I understand the mechanical difference: a computer instructs a different mechanism. But from a driver's perspective? Left paddle downshift; right paddle upshift. The ergonomics are the same and the advantages the article brings to light are the same as well.

I haven't seen the shifting fade issues demonstrated in the article, but I don't have that much track time on it either. There's plenty of time for me to change my opinion on this. At this point, I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, CVT and all.


A CVT will always be a CVT. This is true. Time will tell if this is a good thing or not.

 

It's not about the button or lever you push, it's about what that button operates. Until you can wrap your head around the idea that the shifter and the transmission are different things you won't understand any of this. I don't care if the CVT comes with a telepathic shifter, I don't want one for reasons that have nothing to do with the buttons. Besides, if you're touting Continuously Variable, wouldn't a dial or a lever (my lawn mower has one of those!) be more appropriate?

I'll take a more limited number of available gear ratios and a longer, more involved shifting process. It's not ideal, but I get to decide what gear ratio I'm using. That's critical. I don't have to ask for it, I don't have to hope that some computer correctly decides what gear I need, I don't have to wait while it decides what to do and I don't have to worry about it second-guessing me.

I still get a useful variety of gear ratios and I have confidence in them. It's a simple mechanical system that generally never breaks: there's a whole industry built around fixing and replacing ATs and nobody bothers to fix CVTs, but regular old gearboxes just keep on keeping on.

As an added bonus I also get to tell it when to be in what gear and how sharply to engage. My feet can do this without taking any attention away from the road just like I can walk up a flight of stairs without having to focus on the stairs- I know what I want to do and my body does it just fine, thank you very much. It's almost like the shifts happen telepathically, one might say.

 

"It's not about the button or lever you push, it's about what that button operates. Until you can wrap your head around the idea that the shifter and the transmission are different things you won't understand any of this. I don't care if the CVT comes with a telepathic shifter, I don't want one for reasons that have nothing to do with the buttons. Besides, if you're touting Continuously Variable, wouldn't a dial or a lever (my lawn mower has one of those!) be more appropriate?"

I do get it. I am aware the trans/ computer are different. I just don't care. I don't care that the computer is programmed to hold the belt/ pullies in a specific ratio until I instruct it to do differently. It does what I instruct it do in a consistent manner, and in a manner that, at this point, demonstrates an advantage in efficiency. The mechanical pathway is irrelevent as long as it works.


I am basing my evaluation on the final outcome: I hit the shifter, it shifts. I'm not biased by an awareness of the functionality.

 

I don't get this mindset. What is the hang-up with CVT's? I don't understand why a belt/ pulley ratio is somehow discredited by gears? If the final drive ratio is suitable and the durability is there, how are you rationalizing this? What's the thought process that somehow "CVT = belt/pulley = bad?

So it holds a ratio like a gear driven system; if the outcome is the same, how does this matter?

It feels like that scene in Spinal Tap when Nigel says his amp goes to 11, because, you know, it's better because it's one louder. It's like you guys are saying geared trans are one louder, hahaha

http://youtu.be/4xgx4k83zzc

 

Technically, with the right program, a CVT is actually better at keeping the engine in the power band through the whole of the torque curve, but is it as much fun? No...not really :P thats really the only hang-up...fun factor and being a control freak. I think some of the stigma comes from the fact that it is literally fake gears. The CVT is at its best when it can change on the fly to keep things in the power band, those fake gears mean it ends up with the same dips and spikes in the acceleration as a manual, without the fun of the manual

 

Manuals are fun for sure. I wouldn't mind another in a future vehicle. I don't think of it as "fake" gears; it's just another way of achieving a final drive ratio. It is locked in to the ratio that is selected. One that happens to adjust infinitely if needed as well.

It would be cool if a reflash becomes available in the future to allow the user to custom-tailor individual ratios...

I haven't tried to a/x with it in full auto (D) yet. I do plan to give it a go next time. The dying cow "MMMOOOOO" of the CVT in (D) action will take some time to accept . D has a strange slipper clutch type feel to it, almost like a delay until the revs are up. I am with you about the fun factor there. Manual is more fun. But form follows function. If it proved to be faster/more efficient, I will force myself to adapt.

