Please provide links that say DSG or Manual tranny will always be better than a CVT can ever be. Better yet, please evidence that FIXED RATIO trannies have more potential for performance and economy than an infinite ratio tranny has.

Like I said before numerous times, although your ignorant ass can't seem to comprehend, CURRENT CVT trannies are not better for performance, but they have better POTENTIAL than DSG or manual trannies because of their operating concept. And because of the different concept between a CVT and traditional tranny, I am open to the fact that they can be developed to be better performing than any FIXED RATIO transmission.

but again, if you want to ignore (ie. be 'ignorant') the fact that automakers DO in fact spend money on R&D to innovate and improve things, such as CVT trannies, then you can pretend that DSG or a manual will always be better than a CVT can ever be.

but whatever...i'll let the ignorant continue to be ignorant.

 

I provided links above that showed the faults of CVT. I asked you and will ask again. You provide the links since you were argueing way before me that the CVT is better period. Ahh again name calling as usual.

I am done with you. Until you have a normal conversation.

 

Show us an example of a CVT that has been optimized for performance in sports cars. If we're talking about the future of transmissions, one can easily argue that Direct Shifting ala DSG or R-Tronic STILL have the advantage since they use mechanically controled clutches. This helps with the launcing of the car, since technology can be put into creating things like launch control and the perfect amount of wheel spin prior to getting off and going. Now I don't know much about CVT, but I assume they use Torque Converters like those found in a conventional AT.

I was making a claim to the present, not the future. We don't know what the future holds. What we DO know is that Lambo, Audi, Bugatti, Ferrari, BMW, and Aston Martin are all using flappy paddle. VW AG's DSG technology is incredible, and includes seemless shifts AND unbelievable Launch Control technology.

I can argue that it SEEMS the Cubs will be the team to beat since they have the pieces, and in the near future Lou Pinella will make the team into winners. But what we do know is that teams like the NYY, NYM, and the BoSox are the teams to beat right now (sorry for the lame relation).

 

ALSO: just because one is better right now does not mean some of us will not notice improved technology later down the line in another. I was never a fan of SMG or any of these Paddle Shifters, but then I drove DSG and read about the major improvements to similar products and now am a fan.

F1 uses very similar technology as well

 

It's nice to see that some people can understand that certain technologies inherently have better potential than other technologies, whether they are currently realized or not.

But it takes ignorance to make blanket statements like "Sorry but a DSG or Manual tranny will always be faster and more powerful than a CVT." A statement like that demonstrates that the person has no comprehension of the concept behind it or why it makes it potentially better for performance or fuel efficiency.

 

we agree then

 

you make ignorant statements, and I will point that out.

if you don't want to be called ignorant, stop making ignorant statements.

 

You have yet to back your statements up yet. I am very open to anything but you have to provide facts.

 

You sir have a attitude problem and you need to take it elsewhere. I have already reported you.

 

i think we do.

i agree that CURRENTLY most CVT's are tuned for a trade-off for fuel efficiency and performance, and the results are better performing than slush-box auto's because they don't have the disadvantage of "fixed gears". There are still problems to work through such as parasitic losses and high torque handling capabilities, but the concept is still sound.

but as traditional manuals or auto trannies can be tuned for fuel efficiency or performance or a trade-off, same can be done for CVT's. Of course most DSGs/SMGs are going to be better performing, they are marketed as performance options and therefore they are geared for performance over economy. Given an automatic and a DSG on the same engine, an automaker can gear the automatic to be better performing than a DSG...but that is not the case because a DSG is marketed for performance.

Just because no one has tuned a CVT for more performance yet does not mean that the concept is not possible. given 2 cars with the same engine, one manual tranny and one CVT tuned for performance over fuel economy, the CVT one can accelerate with the tach needle pinned at the peak torque while the other is bouncing up past and dropping below the peak torque at every shift.

Tell me how a car engine revving up to the peak torque, shifting and dropping from peak then doing it over again is better for acceleration than just sitting at the peak torque through the whole acceleration process. not only that, but since the ratio is more or less "infinite", the most torque can be extracted at any speed the car is moving at, such as coming out of certain corners/curves, unlike a traditional manual where there are gaps between the gear ratios and you can get stuck at an odd speed where the peak torque rpm is not available at a gear higher or at a gear lower.

