On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:07:39 -0800, jim beam wrote:

> On 12/20/2012 11:51 AM, Robert11 wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have always had cars with automatic transmissions.
>>
>> If I remember right, only some of,the Nissan's had a CVT type in the
>> "past".
>>
>> Now, two cars that I am considering apparently have CVT type.
>> An Accord and the Subaru Outback.
>>
>> Know nothing re CVT transmissions.
>>
>> Might someone please outline for me the pros and cons of a CVT vs the
>> regular kind of transmission.
>
> pros:
> cheap, reliable, efficient, offer great fuel economy.*
>
> cons:
> if you believe the motor press, people don't understand that they're
> "continuously variable" and apparently need education that they don't
> naturally have "shift points".
>
>
>
>> e.g, reliability, smoothness in shifting, etc.
>> Why don't all cars of this size use fhem ?
>
> they could, and usually do in every other global market except the u.s.
> but we seem either to have an acceptance problem [per the above, but
> the massive popularity of the toyota prius with true cvt shows that to
> be untrue] or the oilcos hate the prospect of significantly reduced fuel
> economy. so either we stick with older style fixed ratio transmissions
> with their torque converter losses, or we fudge cvt's by programming
> artificial "shift points" into them, thus reducing their efficiency.
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob

Beg to differ with you on the "economy", especially when it needed servicing. The CVT in our Dodge Caliber
fluid change required a special fluid, with microscopic beads in it, and cost $800 for the transmission flush and
fill. Sure, it got over 33mpg on the road, but when servicing came, not so economical.