On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:40:59 -0800, jim beam wrote:

> On 12/24/2012 05:21 AM, sctvguy1 wrote:
>> 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.
>
> when i say "cheap", i mean for the manufacturer. and it is. the fact
> that they're ripping you off at retail is because they can, not because
> they're trying to encourage you to tell your friends how great cvt's
> are.
>
> oh, and your $800 "special" fluid is priced according to the utility
> value that you'll pay to keep a car on the road. what it costs to
> produce has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Well, we got rid of that car and now have a standard rear-wheel drive Charger, with the 8 speed auto.