Is the CVT objectively the best transmission? >seamless shifting

>>17783083
Yeah for a snowmobile of golf cart not a 4500lb piece of shit.

>>17783083
No it's garbage.

t. CVT owner

cvt is the best for women

>wow theres no shift shock!
>i can apply makeup while driving now!
nissans actual marketing when these turds came out

>>17783083
Soulless.

Lexus LC 500 hybrid has it.

Theoretically? Yes. Can hold itself perfectly in a powerband forever.

Practically? Trash.

There's nothing wrong with cvt transmissions

/o/utists just bitch that it's not a manual like they do any other transmission

It's the most efficient transmission that has a lower average rpm than any transmission which means Lower RPM = Higher Mpg

>>17783232
Also the Nissan cvt have been shit for years. Honda, Ford, and Toyota make good cvt that last as long as any other transmission

>>17783083
>Is the CVT objectively the best transmission?
It is for mechanical transmission. Objectively best transmission is electric.
Objectively best engine is extended range electric. (like a diesel train, but with an overflow bank)

>>17783138
>>17783163
>>17783169
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3UpBKXMRto

>>17783232
They just tend blow up alot regardless of driver input and maintenance, absolutely nothing wrong with that

yes, but only because you can hit top speed in reverse

>>17783242
>Honda, Ford, and Toyota make good cvt that last as long as any other transmission

Ford has numerous problems with theirs. Don;t know about the others

>>17783083
Is communism objectively the best form of government?

>seamless class boundaries
>infinite wealth for everyone

Well, in theory...

>>17783804
There's a difference between a CVT in a 2008 Nissan Altima and an F1 car.

CVTs are the best in theory
>stay at peak RPM when you floor it from 0 to top speed
>stay at lowest RPM when cruising
>normies like that you don't notice shifts
It won't replace manuals for people who like cars, but it's great for dailies and for people who see cars as transportation. Modern CVTs aren't shitty and unreliable like the old ones.

>>17784033
underage fags dont know the difference

>>17784074
theyre more shit because they need fluid changes every 30k miles and when it does break theres no repairing them since no one knows how to fix them

>>17783083
7 speed dual clutch transmission : Beautiful melody of increasing tones, practically zero lag between shifts.

CVT : endless droning NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>17783831
Subaru is the only company that has had basically no bad luck with their CVTs. They sold like 2 CVT Justys and those were cancer but all of their modern chain ones are more reliable than any manual on earth.

>>17783204
This. I'm passed that FIA banned it from F1. Imagine what could have been.

>>17783818
>GF has swift with CVT
>want to try this

>>17783083
if she said the SMG was the best trans, i would agree.

File: 1450085658994.png (154KB, 540x264px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 540x264px

>>17784152
Having 2 Foresters over the last 3 years I've never had a problem with their CAT yet.

I have had worked for Nissan back in 2012 and the CVTs shit the bed due to excessive heat. A remedy was an added Cooler that seamed to fix it on the Altima and Rogue.

I currently work for Toyota and it seems only the Corrolla CVTs are crapping out, but still function unless the Renault/Nissan CVTs. They just have loud groaning noises. As for Maintenance Toyota claims the CVT fluid is lifelong of the trans. And is nearly $117 a Gallon.

>>17784123
>needing a dct in your grandma's altima

>>17784816
>Toyota claims the CVT fluid is lifelong of the trans.

now comes the part where they need to define "lifelong"

>>17784849
Toyota also claims World Standard normal Auto Trans Fluid as "Lifelong" but I think it's total bullshit. I recommend it should be changed after 30k miles, or less if you tow/thrash your car.

We aren't supposed to even suggest a CVT fluid service.

>>17784816
>Claims
>Lifelong

The only thing lifetime about those fills is that you can't check it unless you drop the whole lot of oil, which generally don't have standard drain ports.

What's the endgame with manufactuers and their lifetime fills?
Wait until the car is out of warranty and get dat service cash money for whole CVT units?

