ahcash
Memßer
[H:4]
Posts: 1,463
|
Post by ahcash on Sept 27, 2005 10:17:45 GMT 10
Came across this website.. Not sure how accurate it is.. but here you go.. (MT guys.. dun spat on me please ;D) MT = Manual Transmission CVT = Continuously Variable Transmission Tests showed that MT takes 11.9 seconds to go from rest - 100km/h where CVT takes only 8.8 seconds.. Read more about it here: URL: cvt.com.sapo.pt/performances/performances.htm Conclusion:
The Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) is 35% more performant than the Manual Transmission (MT). With same car and engine, the CVT takes only 75% of the time to accelerate to 100km/h, compared to the MT.
This means that: -Although the known CVTs (ex: "V"belt, Toroidal) have greater inherent dissipations than MT, they may be still advantageous. -To take full advantage of the whole 35% improvement of CVT, it would be necessary to invent something as a "Geared CVT", (without the unavoidable limitations of friction CVTs). -If it is difficult to eliminate significantly the energy losses of some friction drives, then these CVT will hardly improve performances up to 35%. Power-split and similar techniques may help here.
Perhaps, the most remarkable practical proof of the CVT performance, was the CVT use in the 800cV Formula One Canon-Williams-Renault, in 1993. Without so much development as the MT version, the experimental CVT Formula One was 1 second faster per lap.
|
|
|
Post by vividjazz on Sept 27, 2005 10:23:31 GMT 10
Awesome find. Cool graphs.
|
|
|
Post by bnefit on Sept 27, 2005 10:39:22 GMT 10
i hate you ahcash gor!! ;D ;D just kidding good find and nice charts! i only came to know that cvt is more efficient than mt after i bought the car. too late. overall i still like my mt but given a choice again, i'll defintely opt for cvt.
|
|
|
Post by nick on Sept 27, 2005 11:46:38 GMT 10
hehe, I haven't seen this chart graph before~ nice find Ahcash~ but how come other findings are outdated? hehehe~~
|
|
|
Post by Half Schumacher on Sept 27, 2005 11:50:56 GMT 10
i don't recall any F1 cars have CVT. i think it was outlawed in the rules......
|
|
ahcash
Memßer
[H:4]
Posts: 1,463
|
Post by ahcash on Sept 27, 2005 12:27:02 GMT 10
hahaha.. whatever my friends sent me.. if they are car/jazz related.. I will post it up lohh.. dunno how outdated they are.. sollie. ;D
|
|
|
Post by asiansquad on Sept 27, 2005 12:29:44 GMT 10
cvt changes gears automatically..whereas manual u gotta change it manually and no matter how fast u can shift gears...its still not as fast as cvt when switching gears..thats why CVT would be abit faster
|
|
|
Post by bnefit on Sept 27, 2005 12:33:35 GMT 10
cvt changes gears automatically..whereas manual u gotta change it manually and no matter how fast u can shift gears...its still not as fast as cvt when switching gears..thats why manual would be abit fastermanual a bit faster??
|
|
|
Post by asiansquad on Sept 27, 2005 12:35:41 GMT 10
fixed..HAHAHA
|
|
crazyray
Regular Member
VTEC Yooo
Posts: 439
|
Post by crazyray on Sept 27, 2005 13:58:09 GMT 10
nice ahcash
interesting chart as well
|
|
|
Post by vividjazz on Sept 27, 2005 17:24:44 GMT 10
cvt changes gears automatically..whereas manual u gotta change it manually and no matter how fast u can shift gears...its still not as fast as cvt when switching gears..thats why CVT would be abit faster The CVT has no gears unless your in 7 speed mode then they are just electronic points on the continuous curve. I think that is why they carefully call it 7 speed rather than 7 gears too. You also have to take into account frictional loss in the CVT. Its not as perfect as the graph and as the article points out.
|
|
|
Post by nick on Sept 27, 2005 17:44:53 GMT 10
so overall which one is better? for performance manual or cvt?
|
|
|
Post by bluevti on Sept 29, 2005 16:06:55 GMT 10
I think for performance its fairly clear that the manual is faster.. Go to local honda dealer and test drive both Vti models... The CVT is fantasic, if i could have afforded one when I got my Jazz I would have got it, but on the downside its not as fast straightline.
|
|
|
Post by SmellyTofu on Sept 29, 2005 16:28:28 GMT 10
With manual, you've got a bit more flexibility to slip the clutch a bit more to let the engine spin a bit more rather than get bogged down until the revs build up. But for the Jazz, I think the CVT will suit. I'll report on the freeway driving when I head to Canberra this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by vividjazz on Sept 29, 2005 16:32:07 GMT 10
The CVT is meant to give slightly better fuel economy over the manual. Engine revs lower for the same speed on the open road with the CVT.
If you sit in Sydney peak hour traffic you spend more time with the clutch on a manual pushed in than out. Eliminates any fun factor that a manual might offer after a few weeks of this. The auto is also easier in creeping stop start traffic.
|
|