 

my statements are backed up by physics and principles of mechanics.

infinite gear ratios >>>>> 6 gear ratios

 

lol your opinion that is all. I posted facts with links. You can't back yourself up. Sorry to say.

But for now in performance and economy, manual and DSG are the best bet.

 

actually, your analogy is spot on.

you are saying that RIGHT NOW the teams to beat are NYY, NYM and BoSox, but you are not saying (unlike someone else) that "NYY, NYM and BoSox will always be the team to beat."

 

if you think infinite gear ratios being better tha 6 gear ratios is an "opinion", then you REALLY are showing that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

Ahhhh so everyone else is always wrong when they don't agree with you right?

Then how come the VW that has all 3 transmissions the slowest is the CVT if its really that much better?

EOD.

 

when it comes to opinions, then no, not everyone that disagrees with me is wrong. But in this case, when you disagree with FACTS, such as infinite ratios >> fixed ratios, then you're wrong.

because VW probably tuned it for better fuel efficiency. Like I said before, CVT's can be tuned for better performance or for better fuel efficiency, just like a traditional tranny can geared for one or the other. CVT's are currently tuned for fuel efficiency over performance, and DSGs are tuned for performance over fuel efficiency, but that does not negate the fact that a CVT has potential to be tuned for better performance than a fixed ratio DSG, and a CVT has MORE performance potential than a DSG or any other fixed ratio tranny.

infinite gear ratios >>> fixed gear ratios.

 

Okay and where do you get this info from? Because like I said, back it up with articles. I have yet to see facts from you. I have yet to read any of this info that CVT's are tuned one way or the other.

I have asked you and asked you and you still have not supplied.

 

are you that dense? why do i need an article to back up my assertion when simple PRINCPLES OF MECHANICS apply? how do you not understand that there are 4, 5, or X gears in a traditional tranny rather than 1 because the more ratios it has, the better it can utilize the power of the engine? Actually, don't answer that because I know the answer to why you don't know.

I guess you should question the guy who wrote your "article" for his sources too, since until then you should think they are only his "opinion".

 

Pimpin-TL, I am going to try to lay this out for you VERY SIMPLY.

Point 1: A CVT is has the ability to change a gear ratio between a minimum and a maximum INFINITLY

Point 2: Any fixed ratio transmission has set ratios for which it must stick to, and nothing else

Point 3: A car makes the ideal maximum power for acceleration at ONE POINT

Point 4: With any fixed ratio transmission, that point cannot be maintained during 100% of acceleration

Point 5: With a CVT, the gear ratio can be ANYTHING between min and max, hence changing at a rate which keeps the engine output at the MAXIMUM available.

Point 6: Since ALL THE POWER comes from the ENGINE, the TRANSMISSION must CATER to the ENGINE for MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE, a CVT in any of it's incarnations is the ONLY transmission CAPABLE of that. The CVT by definition is Continually Variable Transmission

Nice work on reporting mrdeeno. You are the one being arrogant and insisting you are right when you are in fact wrong. Facts are not opinions. Just like it is a fact you are ignorant to this subject.

Mike

 

GO JAYS !! (damn I miss bulldog01 sometimes)

 

I am not dense, I just see the facts. The VW with CVT is slower than the DSG or 6mt. The article shows that I posted there is more loses. So what tests other than theory are you proving? Nothing.

 

What facts? Post your links and real articles. Waiting.

 

You know what, after thinking about it. I am completely done here. You will never post facts backing up your statements. So it's not worth my time to be here argueing with your theorys. You have never done any tests yourself, you have no articles, you have no base for your statements. So I am done. Have a good day/evening.

 

Dude... it is physics and math, which I thought I made very clear to you.

Explain to my why you need facts to understand an engine makes the most power at point X, and a transmission which can change the gear ratio while keeping the engine at point X will allow the car to accelerate fastest? What part of that is unclear? You think I am lying to you?

When you have a manual transmission, and are going for acceleration, do you shift at a certain RPM? Are the more gears you have, the better? So wouldn't infinity be best? Is the car pulling hardest at a certain RPM? Of course... So if you can constantly adjust the gearing slightly while keeping it at that RPM, won't it be fastest?

