RE: The best (and worst) gearbox in the world
Discussion
I've driven a few cars with CVT gearboxes, most recently a Mitsubishi outlander hybrid (was looking at company car options) and I just can't get on with them at all.
It might be my driving style, or too many old crap cars in my history but to me they just sound like a slipping clutch.
Can't get on with them at all, and I certainly wouldn't buy one. My left knee has pretty much given up so I'm limited to automatics, while car shopping I read reviews to make sure that whatever I'm looking at isn't CVT so I don't waste time test driving any more of them.
I don't care if they're faster/more economical/better, I like to hear the engine climb through the rev range. Even in an auto.
It might be my driving style, or too many old crap cars in my history but to me they just sound like a slipping clutch.
Can't get on with them at all, and I certainly wouldn't buy one. My left knee has pretty much given up so I'm limited to automatics, while car shopping I read reviews to make sure that whatever I'm looking at isn't CVT so I don't waste time test driving any more of them.
I don't care if they're faster/more economical/better, I like to hear the engine climb through the rev range. Even in an auto.
Amanitin said:
the Lexus Synergy drive or whatever it is called is in effect a CVT yes, but the mechanicals are completely different. So much so, that it is closer to a traditional torque converter auto then a 'real' CVT described in the article.
It's not really a CVT but a petrol engine that uses electric motors and an automatic gearbox to convert the torque.romac said:
Evilex said:
... a DAF 33 variomatic. I clearly remember my Grandad demonstrating that it really did go as fast in "reverse" as it did forwards!
Ha yes! I had one too (at the tender age of 22-24). Not only does it go fast in reverse, but the caster on the steering worked in the opposite way, so instead of self-centering like it did going forwards, it tended to go to one lock or the other in reverse. 
fido said:
Amanitin said:
the Lexus Synergy drive or whatever it is called is in effect a CVT yes, but the mechanicals are completely different. So much so, that it is closer to a traditional torque converter auto then a 'real' CVT described in the article.
It's not really a CVT but a petrol engine that uses electric motors and an automatic gearbox to convert the torque.It's terribly clever.
My mother had a DAF 44, so I'm quite used to the aural disconnect of a CVT. Though I ultimately prefer a good slushbox for the more powerful stuff.
I’m vaguely surprised that CVTs still attract so much comment, I would have thought that between 8 or more ratios, a torque converter, and judicious management of the lock up clutch modern transmissions are a close enough approximation to CVT that you’d be pushed to notice the difference most of the time - my Audi A4 quattro’s Tiptronic box quite often felt that way with a mere six tattoos to choose from...
captain_cynic said:
The problem with CVT's is that they're different and people don't like different things.
Pretty much sums it up. They're weird; a properly configured (as in not set up with artificial gear ratios to make it feel like a conventional auto) CVT is a very odd thing to use. Engine revs varying with power rather than speed feels entirely unnatural to someone used to fixed ratios. All a bit of a moot point though, given that we seem to be tending ever further towards electric motors for final drive which don't really need a variable0ratio gearbox at all.
I am still amazed by how my 10 year old Audi A4 diesel slouch with the Multitronic beats my new 120d 8-speed ZF for smoothness and softness.
Offcourse in general the Beemer is more 'fun' to drive than the Audi ... but if i wanna have fun i'll take my Clio 3 RS or even my 205 XS ... .
I think auto transmissions can only be fun when they are fitted in a Ferrari or most other real sportscars ... .
Offcourse in general the Beemer is more 'fun' to drive than the Audi ... but if i wanna have fun i'll take my Clio 3 RS or even my 205 XS ... .
I think auto transmissions can only be fun when they are fitted in a Ferrari or most other real sportscars ... .
My neighbour had a 2005 Audi B7 A4 2.0 TDI Avant with the Multitronic CVT thing, he said it was s
t and it ultimately shat itself very expensively. He replaced it with Merc C220 CDI automatic estates of both W204 and W205 varieties.
My only experience of a CVT was a Volvo 340 dealer courtesy car in the mid-80s some time. Hateful thing. Made my mother's manual 340 seem positively sprightly.
t and it ultimately shat itself very expensively. He replaced it with Merc C220 CDI automatic estates of both W204 and W205 varieties.My only experience of a CVT was a Volvo 340 dealer courtesy car in the mid-80s some time. Hateful thing. Made my mother's manual 340 seem positively sprightly.
romac said:
Only the Dutch! I wonder if they'd been shmoking shomeshing when they came up with this one...In these days of appliance motors and general lack of of interest in 'driving' I'm not convinced it's solely the disconnect between acceleration and noise that is the problem as many people aren't aware of what fuel/driven wheels/gearbox they have, their only concerns are that it looks good, impresses the neighbours/colleagues and has a low BIK/monthly payment.
Besides, if the lack of increasing revs with added speed was as all-encompassing in terms of emotion, Riva would never sell any speedboats...
Besides, if the lack of increasing revs with added speed was as all-encompassing in terms of emotion, Riva would never sell any speedboats...
My parents have a Lexus CT with a CVT and I drove it for a week straight one time, felt really weird at first but toward the end I started to 'get' when it was about. It was weird, but a cracking idea, works well, picks up really well (relatively) when you want it to without any perceivable change in gear, plus made driving in town so much easier. I quite liked it to be honest. However, one complaint, ok two, the noise, I'm not sure there is an engine that sounds good without the crescendo of rising revs, but if there is one, this 1.8 4 pot isn't one of them. But that was only when you had your foot hard down, at cruising speeds it was quiet as anything. But the main complaint, it was boring! CVTs should be used in your business saloons, but please keep them away from anything sporty... the CVT may have infinite ratios but the manual is infinitely more fun!
RoverP6B said:
My neighbour had a 2005 Audi B7 A4 2.0 TDI Avant with the Multitronic CVT thing, he said it was st and it ultimately shat itself very expensively.
I wonder what the probability of trouble on the Audi CVT is? I've heard horror stories but don't know if it's common or just very loud complaints.t and it ultimately shat itself very expensively. motoroller said:
I've long thought about this, and wonder why more R&D hasn't gone into producing them for luxury cars where the engine noise is more desirable to filter out. The range of gear ratios that can be achieved is so far superior, a powerful engine could cruise at 1500rpm.
This is a pretty interesting point actually, I can't remember who it was but some car manufacturer was looking into noise cancelling technology, using the same system as in the headphones.Microphones in the wheel arches and engine bay and play the inverse of whats recorded into the cabin, surely using just a constant RPM could make the whole noise cancellation thing a whole lot easier?
First - I prefer a manual transmission, however I have to give credit where credit is due.
I had an opportunity to drive an autocross course with two cars of the same model, but one was a standard, the other a CVT. The CVT gave quicker times. The CVT would change behaviour based on how you were pushing it, so during autocross it wasn't trying to be fuel efficient, it was trying to keep me in the power band all the time.
I wouldn't have it to replace any of my standard transmission cars, but it may be nice in one of our automatic transmission vehicles.
I had an opportunity to drive an autocross course with two cars of the same model, but one was a standard, the other a CVT. The CVT gave quicker times. The CVT would change behaviour based on how you were pushing it, so during autocross it wasn't trying to be fuel efficient, it was trying to keep me in the power band all the time.
I wouldn't have it to replace any of my standard transmission cars, but it may be nice in one of our automatic transmission vehicles.
I'll just leave this here... https://youtu.be/x3UpBKXMRto?t=42
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff