Xtronic CVT?

Post by **blushbaby** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:25 am

I was looking at the sedans and some have "xtronic CVT" while the hatchbacks have "CVT". Is there a difference?

Post by **Clipsed** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:28 am

both the same thing, maybe you missed the xtronic part on the hatch model.

Post by **blushbaby** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:33 am

weird. i guess they didnt bother with adding that. thx

Post by **blushbaby** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:13 am

also, is CVT automatic or manual? sorry for all these stupid questions but im clueless

Post by **Greek.intuit** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:36 am

It's a non-shifting automatic...

Basically, you won't feel any of the gear shifts, and you will get better gas mileage because CVT stands for (Continually Variable Transmission) which means it changes it's gearing to keep a constant RPM in your car.

That constant rev position will mean less wear and tear on your engine and quicker response when you floor it.

Highly recommended.

Post by **HirosRide** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:15 am

CVT = smooth like butta

Post by **proxim2020** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:36 am

Greek.intuit wrote:and you will get better gas mileage because CVT stands for (Continually Variable Transmission) which means it changes it's gearing to keep a constant RPM in your car.

In theory you should. But according to the Fuel Eco survey, the MT ended beating out the CVT.

Post by **blushbaby** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:48 am

ooooh

proxim2020 wrote:
In theory you should. But according to the Fuel Eco survey, the MT ended beating out the CVT.

ooooh. sounds yummy. lol

I have another question!!! doesnt make sense to create new threads so umm i heard that some hatchbacks have a nasty habit of the glass shattering when you lower the back.

true or false?

Post by **c5neb** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:49 am

proxim2020 wrote:
In theory you should. But according to the Fuel Eco survey, the MT ended beating out the CVT.

There is an interesting article on page 13 of the May 07 issue of Car and Driver. Carlos Ghosn, boss of Nissan and Renault, discusses the virtues of the CVT over the Automatic and how the CVT should achieve better fuel economy. Car and Driver disputes the gain with their 280-mile loop run of a CVT Versa versus an Automatic Versa. The automatic did better in the test run (35.4 vs. 33.2). CD claims that more energy is expended to operate the CVT pump and power is lost in fuel economy. An interesting read.

Post by **jacksan1** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:00 am

Under an ideal condition, CVT is supposed to beat a regular AT in fuel efficiency. But as everyone knows, we don't live in an ideal world. All CVTs have friction loss, and also loss caused by hydraulics. Because the coefficient of friction between the pulley and belt is extremely small due to the lubricant, a lot of hydraulic force has to be exerted on the belt in order for the belt to engage the pulley, or the belt slips. And if you want a good response to the throttle, the hydraulic system has to work even harder for the belt to engage. It is often this need to have a good response charactertistic that ends up being a drain on the fuel.

Post by **Player01** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:05 am

sounds like a good article - any chance it's available online?

c5neb wrote:
There is an interesting article on page 13 of the May 07 issue of Car and Driver. Carlos Ghosn, boss of Nissan and Renault, discusses the virtues of the CVT over the Automatic and how the CVT should achieve better fuel economy. Car and Driver disputes the gain with their 280-mile loop run of a CVT Versa versus an Automatic Versa. The automatic did better in the test run (35.4 vs. 33.2). CD claims that more energy is expended to operate the CVT pump and power is lost in fuel economy. An interesting read.

Post by **Ever Victorious** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:10 am

blushbaby wrote:I have another question!!! doesnt make sense to create new threads so umm i heard that some hatchbacks have a nasty habit of the glass shattering when you lower the back.

true or false?

False.

I think this has happened in one single, solitary case.

My rear hatch glass didn't even break when I was rear-ended by a pickup. So they've got to be pretty damned strong.

Now, back to the CVT discussion -

"The more they overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain". If you are looking at efficiency in any mechanical situation, simpler devices in general lose less efficiency than complex devices.

Whenever you build a "machine" (by the most basic definition of the word), there is no such thing as 100% efficiency. Take, for example, a fulcrum. Simplest of all machines. The theory is that if you take a board and put it on a rock or some other fulcrum point, and have 4x the board length on the end you push down as on the end being lifted up, you get 4x the lift on the other end as you exert in force down on the push end. Not quite true. Due to imperfections in the fulcrum mating surface, flex in the board itself, etc... it's not QUITE 4x.

Now... a transmission is many many simple "machines" built into one piece. The more complex, the more pieces, the more efficiency you lose simply to the "number" of machines.