Car and Driver: May, Page 13

0-60

Nissan Versa Auto: 9.5
Nissan Versa CVT: 8.9

1.4 Mile

CVT: 17.0 @ 81 MPH
Auto: 17.3 @ 79 MPH

The engine revs up toward the rpms at which it produces the most power, and then it stays there. But the car doesn't react immediately. Then, a moment later, the transmission kicks in, accelerating the car slowly, steadily and without any shifts. In theory, a car with a CVT should reach 60 mph (100 km/hr) 25-percent faster than the same car with the same engine and a manual transmission [ref www.howstuffworks.com ]. That's because the CVT converts every point on the engine's operating curve to a corresponding point on its own operating curve.

See: http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed....rformances.htm

Mike

 

I totally understand your logic, but the truth is that CVT is not stronger than a conventional "geared" tranny. Likewise, gearing can be optimized in a conventional tranny to match a utopian CVT. F1 is a perfect example: 7 speeds with extremely close-ratio gearing. CVT in theory can match, but with so many claiming that it is not strong enough to handle the power of a sports car (at least from what I read about CVT).

In other words, I see and agree with your point, but the truth is that CVT simply cannot match any "geared" tranny at this point and it seems like it won't be able to in the near future. Heck, I just heard the F1 announcer state something along the lines of "seemless shifting 7 speed gearboxes".

 

http://www.cartoday.com/content/news...ge.asp?in=7312

DSG and CVT - which will prevail?


Dual-clutch gearboxes and continuously variable transmissions are gaining in popularity, but which of the two systems will ultimately prove the most popular alternative to the "stick shift"?

Dual-clutch gearboxes (such as DSG - offered on the Volkswagen Golf 5, Audi A3) and continuously variable transmissions (available in the Fiat Palio, Mini Cooper, Audi A4 and A6, Honda Jazz and Toyota Prius) are gaining in popularity, but which of the two systems will ultimately prove the most popular alternative to the "stick shift"?

"The dual-clutch transmission will put the final nail in the coffin for the CVT in Europe", Andrew Fulbrook, manager of European powertrain forecasts at CSM Worldwide, told autoweek recently.
However, Coen van Leeuwen, head of product planning at Van Doorne Transmissie, was more philosophical on the subject: "The industry is at a crossroads to make long-term choices between CVT and dual clutch".

Volkswagen AG is said to be driving the growth of the dual-clutch transmission. The Wolfsburg-based company's chairman Bernd Pischetsrieder recently said 11 per cent of the Golfs sold in Western Europe were equipped with DSG.

"VW started and now everyone is following, everyone is doing it (adopting dual-clutch transmissions," Fulbrook was quoted as saying. "They might not all go into production, but they are all doing it."

Fulbrook thinks the CVT (an automatic transmission that uses a belt or chain to connect two pulleys that slide on shafts and vary the gear ratio based on engine speed) will disappear in Europe from all but the Japanese brands because of cost.

A dual-clutch transmission is a manual transmission with the option to drive in automatic mode. Some consider it part of the automated manual transmission family because it allows drivers to either set the transmission as an automatic requiring no manual shifting or lets drivers manually shift without depressing a clutch pedal.

Some European manufacturers have already shifted to automated manual transmissions for their small-segment cars... Automated manual transmissions are smaller, lighter and cheaper to produce than CVTs.
A disadvantage of dual-clutch transmissions is that, because of low volume, it costs more to make than most manual transmissions. But it still costs less to produce than a CVT with a chain and therefore CVT producers have fewer economies of scale.

ZF Friedrichshafen chief executive Siegfried Goll said the German supplier was counting on Japanese companies to promote CVTs.

"We have had a difficult time implementing the CVT concept in the US and Europe, while in Asia, we've seen a completely different situation emerging," Goll said last year.

ZF expects that just one per cent of the cars produced in Western Europe will be fitted with a CVT by 2012 (the same level as in 2002). By comparison, ZF forecasts that production of the dual-clutch transmission will rise to six per cent by 2012.

