I want i constantly variable transmission. Add a turbo and you've got a car that can be constantly in boost. Check this out. It's worth it.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/cvt.htm

Constantly Variable = Constantly slipping IMO.

They also don't handle loads of power, so your 'turbo always on boost' isn't really an option.

They are much better for low power engines. They have them on the new Colt.

I don't know in the last page they had this
"the Nissan Murano's CVT can handle its 3.5-liter, 245-horsepower V6 engine "
so a good one should be able to handle a fair bit of power.

i wonder how hot everything related to the turbo will get though, with the turbo itself constantly spooling......

later :cool:

I want i constantly variable transmission. Add a turbo and you've got a car that can be constantly in boost. Check this out. It's worth it.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/cvt.htm


Ewwww, can you Imagine what it'd sound like waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrr etc :(
It would drive you insane, who cares how fast it is, it'd be boring as buggery autos are bad enough - sorry but I'd shoot myself before choosing to own a cvt car, little scooters are bad enough. When cars go to leccy power I guess I'll have to live with cvt but until then - down with cvt :P

Matthius - Sound operated

Yeah I see what you mean. Be awesome for drags but for daily driving. Maybe not

Yeah I see what you mean. Be awesome for drags but for daily driving. Maybe not

Yeah agreed, if it can handle the power probably your best option in a drag situation :) but on the street :doubt:

Matthius

CVT's have to be built bloody big to handle that sort of power. There's all sorts of multi-link chains and crap in them, very complicated and too much to go wrong if you ask me.

Our old GQ Patrol had an auto in it and it was freaking massive. The internals were the same as an Auto skyline, just bigger and beefier. The gears were 70% wider and the clutches had DOUBLE the depth of friction material :shock:

We rebuilt that tranny (myself and my step-father) and when it went again, we converted it to a manual :cool: No Synchro on 1st-2nd gear, so Mum had a hard time driving it. She has a hard time driving any manual though!

There must be a good reason why they're not common. After all, they were first invented in the mid 60's.

Pee Wee 50's were CVT's... you reved it out till you hit top speed....
I heard a Colt drive by and it sounded exactly like a Peewee 50... EG the revs slowly built up as the car was going forward but no gear change was heard....

Maclaren or Farrari tried it in there F1 cars in the 80's or 90's (can't remember), but it never took off.

We have had them in the audi's for a while, in audi speak they are a multitronic i don't know how many i have replaced (all under warranty, but audi charge $23000! each gearbox, parts cost) yes they are odd at first, and yes they do work well with the 1.8 turbo motor, or now the new 2.0 turbo FSI direct injection (better than the 2.4 V6) but its not the power that cvt's can't handle its the torque, our ones are unique as they use a chain instead of a belt, if i ever borrow another company car, i'll take it to a cruise or something and show you how weird they can be lol