attrapereves
New member
Has there been any talk of Chevy bringing a CVT to the Sonic? I'm a manual fan, but CVTs seem to do better on fuel economy than any other type of transmission.
Cvt
- Thread starter attrapereves
- Start date
laborsmith
New member
What about the Spark?
Laborsmith
Laborsmith
Italianjoe1
Member
Problem I have with CVTs on cars like this, is the engine has to be wrung out to build power so the CVT really lets it rev and hang too much when you actually need to accellerate. The driving dynamic sucks. The 6sp auto does feel busy with all the gear changing but it's smooth enough for the car and keeps costs way down. CVT's are not cheap and they are virtually unservicable. Many of the cars that started coming out with them 10 years back are now being scrapped because of trans faults, a $5k CVT repair is more than the car is worth in many cases.
Also, economy isn't all that much better than a properly setup automatic, and with the move to 9 speed FWD gearboxes coming soon it will probably kill off the majority of CVT usage.
Also, economy isn't all that much better than a properly setup automatic, and with the move to 9 speed FWD gearboxes coming soon it will probably kill off the majority of CVT usage.
attrapereves
New member
I don't really like CVTs either, but the cars that have them seem to get better fuel economy than standard autos or manuals. I personally will not buy one as I've read horror stories. They seem to be getting better though.
The new Fit with a CVT gets better fuel economy than the older model with a standard auto and better than the current model with a stick.
But even if they aren't serviceable, most people don't keep cars long enough to need transmission work.
The new Fit with a CVT gets better fuel economy than the older model with a standard auto and better than the current model with a stick.
But even if they aren't serviceable, most people don't keep cars long enough to need transmission work.
attrapereves
New member
The idea of a CVT in an SUV scares me. However, the Compass is nothing more than a car with bigger wheels and higher off the ground.
CVTs seem to perform best in smaller or midsize cars.
94383Z71
New member
If you're a 5 years or less in a car person, this is the answer.
After that you need to look into what your situation will cost you in serviceability.
Palmaris
New member
I think you are trying to say that a CVT will cost you more in repair costs. Its not very clear.
have you got some definitive proof that this is true?
94383Z71
New member
I have zero experience with automotive CVTs. I'll make that clear. What I do know is that there seems to be a general lack of knowledge/expertise in the service and repair of them (at least here in Michigan), so it can be inferred that could cause more cost in the long run, but that's really just a guess based on what I've seen, with little relevance here. This and the post in this thread are the only anecdotal evidence I've seen of CVT repair costs, as I have never cared to look up on them.
As for my second statement, apply it to any transmission. IE:
No matter what trans it is or could be in our car, I can and would R&R it if the situation arose. So that cost is moot for me across the three.
Unless I wanted to learn how, I would have to pay to have a CVT or Auto rebuilt.
Flip side, I can and would rebuild the manual myself.
So, in my personal situation (barring learning the tech) the manual makes more sense from a service cost perspective, and I do intend to have it long enough where that occurrence is of strong probability.
This is my situation only, others will vary. This is obviously only a small part in the overall decision of selecting a transmission.
Edit: This is, of course, assuming the three have roughly similar repair costs and service lives. As we all know automatics tend to be more expensive to repair, so you would have to factor that in as well. This wasn't meant to be a wholly qualified matrix, just things to consider for those who would be keeping their cars for quite some time (in a fictional world where CVTs are in our cars)
As for my second statement, apply it to any transmission. IE:
No matter what trans it is or could be in our car, I can and would R&R it if the situation arose. So that cost is moot for me across the three.
Unless I wanted to learn how, I would have to pay to have a CVT or Auto rebuilt.
Flip side, I can and would rebuild the manual myself.
So, in my personal situation (barring learning the tech) the manual makes more sense from a service cost perspective, and I do intend to have it long enough where that occurrence is of strong probability.
This is my situation only, others will vary. This is obviously only a small part in the overall decision of selecting a transmission.
