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
Best Regards,
Shipo
But I think that makes YOU the exception.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Last traffic jam, here in Los Angeles, I shifted a total of *FOUR* times. 20 minutes in traffic and four shifts due to proper technique.
The second it was over, the feeling of freedom came back.
The ability to control the car and experience it in all its goodness. All the fun, all of the speed. See, the period of slight discomfort is nothing compared to the happiness a manual provides.
All you get with an automatic is less work - but no choice. It's like eating very good plain bread all the time with no changes or choices. Yeah, sometimes I get an odd loaf I don't like, but sometimes, it's fantastic. You can keep your plainness, thank you very much.
The first CVT I remember was in the little 3 cylinder Subura being built back in the late 80s. I watched then to see if it would catch on and until the technology recently resurfaced, I figured it must have failed terribly or was only suitable for low-power applications.
Reliability aside, I don't see more gears in a traditional automatic beating out the efficiency of a CVT. Any engine has peak ranges for both power and efficiency and they are rarely, if ever, in the same range. That being the case, no range of gears can match the CVT's ability to "stick" in the optimum power band while accelerating and then stick to the optimum efficiency band for cruising. Also, from my test drive experience in the 500/Freestyle, the "shift" time was virtually non-existent. The revs went up nearly as fast as revving the engine in neutral.
The only quality a CVT will give up to a traditional automatic is the aural/tactile feel of running through the gears that manuals and (to a lesser degree) traditional automatics offer. A decent comparison may be the sound of a boat accelerating off the dock; just a sudden rush of engine noise (good or bad) but a constant sound until it reaches the desired speed at which point the driver/captain dials back to a steady and lower rpm. That is an awesome, although repetitive, sound in a speedboat but could be annoying with a harsh sounding engine.
For those of us that really enjoy the rush that driving gives us, CVT will likely be unpopular. But, for the majority of people who are simply driving transportation appliances, it could be (assuming the reliability is there) the next big thing.
Exactly. And that's PRECISELY what I do NOT miss. Why would anybody want to feel a shift?
Some people complain that they believe the CVT accelerates more slowly than a typical automatic. But what they're basing that on is that they don't feel the shift. Makes me wonder why they associate that feeling with the feeling of acceleration. Acceleration isn't a "jolt" . . it's moving faster and faster each second.
That is an awesome, although repetitive, sound in a speedboat but could be annoying with a harsh sounding engine.
The "sound" isn't what I'm after . . it's the smoothness of the acceleration. The FEEL.
Pros:
- Way less weight.
- Way less moving parts.(hundreds less, in fact)
- No lag, no guessing which gear, no trying to out-think you... all of the problems automatics have traditionally had... gone.
- quicker.
- smoother.
The only problem is... they currently are maxxed out at about 200-250hp, kind of how you find belt drives in motorcycles limited to about 70-100hp, barrring silly wide arrangements. But in a decade or two, you'll see nobody using automatics anymore.
Doesn't the CVT still have to be "programmed", just like a normal automatic? If so, isn't it still trying to "outthink" the driver? What makes it better than a normal automatic in this regard?
I guess my question is: how does the CVT figure out what gear to be in, vs. how does a normal automatic transmission figure this out. And why the difference? Other than a finite number of gear ratios for the non-CVT.
The only problem is... they currently are maxxed out at about 200-250hp
Do you forsee a need for greater than 250hp in the engine for a typical sedan? Other than things like pickups and large SUVs and true sports-cars, why go higher?
To set the record straight, the first CVT was developed by DAF in Holland, who sold thousands of DAF 600 4-seater cars starting in 1958.
DAF's Variomatic is a stepless, fully automatic transmission where the final drive has two pulleys with moveable conical drums. The distance between the drums is controlled by the engine vacuum in the inlet manifold and engine RPM, through centrifugal weights inside the drums. Between the two pulleys runs a drive belt. As a result of change in the distance of the conical drums in both pulleys, the diameters and so also the reduction ratio changes continuously.
Today the Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) works according to the same principle. Rather than rubber drive belts, the modern transmission is made much more durable by the use of steel link belts.
link title
The new Altima has around 270HP with CVT. Lexus GS450h has 340HP with CVT as well.
Do you forsee a need for greater than 250hp in the engine for a typical sedan
the reason for the HP 'limit' for many years had more to do with limitations in 'belt' technologies , and one of the things that has been happening almost without exception in cars of almost all types is weight and size increases. 20 year ago or so, the Accord was about 15 feet long and weighed maybe 2600 lbs, now we are about a foot longer, wider, and about 800 lbs more. If I remember correctly the top engine was a 125 hp 4 cylinder. While the current 160 hp 4 cylinder keeps pace from a HP/lb perspective, the 240 hp V6 puts the same car in a category that you couldn't even buy at that time - a 'performance' sedan despite BETTER FE. If technology is going to allow for 30mpg 300+ hp cars - why not? Will likely require a mass migration to RWD platforms, however.