I come from a 2 stroke motocross background where shifting is constant. Maybe that is why I like the paddles because there is familiarity?

Paddles are pretty damn fun to A/X.

 

You can also run it full auto in S as long as you don't touch the paddles, otherwise it won't go back to auto until you shift into D and back. Its actually a bit surprising how well it does, keeps it pretty close to 6600, with a weird little drop towards the top end

I think one of the things on the CVT that most people find weird (and can perceptually translate as "slow), is that even in manual mode, there is a lack of shift shock. You get that sensation right as you take off, and then it just floats you up to speed. It was kind of disconcerting after so much time judging speed while driving quickly by what gear I'm in and what the engine sounds like...

 

wait. you think 'upshifting when you bounce off the rpm limit is useless ?
let me introduce you to repairing a blown engine like the one last sunday at VIR. that Mustang ecoboost left so many parts and mobil 1 out of the esses it took multitudes of bags of kitty litter and most of it off the side of the pavement. no rebuilding that. and very, very expensive.

 

indeed the cvt is actually very easy to mkeep the gear ratio such that the engine is very close to keeping the rpm in the fat part of the torque to horsepower peaks but it des have a limited range between the changing teeth. so it has to change gears, meaning it changes the input gear to the variable oposing gears as they separate and close to maintain the output speed where its wanted. in that sense it is changing gears as in torque converter rather than clutch.
theoretically a cvt could run an engine at a constant rpm all the time and use the cvt to change output speed by the changing distance between 2 sets of opposing and tapered cones connected by a 'chain' squeezed between the two opposing sets of cones. as one set moves closer that chain passing between gets a larger radius and as the corresponding opposing pair of gears gets further apart so the chain has a smaller radius and thus higher output speed than the input. and vice versa. the ratio between the two sets is limited by size so there must be a means of changing the input speed using a torque converter. the paddles or computer changes the input speed.
an infinitely changing gear ratio is thus possible if the sets of cones could be lsartge enough. but there isn't so the input rpm must be changed..
when the dutch builder who came up with it it was thought OK in that diminutive DVT or whatever it was called but never workable for real. the talk of marrying a cvt with the rotary engine was the talk of europe with the enginers stashed in the corners.
ps it was the development of real working 'chains' that made the cvt a success. Its still hard to see just how reliable that thing wold ever be.

this is the result of a challenge to describe how a cvt works in one paragraph in one shot by my cohorts.
a dr pepper is riding on your opinions. cheers

 

zinging an apex at optimum speed is the thrill; choosing the gear by slow manual or quick paddle is merely the process. and why automatics are better.
skill is in the result not the process.

 

If we're being honest, the "manual" transmission on the Fit has a synchronized gearbox that does the real work for you when you move the little lever around. Would anyone prefer a non-syncro gearbox with double-clutch action? I think we all agree that some technological improvements to modern transmissions are good. We also like air conditioning, satellite radio, and satnav to make driving more efficient and enjoyable. The Fit does, in fact, perform better with a CVT according to hard facts and real numbers. In the commercial fleet world, the market has spoken and automatics rule the bottom line. Companies would have no trouble requiring drivers to shift gears if the overall life-cycle costs pointed to manual transmissions.
With regards to fuel efficiency and performance, the Fit CVT edges out the manual. The numbers don't lie. It has been suggested that those who opted for a CVT are somehow "stupid" or have no awareness of the joys of driving. On the contrary, millions of drivers choose manual transmissions and enjoy driving the best performing transmission for the money and the bonus of not having to row is a good thing. At the end of the day, the manual transmission appeals to the "feeling" side of the brain. Nothing wrong with that...I "enjoy" driving a great car with a great manual transmission on a great road. It's fun sometimes. So there it is in a nutshell...you can argue that the manual is more fun or sounds better or feels better to you. In the end, it's largely a facts vs feelings argument. I suppose a separate rational argument may be..."I prefer the CVT but I don't trust that it's fully vetted yet so I'll stick with the manual" but that's another topic.

