Look inside Ford's (and G.M.) 10 speed

[hone_eagle]

linc

Just some half time reading

[ktosv]

MM49 wrote:
The new CVT JATCO transmissions are great. It is very obvious that many have not driven them. Normal RV.Net information.
MM49

Or it's vehicles like the Nissan Juke and Versa that in my opinion have a very crude control system on their CVT. I had a Nissan Juke the first two weeks of December for a business trip and all I had to due was close my eyes and stick my head out of the window and I would have thought I was on my 1997 snowmobile. I have previously had a Versa with similar thoughts.

After driving a vehicle like this I would be very hesitant of dumping $30k on a vehicle with a CVT thinking this is what I am going to get.

[JN_B]

Lessmore wrote:
I believe most manufacturers using a CVT are using CVT Jatco transmissions...including Subaru, Jeep AND Nissan.

You are correct on the Jatco/subaru, but subaru had one made to their specifications.

I've driven the nissan murano, and it is nowhere near the same as the subaru. Even if it is all just programming due to subaru i-drive, the subaru one is ALOT better.

[Lessmore]

JN_B wrote:

MM49 wrote:

jus2shy wrote:
Subaru has doubled-down on CVT tech. Look at their entire vehicle line-up.

The new CVT JATCO transmissions are great. It is very obvious that many have not driven them. Normal RV.Net information.
MM49

No kidding, My wife's forester XT is a great vehicle, and lots of fun. I was one of the doubters prior to driving it. Being able to simulate gears and manually shift through them is awesome. We went from a 2013 Outback with the 5 speed auto, to the forester, night and day difference. The outback transmission was very dated, and the programming was horrid.

I believe most manufacturers using a CVT are using CVT Jatco transmissions...including Subaru, Jeep AND Nissan.

[JN_B]

MM49 wrote:

jus2shy wrote:
Subaru has doubled-down on CVT tech. Look at their entire vehicle line-up.

The new CVT JATCO transmissions are great. It is very obvious that many have not driven them. Normal RV.Net information.
MM49

No kidding, My wife's forester XT is a great vehicle, and lots of fun. I was one of the doubters prior to driving it. Being able to simulate gears and manually shift through them is awesome. We went from a 2013 Outback with the 5 speed auto, to the forester, night and day difference. The outback transmission was very dated, and the programming was horrid.

[DaveF-250SD]

With this many speeds, how far away will folks be from a 7-10k transmission overhaul when they go south? Yikes.

[MM49]

jus2shy wrote:
Subaru has doubled-down on CVT tech. Look at their entire vehicle line-up.

The new CVT JATCO transmissions are great. It is very obvious that many have not driven them. Normal RV.Net information.
MM49

[3oaks]

Depending on the application and intended use of the truck, not necessarily better, but certainly different.

[Golden_HVAC]

4.5:1 first gear, and 0.65:1 double (or is it triple) overdrive!

That is a wide spread between first and top gear ratios. Great job.

So to start out at 5 MPH with a huge load on the transmission, the engine can build up speed quickly, with 4.5:1 axle ratio, and say a 4.1:1 rear axle ratio. This will allow the engine to turn 18 times for each turn of the tires! 1,800 engine RPM = 100 tire revs per minute. or 6.6 minutes to go 1 mile.

At 0.65:1 ratio, the engine running 2,000 RPM will have a output shaft speed (say the transmission transmits all the RPM, and not lose one) the output shaft will be turning around 2,700 RPM. The same 4.10:1 rear axle reduction will bring this down to around 658 tire revs per minute.

If the tire outside diameter is about 30", then it should be turning around 660 revolutions per mile. 658 tire revs per mile - about 60 MPH? With a diesel, it would be better to have the 3.73:1 rear axle, or 2,700/3.73= 720 revs per minute or about 65.5 MPH at 2,000 RPM.

If you have the gas engine then the upper speed limit would be well over 120 MPH. Diesel is limited to around 110 MPH by the engine RPM governor. If you really wanted to go for speed, then a 3.23:1 rear axle ratio will lower the engine RPM's at all road speeds.

Looks like we will all have a better truck in a couple of years!

Fred.

[Bedlam]

Their little Justy with CVT was pretty weak, but they have learned a lot since 1987. Back then the CVT would wear too fast before needing parts.

[jus2shy]

Subaru has doubled-down on CVT tech. Look at their entire vehicle line-up.

[hone_eagle]

gbopp wrote:
I thought by now the CVT would be perfected, obviously not.
It seems like a good idea.

They can't handle more then mid size car torque.

[gbopp]

I thought by now the CVT would be perfected, obviously not.
It seems like a good idea.

[wcjeep]

I've driven a few cars with CVT. Each one has been a horrible experience. Highly recommend avoiding them until the bugs are worked out. They do add mpg. Every one I've driven has the engine set to race when pushing gently on the gas pedal. The engine is constantly cycling. If you live in Kansas it might be ok. Any place with hills or mountains will be unbearable.

[Bedlam]

CVT = Continually Variable Transmission

The ratios in the transmission continually change based on RPM and Torque usually through the use of split pulleys on the drive and driven shafts. This has long been used in mopeds and scooters but continues to scale up to heavier applications.