA.
Unfortuantely since the same driver isn't driving the same vehicle under the same conditions, one must toss that out as being anectdotle. The EPA results are the only ones that matter because they are done under controlled conditions.
CVT advocates dont even seem to go there (in the comparison) with whatever else is being offered in that same model and year. In other words the data is being cooked.
The only difference is I am and have been doing EXACTLY that in the US. So defacto, you buy into (figuratively and literally) the burning more is better policy.
With VW it's a different story. Part of the sales package with VW is "driver experience." Even if a CVT would give the TDI slightly better MPG over an automatic or even a 6 spd manual, VW probably would not want to use it because it might affect their "image" as a "driver's car." Toyota doesn't care if people think that the Prius is an "appliance" car...just that it gets high MPG.
I'm not sure how you figure that when the average Prius owner spends less on gas per mile than the average TDI owner. The average TDI driver will get around 40 mpg with the average Prius owner getting around 50 MPG, and that's using the cheaper RUG vs diesel fuel.
Again, one single personal experience isn't the average.
I've TRIED to maximize mileage in a number of automatic equipped cars and just can't do it because the car WON'T LET ME. So whereas I can ALWAYS exceed EPA in a manny vehicle, I have NEVER done so in an auto vehicle, despite my best efforts.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Do you really believe that?
Just because a gallon of gasoline typically costs less than a gallon of diesel in no way makes the cost per mile of the diesel higher. The fact is that there is significantly more energy in that gallon of diesel than that same gallon of gasoline; that and diesels run on the lean side of stoichiometric (often signifantly so) whereas gasoline fired engines spend 95% of their operational life on the rich side of stoichiometric. Long story short, even CVT equipped Hybrids are extremely challenged to match the cost per mile of a relatively simple manual transmission/diesel equipped vehicle of a similar size and capability.
The truth is more like the competitor for the Jetta/Passat are the Camry Hybrid. As such Camry Hybrid gets worse mpg, costs 1000's more. I would dare say it is probably less fun to drive.
So for example a diesel/5/6 speed manual Corolla, Civic (more like the Prius) can easily get 52 to 56 mpg. This of course is better mpg than the pedestalled Prius. It would be at way less cost also. I am sure you would agree that Toyota would be cutting its own throat by brining in these ULTRA efficient (from an US market point of view) Corolla's. Why would anyone want to pay more for a Prius if they can pay (MUCH) less for a diesel Corolla ???? In fact a gasser Corolla outsells the Prius by a lot and for a long time !!??
Getting 45MPG paying with diesel is NOT the same as getting 45mpg on RUG.
Simple math above.
Not at all practical; trying to marry a hybrid drive train with a manual transmission is pretty much a worthless exercise. Honda tried it and it was a complete failure.
FWIW, I concede the point when it comes to "appliance" CVT and hybrid propelled cars in that I think the CVT is the perfect transmission for that type of vehicle. Then again, who really cares; certainly not someone looking for at least a little bit of driving pleasure.