The CVT tries to counter the main inefficiency of the automatic (running in a less than optimal power band) by keeping is pulleys in a ratio that keeps the engine in its optimal power band. Unfortunately, in doing so, they have created a more complicated mechanism. Best-case scenario, a CVT will be a mild economy improvement over an automatic.

If efficiency (or acceleration) is your game, the 6MT is the only player in town. It is simpler than either automatic.

If you're looking for a super-smooth ride, the CVT is king.

If you're looking for a good price, but can't drive a stick, or don't WANT to drive a stick, then the 4AT is for your whip.

Post by **c5neb** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:42 pm

Player01 wrote:sounds like a good article - any chance it's available online?

I checked the magazine website and the column called "The Steering Column" has not been updated so far. The article title is "A Pair of Industry Bigwig Talks Technology at the Detroit Auto Show." Not a title that would lead me to think about CVTs and Autos. I hope that helps.

Post by **blushbaby** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:00 pm

so basically, the CVT is a bad idea? Might as well get the automatic?

Post by **marleyfan** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:42 pm

blushbaby wrote:so basically, the CVT is a bad idea? Might as well get the automatic?

I would have to disagree. While the CVT may end up getting marginally less fuel economy it sure is nice to drive. As said earlier....smooth as butter. Now I hate driving my wife's automatic Vibe. It feels jerky and feels like it revs a lot. My CVT Versa is nice and smooth.

Post by **GoodbyeCavalier** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:21 pm

Actually CVT mileage is about the same as a manual (Automatics loose the fuel in shifting so much usually unneccesarily) Where the CVT doesnt have the tradition gears, you can feel a shift everyonce in a while if you push it hard enough. Driving it is always a smooth ride.

Post by **HirosRide** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:12 pm

I have to agree I was driving a Murano CVT part time and a Montero part time, after awhile I couldn't stand the ride where you can feel the shifting and no longer liked the trucky feel like I once did, the smoothness of the CVT is addictive, I have now sold the Montero and got the V, now I have 2 cars with CVT and love it! If you don't want to pay more for the CVT and don't know how it feels then you don't NEED to have it, if you can afford it then I would still suggest it but eveyone is looking for something different, some will never go for an automatic of any kind because they like to drive a manual, personally I don't think it's fun in traffic. Fuel Economy also varies so much depending on how you drive the car, I have let a couple people drive my V for fun and they push it a lot harder then I do, so if the V was theirs, the mpg for them wouldn't be as good as it is for me. When I test drove the Prius they told me that you slowly will learn how to drive to save gas, the computer even teaches you how to do it, the V doesn't have this feature to let us know but it's the same theory.

Post by **motoguy128** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:57 am

I read that Car and Driver article too. It was interesting. It said that most automakers had abandoned CVT's for this reason. They felt there was no feasible way to "lock" the gears in place. I think the Honda Civic proves that compact automatics with sophisticated electronic lock-up torque converters are still the best solution. I test drive the Civic and it's an outstanding transmission, very responsive, smooth, and the EPA numbers are better on the automatic than the manual. Its so compact, it has less than a 40lb weight penalty I believe. The civic weighs about as much as the Versa.

I haven't driven a CVT yet so I can't speak for it's smoothness, but he newer automatics are pretty impressive and have nearly bumpless shifts. 1st-2nd gear is the one that you usualy can;t eliminate... it's too big of a ratio change.

On a side note... did anyone read the Short Take on the Kia Rondo? I'm very impressed. Fully loaded under $25,000 and the space utilization is similar to the Versa, but it has a better seat folding system. It does 90% of what I would need a mnivan to do for about $5000-7000 less and uses 10% less fuel and is easier ot park and manuver.

Post by **Ever Victorious** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:26 am

I'd be a little more impressed with the Rondo if they used the Theta V6 instead of the Delta. Same fuel mileage, but 50 more ponies and VVT.

Interior wise they are wonderful. They drive pretty decent, only a little less agile than an Optima (which it is, for the most part, based on). The 7-passenger model is kinda odd, but most 7-passenger vehicles are torture on the rear passengers anyway.

It's still ugly.

Post by **Slither** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 7:55 am

I'm no expert and can't go into any excruciating detail about CVT vs auto but I won't go back to a regular auto box after driving CVT. It seems much smoother and makes the engine quieter.

I would say the Versa with CVT is probably the best bet in the subcompact market right now for lots of relaxed high speed highway driving. I've had mine up to 135 km/hr and the motor is completely subdued. I haven't had the nerve to try higher..

Post by **GoodbyeCavalier** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:28 am

I havent had any issues with 90 mph, infact its almost a downfall, with the engine blaring, windows down, you dont hear the enigine at all. would have no idea how fast im going with out looking down.

