What does that mean, 'cvt motorboats'? I don't think you care for cvts, but like most modern things the tide is against you.

no, it's easy. My jgc has digital center gauge which can be just a speedo in number or dial setup, with or without other info. It's wonderful. but i prefer a number over a dial because i don't have to think about 'where' the needle is pointing. A number is a number and i want to,know precisely where i am relative to the speed limit, not approximately with a moving needle. And yes, i can easily tell if i'm briskly accelerating or decelerating with a number. Only thing i'd like even better is hud.

you like needles because you have most of your experience with them. But they are going away.

My few times in those kinds of planes have left me stunned at how antiquated they are. I know, reliability, tried and true and all that, above all else, and things change in aviation at a glacial pace. Hopefully soon an Elon Musk type will come along and throw out the old junk of cheap planes.

 

OK....I thought people here on Car Chat understood the term. Typical CVT "motorboating" occurs when the the throttle is opened, and engine RPM increases markedly, but the transmission is slow to respond and the RPM is raised for a few seconds before the car's actual speed catches up. It is similar to what happens in a boat with an outboard motor (hence the term) when the throttle is opened, the propeller churns up the water, and it takes the boat a few seconds to actually start moving. "Rubberbanding", another CVT term , is somewhat similar to motorboating, but occurs when the car picks up speed unevenly during the acceleration....somewhat like a rubber band that stretches and contracts a few times.

As far as to whether I personally care for them or not, in general, no I don't, but some CVTs are admittedly better and more refined than others in how they work. Nissan, in particular, has had a lot of experience with them, particularly with larger V6 engines, and, in general, IMO, has the ones that are easiest to live with. Early CVTs were also troublesome, but recently have improved in reliability.

Also, some CVTs have "stepped" or pre-programmed belt-ratios that more or less imitate the stepped-gears in a conventional transmission. In full-auto-mode, they still accelerate like a regular CVT, but, in manual mode (usually with shift-paddles) the driver can select the stepped-ratios.


Well, different strokes for different folks. I find a sweep-neeedle much easier to decipher at a glance. And, as far as the speed limit goes, many GPS/NAV systems will actually display it for you for each stretch of road you are on (minus temporary things like construction and school-zone limits, of course). The Lincoln Continental I sampled recently had that useful feature....even showed it in the gauge-panel in the form of the typical black-and-white highway sign.

I like them because they simply work well. That's why they have been around for so long, and why so many vehicles use them.


Some newer, smaller General Aviation planes do have electronic instrument panels.

There are a few vehicles with it.....among them, I think, recent Corvettes.

 

I cannot find via google that term mentioned anywhere else about cars let alone cvts. Regardless, a cvt works to get the engine close or at peak torque generating rpms using whatever gear ratio works. I think what you're describing is completely normal. Yes as you also say, cvt software has been tweaked over time to 'feel' less robotic (that is, not just going straight to peak torque rpm and staying there which could be perceived as just droning on as the engine noise changes little). Regardless, cvts are great for fuel efficiency and performance and nissans and hondas with them have come a long way and are just great for non-gearheads.

Name one that isn't good today.

No, that's like saying horse and buggies work well so we should have kept using them. Needles have been around so long because there wasn't a cheap, reliable, and better alternative. Lcd's are probably still more expensive but they're infinitely more versatile.

 

I'm all for different strokes for different folks. My dad used to say "That's what makes horse racing." But that is not what you advocate here on Car Chat, on this issue and many others. You write, definitively, that one thing is better than the other. That is not what "different strokes for different folks" means. If you want to write "I prefer a good old analog needle", I have no problem with that, as there is no "one size fits all". But if you want to write "An analog dial is better", I, and others, are going to challenge that, and ask for the underlying evidence that backs up your statement, especially in the context of a review you are writing. It's the same as "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That is not a reason to hinder advancement--it's just that you don't like the advancement. I think you do your reviews a disservice when you make these statements.

 

OK, when I say that something is "better", yes, that is often from a subjective, not necessarily objective, viewpoint (I thought that was pretty much given). In reviews and write-ups, I often state when something is subjective and simply my opinion, rather then objective...or at least try and give that impression. However, on the issue of traditional vs. electronic gauges, my viewpoint is not alone...many professional reviewers and those who write in automotive publications also share that view. I have sampled a number of vehicles, though, with electronic instrumentation that is programmed into a traditional analog format, especially on new Cadillacs and Lincolns. They seem to incorporate the best of both worlds.

An earlier comment here, though, by another poster, does have some merit.......even in a digital format, the electronic gauges of today are a far cry from what we saw with Chrysler and GM back in the 1980s. I remember them well......on cars like the Pontiac 6000 STE and Dodge Daytona.

And I would not necessarily state (as you do here) that electronic gauges are necessarily an advancement....just different.

 

Any other comments on the new CR-V? Seems like we have talked the instrument panel to death LOL.

 

yeah, it's gonna sell like crazy.

 

Always has.

 

But, in general, today's analog gauges are likewise better and more readable than 80s analog gauges. As are many, many aspects of today's cars. I'm not sure this really advances your viewpoint very far.

And, back to the CR-V discussion, I'll bet the core CR-V customer loves the digital dash.

 

I always thought it was just too expensive relative to the Miata.

 

​​​​​​​Me too.....

 

Well, no arguments there. Whether they love the dash or not, this vehicle will probably sell. It always has.

Well, like I just said, I don't think either of our viewpoints are going to affect the big numbers on this vehicle much, if any. It sold with analogs, and will probably sell with the digital panel.

 

I have to take issue with this. CVTs do not "waste" RPMs. If there truly is waste, how is it that CVTs are more efficient than regular planetary gearset automatic transmissions?

With a continuously variable transmission (CVT), when you floor the accelerator to accelerate, the transmission does shift to a lower gear ratio -- just like in a normal autotrans -- allowing the engine RPM to speed up to peak torque. If you want maximum acceleration, you want to maintain the engine at peak torque. The CVT allows the engine RPM to remain at peak torque as the transmission's gear ratio changes to allow the car's speed to climb but the engine RPM remains at peak torque.

A normal autotrans does not allow the engine to remain at peak torque. As you accelerate, the engine RPM increases from low on the torque curve, up to and past peak torque to redline, at which point the transmission shifts gears to the next higher fixed ratio and the engine RPM drops back down to low on the torque curve, and the cycle starts again as engine RPM climbs; this cycling of engine RPM, from low on the torque curve up to peak torque, change gear and drop engine RPM is the true waste. That does not help to maintain maximum acceleration.

There is no "wasted RPM" with a CVT.

 

OK.....when used the term "wasted RPM" I was referring to the fact that, with a CVT, actual vehicle motion usually lags the initial jump in RPM by a couple of, and sometimes by several, seconds. That's where the often-used "motorboating" term comes from...the comparison to a boat with an outboard motor, where the prop initially speeds up and churns water, but the boat itself also lags by several seconds. It is true that CVTs are (comparatively) efficient (sometimes as much or more so than a traditional three-pedal manual) but that is due to other factors as well....not necessarily initial start-up. So, while I respect your opinion (and analysis) I have to disagree with at least part of it.

Here's a good write-up on the subject, from the S.A. E. (Society of Automotive Engineers):

http://papers.sae.org/2011-01-0150/

 

I lived with an Audi CVT for five years. It was a great transmission. Quite responsive, not noisy, and quick fake shifts when in manual mode. I wouldn't hesitate again if that's the option on my next car.