Edit: This is, of course, assuming the three have roughly similar repair costs and service lives. As we all know automatics tend to be more expensive to repair, so you would have to factor that in as well. This wasn't meant to be a wholly qualified matrix, just things to consider for those who would be keeping their cars for quite some time (in a fictional world where CVTs are in our cars)
Last edited:
attrapereves
New member
The original CVTs were REALLY bad. Nissan and Chrysler mostly. They've gotten a lot better. Well, maybe not anything from Chrysler.
If I wanted an auto, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a car with a CVT from Honda, Toyota, Ford, or GM.
94383Z71
New member
This is what I've seen. Not saying it's fact, just my observations. Maybe in small, light use cars light Sparks, but nothing more than that
rodslinger
Member
Whatever is discussed here in this thread we should make it clear we do not want and am not interested in a CVT in the Sonic. (or any car for that matter)
I think most will agree we bought the Sonic not only for the price and economy of the vehicle but the driving dynamics of it also. It is a relatively fun little car. If I cared ONLY about maximum efficiency in the cheapest package possible I would have neutered myself and bought a Corolla or a Sentra.
I think most will agree we bought the Sonic not only for the price and economy of the vehicle but the driving dynamics of it also. It is a relatively fun little car. If I cared ONLY about maximum efficiency in the cheapest package possible I would have neutered myself and bought a Corolla or a Sentra.
laborsmith
New member
Hey, Chevy!
How about a CVT in a 700hp Camaro?
A dual clutch transmission would do the trick.
Apples to oranges but one is possible and the other is scary.
Laborsmith
Scot
Athletic Supporter
CVT transmissions are AWESOME!
Seriously, the concept of a CVT is quite logical; During cruise, choose the ratio that optimizes fuel economy, regardless of the vehicle speed - one huge advantage over a regular geared transmission. When acceleration is needed, choose the best ratio for power and keep it there while accelerating.
In it's simplest form, the automotive CVT largely resembles the belt / pulley setup on a snowmobile. It works so well on a snowmobile because the power to weigh ratio and the intended use of the snowmobile (track-to-snow interface limits the maximum amount of strain placed on the belt) contribute to it's longevity.
In an automobile, the belt is actually metal. Lots of metal "slices" stacked side-by-side in a loop, contained/held together by a spring.
Since the belt is metal, the clamp load on the belt, via the "pulleys" must be higher than with a rubber belt. This increases frictional losses and component wear. In the past, there has always been a balance between vehicle GVWR and max engine torque to try to make the CVT transmissions last.
There are other designs out there (toroidal/traction) that do without a belt
...but weight and complexity approach that of multi-speed automatic transmissions.
I drove a Nissan NS2000 derivative in Japan in the late 90's that had a CVT - except Nissan did something really smart: They offered three modes of operation.
1. "simulated" automatic trans operation
2. "Manual" mode 7-speed, paddle-shifted
3. "regular" CVT operation.
Seriously, the concept of a CVT is quite logical; During cruise, choose the ratio that optimizes fuel economy, regardless of the vehicle speed - one huge advantage over a regular geared transmission. When acceleration is needed, choose the best ratio for power and keep it there while accelerating.
In it's simplest form, the automotive CVT largely resembles the belt / pulley setup on a snowmobile. It works so well on a snowmobile because the power to weigh ratio and the intended use of the snowmobile (track-to-snow interface limits the maximum amount of strain placed on the belt) contribute to it's longevity.
In an automobile, the belt is actually metal. Lots of metal "slices" stacked side-by-side in a loop, contained/held together by a spring.
Since the belt is metal, the clamp load on the belt, via the "pulleys" must be higher than with a rubber belt. This increases frictional losses and component wear. In the past, there has always been a balance between vehicle GVWR and max engine torque to try to make the CVT transmissions last.
There are other designs out there (toroidal/traction) that do without a belt
...but weight and complexity approach that of multi-speed automatic transmissions.
I drove a Nissan NS2000 derivative in Japan in the late 90's that had a CVT - except Nissan did something really smart: They offered three modes of operation.
1. "simulated" automatic trans operation
2. "Manual" mode 7-speed, paddle-shifted
3. "regular" CVT operation.