For one thing, if today's oil and gas prices stay where they are (or keep going up), there's going to be a huge incentive to increase mpg even more. Which to me says that the increase in size/weight is going to have to stop. No, it probably won't decrease much (like it did during the switch to foreign cars in the late 70's and early 80's).
If the vehicles get any WIDER, they'll have to change the lane sizes on most roads, too. :surprise:
To me, it makes more sense to go back to smaller displacement/HP engines (but keep the technology such that the mpg goes up), in addition to the push for hybrids/electrics/etc.
On the DAF Variomatic, I agree that it was used only in small cars and motor scooters, but these were the main postwar markets in Europe. And, remember that it used rubber bands (literally!) but even so, over 1 million DAF cars were sold. Current CVTs use steel-link belts, this clearly allows mating to more powerful engines.
Yesterday I tested acceleration, steering and braking performance in a controlled snow & ice track (our treacherous semirural driveway and dead-end street). I'm happy that the Av with its mid-life Michelins did as well as the Pilot with fairly new Falkens. The xA with new Potenzas was a little slower and more erratic while picking up speed.
All three handled reliably during sudden stops (all have ABS).
I had considered getting winter tires for the Av, but based on these tests, I'm OK with just driving on with the all-weather Michelins.
By the way, neighbours driving a G35 sedan must have been deeply embarrassed last week, when they were unable to negotiate the slight uphill access road to the local high school. Six kids had to push to get it out of the way of busy incoming traffic. There should be no argument that FWD is far, far superior to RWD for winter driving. In my experience, FWD is almost as good as AWD.
Or, as mentioned earlier, RWD with a rear-mounted engine. One of my fondest memories about my first car (a new, red '62 VW Sunroof Sedan) was pushing neighbors' Lincolns and Cadillacs up the slippery Winter slopes in Barclay Farm, Cherry Hill, NJ...
Fact, if a transmission is capable of shifting gears with no involvement from the driver, it is a "Automatic Transmission". Examples: Slushbox Automatics, SMGs in "Auto Mode", DSGs in "Auto Mode"
Fact, if a transmission relies on driver input to trigger shift events, and then does the rest of the gear change work itself, it is a "Semi-Automatic Transmission". Examples: F1 racing transmissions.
Fact, if a transmission is incapable of doing anything without the driver physically pushing or pulling clutch plates apart and pushing or pulling gears around inside the gearbox, then it is a "Manual Transmission".
The English language is fairly precise in this regard, so if you don't believe me, I submit that you might want to consult the dictionary. ;-)
Funny you should mention the Enzo, I just checked and of the four Ferraris offered for sale in the U.S. in 2006, only the Ferrari 612 Scaglietti was offered with a 6-Speed Manual transmission, the other three were officially offered with 6-Speed Automatic transmissions only.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Best Regards,
Shipo
I'm not sure what there is to disagree about. A transmission that can automatically shift its own gears is, well, an Automatic. A transmission that cannot do squat without the driver using his or her own muscle to make it do something is a manual. Anything that fits between those two extremes is a semi-automatic.
Best Regards,
Shipo
That doesn't sound like an argument for it being a manual transmission as much as for it being a more efficient manner of changing gears. In this case, the only difference is the methods in which the gears are changed, not the timing of the changes as in a fully automatic.
The real question is why can't they program an optimum shift program that would beat the human driver. My guess is environmental conditions that the human can adapt PROactively for whereas the computer is REacting (if that). Soon enough, though, the "semi-manual" will probably be beaten by the full auto.
CVTs, OTH, for whatever they do gain on the slush box from an efficiency standpoint, can turn our cars into even more of those 'appliances' that a lot of this newer technology seems intent on doing. Those of us that prefer to truly DRIVE a car should object to them.
I disagree with "objecting" to them. Simply don't BUY them.
Do you also object to things like power door locks, automatic headlights, automatic climate control, etc?
What about automatic braking systems? Electronic stability control systems? Power steering and power brakes?
Of course we do.
I was just curious, really.
Speaking of curiosity, when's the last time you were in a vehicle WITHOUT power steering or power brakes?
I realize it's not exactly the same thing, but you should try shutting off the ignition and steering one of these modern sedans.
Oh, yeah . . what about hydraulic assist with the clutch?
I'm sure one of the reasons I have NO intention of ever going back to a manual was due to the fact I learned on a '73 Ford Maverick with a 3-in-the-tree. No hydraulic assist there . . can't imagine how much larger my left leg would be now than the right one had I kept that vehicle. :P
The thing about power assists for things like the steering, braking and clutching is that they don't "Automate" anything, they simply assist the driver in manipulating controls that can sometimes be very heavy.