Globally, Nissan has sold more than 1 million vehicles equipped with CVTs, says Kurt von Zumwalt, director of product public relations at Nissan North America Inc. He says Nissan expects a fourfold increase in global CVT applications during the next three years.

Both dual-clutch and CVT transmissions are more fuel efficient than automatic transmissions (all things being equal). However, the dual-clutch transmission is less expensive to make than a CVT, because it can be built on the same assembly line as a manual transmission.

Autoweek also reported that some CVT units are shorter and taller than gearboxes, and, because CVTs are rarely the only transmission offered for a vehicle, engine bays need to be designed to accommodate both types, which adds to development costs.

BorgWarner has booked sales of about R1,81 billion of its dual-clutch modules through 2007, the company's chief executive Timothy Manganello said. That represents about 20 per cent of the sales it has booked for 2005 until 2007, the report said.

 

sigh... Maybe you just can't read.

Mike

 

I rather listen to article with research than a 17 year old kid. Sorry.

 

Hahah... Clearly you have NO IDEA what you are talking about, so if you wish to remain ignorant, so be it. FYI, MRDEENO is 29, I am an engineering major, and "I" didn't write those articles I linked to. I thought the animated graphs would be clear enough, I guess not.

Your article with "research" is more of an op-ed piece, my article is a mathematical proof.



Mike

 

Not sure where you get off being all high and mighty. It's pretty clear to me that people have presented fair arguments in this thread. Not sure why an "article" is needed to debate this. In fact, I'm quite certain an "article" is NOT needed. Just because he's 15 years younger doesn't mean he's any less intelligent about a topic.

Uncalled for.

 

fyi...i'm a mechanical engineer.

 

i'm looking for an article to back up my claim that 2+2=4 since until I can find an article, it's only "opinion".

I just can't seem to find one. I guess google sucks. Maybe i'll use www.searchwithkevin.com instead.

 

ignorant post, period. I really don't think age has much to do with it, seems he's being more mature than you.

 

I think the pros, cons and mechanical intricacies of CVT were clearly illustrated here. Hence, this discussion needs to progress or terminate here.

 

Hmnm calling names is really more mature isn't it? LOL And at 17 a engineer sure. I have been one for over 10 years.


Wow nice attacking my feedback now I see. That was really mature.

 

wow, so being an engineer entitles you to act arrogant. So being one also means, what, your opinion is the only valid one?

 

If you noticed I didn't start being arrogant until he started calling me names. What you expect me to do ignore it?

 

Calling you names??? You being ignorant and being clued into it isn't calling you names. As far as commenting on your ability to read, this has been pretty clearly layed out. Also, I gave you negative feedback because of your attitude and behavior, which I am perfectly entitled to do, I didn't have to sign it.

I said I was an engineering major, not an engineer. Also, what the hell do you engineer that you can't understand this VERY SIMPLE concept??? I gave you animated graphs, c'mon.

MRDEENO IS a MECHANICAL ENGINEER, but surely you know more, because all of a sudden, you are an engineer too. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I find it odd you called facts opinions in a thread about engineering, and you neglected to mention your status as an engineer when playing the "I'm right you're wrong" game.

As has been proven, BY MATH, you are incorrect sir.

Mike

 

I ignore opinions thats why. Until I see documented facts everything is out the window. As a engineer you should know that. I don't need to annouce my title over the internet. That makes me no better than anyone else here and neither yourself. People who try to pull that think they have a leg up when they really don't in reality.

I have been pretty calm in here, not calling names, being resonable. I asked for you guys to back those claims, you posted on link about a CVT but it doesn't back the claims against a DSG or Manual tranny. Like I said, I will wait here till the facts present themselves. Remember, MATH is not always a correct science, especially comparing cars. That is learned over experience which I have. Until then you are on my ignore list.

 

Ok... I have to ask, are you kidding me? I didn't realize that entire page on the math of a CVT was an opinion. Also, that page backs up the claims against ANY fixed ratio transmission.

I'll attempt yet another simple explanation. An engine is only making its ideal power at one point. If you have fixed ratios, that point cannot be maintained 100% of the duration of acceleration. If you have a variable ratio, it can. That is a FACT, not an OPINION!

Mike