 

Well put! I would much rather replace a clutch down the road than a whole transmission. I had a Civic CVT for a couple of weeks when the Fit was in the shop, not my cup of tea! I have always preferred selecting my own gears and could not have dealt with the CVT and how it drove long term.

 

And I'd have a blast with a "manual" that had completely automated shifting. As long as there was a "sport" mode or whatever that left gear choice entirely up to me I'd be thrilled to have one. I'd even enjoy not being in the sport mode all the time!

I don't care about rowing or using the clutch: it's not about the shifting mechanism at all. I just don't want computers making my final drive ratio decisions for me, I don't want slop in executing those decisions and I don't want the results being faked with belts and cones.

I wasn't kidding about my lawnmower. It's got a throttle lever and a transmission lever, it wants the throttle lever to stay put and you to do the driving with the transmission lever. CVTs would be fun as anything if they were set up that way- maybe a throttle dial to on the dash to the right of the wheel and a transmission pedal to the right of the brake pedal? It's different than other transmissions, and trying to pretend it isn't sells the whole thing short.

 

Is this manual vs CVT (which I see as a variation of an automatic) debate only a US thing?? It seems that the rest of the world accepts (and perhaps prefers) manual transmissions. Do you think this will start changing in other countries?

 

I'll guess that the automatics caught on in the States because we spend more time in our cars per year on average and the older automatics were less fuel efficient. Gasoline was and is relatively cheap here so we didn't mind the cost relative to the luxury/convenience. The automatics are definitely catching up in Germany and many luxury cars simply don't offer a real manual tramission.

 

Yet, more people are hurt by falls on stairs than on level ground, even though we spend far more time on level ground. Sometimes what your body thinks it wants to do kinesthetically doesn't match the reality of the situation.

Similarly, It is impossible to shift expertly without using some of your attention resources.

 

Yes, it's surelly changing, ten years ago 99% of the cars here in Uruguay were M/T.
Now almost all the premium cars are sold with a dual clutch automatic tranmission and lots of the cheaper cars offer an auto version, some years back auto wasn't even offered as an option.
The US always had those big V8 that went well with the old torque converter/few gears transmissions.
You don't want to match a 1.2L 72hp Peugeot with a transmission like that, so we all drive M/T.

My mother is 82yrs old and has never owned an auto, she currently drives a Suzuki Swift M/T.
If you ever came here and rent a budget car, be prepared to drive a M/T.

 

I detest a traditional automatic. Until the present car (my wife got the new subaru with the 6 M/T and the Honda CR-V that was hers with the slushbox became mine, our old Outback with a 5 speed died a warrior's death,) I had always driven a manual.

But, when I was given a loaner during a repair of my CR-V's finicky door lock, it was a CVT fit, and I thought it was properly fantastic. I would never buy a regular auto, but consider that F1 banned CVTs as being an unfair advantage... if I can perfectly pick just as much power as I need, it seems like a smart solution. It also just drives in a way that made me feel I was getting what I wanted.

I think that drivers of traditional automatics would dislike CVTs, but I think if you know how to think about gear ratios and advantage, powerbands and RPM levels (from driving stick) then the CVT is a really appealing option.

It's a world better on the highway with cruise control on, as well. Our Forester just doesn't really work in 6th gear if you put the cruise on the moment things go uphill... It's okay, and I don't mind it much, but I just drive it myself instead.

 

Automatics are not better or worse than manuals. What matters is what you want an suits your personal needs. I have owned both. If I have a sports car I would rather have a five speed than a six speed. personal preference. When I got my fit I got the CVT because it was what suited my needs at this point in my life. That makes it better. When I got a 5sp 4wd truck years ago it was better than the automatic because it was what I wanted at the time.

 

I agree. At some point I may move back to San Francisco, and the issue of having to work a manual on all of the hills is a concern.
That said, I bought my Fit with a manual because the current CVT reduces some of the performance.
If the next generation Fit comes with a peppier engine (perhaps a turbo, as some rumors have speculated) and a more refined CVT, it will be more attractive.