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.


--
fact check required