Post by **BBISHOPPCM** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 4:34 pm

Ever Victorious wrote; "The CVT tries to counter the main inefficiency of the automatic (running in a less than optimal power band) by keeping is pulleys in a ratio that keeps the engine in its optimal power band. Unfortunately, in doing so, they have created a more complicated mechanism. Best-case scenario, a CVT will be a mild economy improvement over an automatic."

My only gripe with this statement is this; Mechanically speaking, the CVT transmission is far less complicated than the automatic. Automatic transmissions use a series of clutches, planetary gearsets, sensors, servos, valves, more gears, computer, and a pump. CVTs use two variable pulleys, a compound steel belt, a hydraulic pump, maybe some sensors, and a hydraulic servo or two. The key to the CVT is controlling the servos, which is done by computer (no different than an automatic).

I was going to order my car with a 5 speed manual, but I test-drove the CVT SL, and fell in love. I wound up buying the car I test-drove (car had 20 miles on it).

Post by **motoguy128** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:46 pm

Both sound fairly complex. The CVT still needs a version of a torque converter similar to an automatic to get the car moving from a stop. Maybe the dual clutch automatics (VW/Audi) or sequential manual with the electronically controlled clutches (BMW, Toyota MR2 Spyder had one) is the better way to go.

I like my manual transmission. It could just use some slightly wider gear spacing.

Post by **TweeKeer** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:10 am

motoguy128 wrote:I read that Car and Driver article too. It was interesting. It said that most automakers had abandoned CVT's for this reason. They felt there was no feasible way to "lock" the gears in place. I think the Honda Civic proves that compact automatics with sophisticated electronic lock-up torque converters are still the best solution. I test drive the Civic and it's an outstanding transmission, very responsive, smooth, and the EPA numbers are better on the automatic than the manual. Its so compact, it has less than a 40lb weight penalty I believe. The civic weighs about as much as the Versa.

Dodge uses it in the Caliber, Toyota is using it next year (near future, compliments to Nissan), Mitsubishi is using in their LANCER, I'm sure you'll be seeing a lot of car manufacturer's going this route. That's atleast 4 companies going the way of CVT.

Post by **TweeKeer** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:24 am

blushbaby wrote:I was looking at the sedans and some have "xtronic CVT" while the hatchbacks have "CVT". Is there a difference?

forgot to mention. Sedans don't come with CVT, not even in the SL, they have a 4sp automatic.atleast, here in Canada.

But I just did some research and I see that it is available in either a 4sp auto ot a CVT in the SL in the USA. odd.
Modified by TweeKeer at 11:42 AM 4/1/2007

Post by **blockmachining** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:57 pm

Ok. This is an old thread but I wanted to post a comment or two about my trip and the CVT.

I just got back from a 1500 mile round trip to Washington, DC with two grandkids in the back. The Versa is really a great little car. If I had to narrow my choices down to one in which I pick the #1 attribute of my car, it would have to be the CVT transmission. Between the fuel mileage (32 mpg at 74 mph with a full load of people, luggage and a large cooler), how quiet the car was, how smooth the car ran and drove and overall performance, the Versa was great. If you look at the above items, the CVT plays into all of them. I will never own a regular, geared automatic transmission again. There is no way. No shift shock, no noise/vibration, no hunting for gears, no waiting for the transmission to down shift so the cruise control can get the car's speed back up while climbing up an incline....you name it.......As more and more people drive a CVT and learn their benefits, fewer and fewer cars will be built without them.

Post by **frankoV** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:51 am

ain't this a bump-and-a-half?

Xtronic CVT?

Xtronic CVT?

Re: Xtronic CVT? (blushbaby)

Re: (blushbaby)

Re: Xtronic CVT? (blushbaby)

Re: (Greek.intuit)

Re: (proxim2020)

Re: (proxim2020)

Re: (c5neb)

Re: (c5neb)

Re: (blushbaby)

Re: (Player01)

Re: (blushbaby)

Re: (marleyfan)

Re: (marleyfan)

Re: (HirosRide)

Re: (motoguy128)

Re: (motoguy128)

Re: (Slither)

Re: (BBISHOPPCM)

Re: (motoguy128)

Re: Xtronic CVT? (blushbaby)

Re: Xtronic CVT? (TweeKeer)

Re: Xtronic CVT? (blockmachining)

Nissan Forums

Infiniti Forums

Datsun Forums

Technical Forums

Classifieds / Marketplace

Nissan Motorsports

General Forums