>>17784865
The CVT and WS Auto Trans in Toyota's have a drain hole with a small tube inside that will let out a small amount of fluid that can be checked at a specified temperature without fully draining the Trans.

File: patrick.png (128KB, 308x308px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 308x308px

>>17783083

>>17784872
Based on what I know from just Toyota, their aim is to make it past their factory warrantys. Such as 3years 36k miles.
That's were extended warranty comes into play, but at a cost to you. In that regard, the chances are they will just profit off you as much as possible.

File: 1294284837607.gif (614KB, 164x124px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 164x124px

>>17784895
The more you know. Thanks.

>>17783083
It's objectively the best in the same way that a turbine is the best car engine.

>high power to weight ratio
>decent efficiency
>can run on basically any liquid fuel
>less moving parts than a rotary

Doesn't mean they're subjectively better, anon.

CVTs generally have issues such as:
>poor throttle response
>can't handle as much torque as a regular transmission
>very expensive oil changes
>sounds like a boat motor

The Nissan CVTs tend to be the worst in those regards, and from my experience the Subaru CVTs actually feel nicer to drive than a standard automatic.

>>17784865
Even if you can't find the check plug, if you just wanted to look at the fluid condition then I'll let you in on a secret:

Just loosen the drain plug and unscrew it until it's just barely hanging in on one thread. This will allow some of the fluid to drip out, and all you need is a few drips and a white rag to see how clean it is. Just have one handy, and then tighten the drain plug once you've got a sample.

>>17783083
theoretically yes
in actual practice they're mostly fragile shit
it's still a relatively young technology though, I'm sure that once materials improve they'll be the de-facto performance transmission, although maybe not the most fun to drive

>>17783818
A whole new world of opportunities

>>17783083
CVTs are like electric cars.

Perfect in theory, issues in applications.

If the theory was to be made 1:1 into the practice, CVT would be the perfect transmission overall for both sports driving and daily driving or cruising.

IMO i like the shifting sounds and the RPM rising/droping, but yeah, in "theory" its a perfect transmission.

>>17783083
Worst driving experience I've EVER had.

>>17783083

The problem is torque. Cvt's cannot handle the shunt of a V8 or even a higher output turbo-4. Subaru heavily reinforced their CVT for the WRX because they didn't have a better auto at the time and they sure as shit didn't want to use an old one.

What was the result?

It handles the stock 258ft/lbs, just barely. Even a basic stage 1 tune puts it at risk.

As a result, it's also slower than the manual. I suspect there's some delay or ramp up involved to avoid shredding the drive chain (or whatever you call it).

Plus, as a result of having to modify it for a performance application it is also LESS efficient on gas.

The hybrid LC500 is another good example. It can get away with using a CVT...but only because there's an electric motor there to assist in getting the car moving and keeping it smooth during acceleration and transitions in speed.

>>17783204
Summed it up nicely, I've always believed CVT's are more theory than engineering, at least for the time being

>>17783804
>Constantly variable transmission

>>17783083
>Is the CVT objectively the best transmission?
>the CVT
There are different types of CVTs, the best type of CVT I know of is the electric motor/generator version with a buffering capaciator.
Not only can it be used at ludicrous levels of torque, but it can also be used as KERS and keep the engine running at maximum eficiency regardless of required power.
It also allows for a much faster throttle response than ITBs on the engine itself.

>>17783232
>Lower RPM = Higher Mpg
That is not always true, when I rev my engine below 2000 rpm, the efficiency drops off significantly.
I get my best mpg at 2000-2300 rpm depending on incline, wind resistance and load.

>>17783083
Sara got too fat and fake. I remember when she was a cutey instead of a bimbo.

>>17783083
Ecvt is better with a power split device.

>>17783083
It's tech that is still being adapted for use in anything that isn't a showmachine or a golf cart. Only in the past 4 years have any been produced that haven't been utter trash.

>>17783083
Yes.

>>17783831
>Ford has numerous problems with theirs
>Ford
There is your problem, everything they make is trash quality designed for planed obsolescence after 3 years.