Best Regards,
Shipo
And now we've got that car (Lexus?) that will parallel park on its own, too. :surprise:
I wonder if they'll cover damages if it messes up and dings one of the other cars? :P
PS: I'll never forget the day that I was driving that Maverick and the clutch failed. I pushed to the floor to change gears, and there the pedal remained. So, I was stuck in neutral until I had it towed and fixed it.
I find it odd, though, that you would classify SHIFTING GEARS as a part of 'driving enjoyment'.
I could see enjoying it compared to a transmission that seemed to always be in the wrong gear . . but if the auto is smooth as silk and always in the right gear, I just don't see how doing it manually is more enjoyable.
there is nothing better in my mind than rowing thru a well spaced gearset with a good shifter linkage and a light and linear clutch. Live in the big city though, so the auto tranny is one of those sacrifices I make for convenience. A 'dream car' in my mind would be something like an M5 - if I lived in Montana.
Automatics are not even close when you get into twisties.
Back at'cha. ;-) I find it odd that folks get 'driving enjoyment' from cars with only two pedals under the dash. :surprise:
Back on topic, I cannot tell y'all how many times I've wished that the 300C could be had with a nice slick shifting 6-Speed manual transmission. :shades:
Best Regards,
Shipo
Well, because it seems odd.
To me, it seems like a backwards leap from something as good as a CVT.
I suppose some might prefer the swift kick of spurs into the side of the horse as a better way of accelerating . . I'd call that odd, too. Though quite a bit more odd than wanting to shift gears, I'd have to say. :P
That seems contradictory. After all, it's in the CITY where'd you'd get to do so much more shifting, right?
See? That's why I just don't "get it". People SAY they like it, but then they're more apt to go for the automatic PRECISELY in the situations where they'd actually get to shift more.
It seems to me that most "auto enthusiasts" would be happier driving on a race course somewhere . . . where things like shifting gears actually can mean the difference between winning a race or not.
I'd go along with that . . . IF we were discussing sports cars. But we're talking about "family sedans". I suppose if you stick enough horsepower in them and add some gear-shifting, you can CALL them "sports sedans", but that's just not the same as a true sports car.
To me, wanting to gear shift goes along with also wanting a low-CG two-seater car that is truly "one with the road" (meaning, it's gonna be a bumpy ride).
Automatics are not even close when you get into twisties.
I'll bet that a CVT would perform better than you might think in that situation. Though it would depend on how it was programmed, I'd think.
Well, OK . . but you'd HAVE to get the one with the Hemi in it, too.
You'd get stick-shift, gobs of power with a big V-8, RWD . . . what more could a person ask?
Well, since it's supposed to be a "family sedan", perhaps more room for passengers and especially luggage. Not to mention maybe some better visibility?
Looking forward to the day...
Best Regards,
Shipo
All versions of the 300C are built with a Hemi. ;-)
"You'd get stick-shift, gobs of power with a big V-8, RWD . . . what more could a person ask?
Well, since it's supposed to be a "family sedan", perhaps more room for passengers and especially luggage. Not to mention maybe some better visibility?"
Yeah, my kind of family/business car. FWIW, every car (as in non-minivan car) that my wife and I have had since 1995 has been a 4-Door sedan WITH a true manual transmission. Cake and eating it too. :shades:
Best Regards,
Shipo
Glad to see that more sedans are getting the CVT in them. After the Five Hundred and Freestyle, I may never be able to own another vehicle without one. I guess going to a hybrid would ensure that I'd always be getting a CVT, though, so I suppose it'll be possible for some time.
Woops, missed the C there.
FWIW, every car (as in non-minivan car) that my wife and I have had since 1995 has been a 4-Door sedan WITH a true manual transmission.
Well, at least that limits your selection a bit.
Cake and eating it too.
More like lemon merengue (sp?) pie? Which I don't like. :P
And yes, I bought an Avalon after seriously considering a G35, two vastly different cars - the Avalon not being a 'sports sedan' by any definition other than possibly straight line power. But it is still something that I do enjoy 'pushing a little' courtesy of my sequential auto on occasion. Have driven the new Altima CVT and while it is certainly smooth and powerful, something is missing - the 'grins'...
For my daily driver, forget it. The only way I'd buy a stick is in a weekend car, or one that I'd take to the track.
The Max has PLENTY of punch, more than enough to make me excited to drive the car every day.
IMO, manual transmissions are going away and with good reason. My grandfather actually once said that when he didn't have to crank his car's engine anymore, he actually missed it. Maybe it's the same sort of "nostalgic" appeal?