I think CVT's loose more power to heat, where geared transmissions loose less, but it's not enough to make a difference in the real world... and you are right, I'd bet a properly tuned auto would do a better job of keeping the engine in the meat of it's powerband, where it makes more power.

The only real reason to choose one over the other is personal preference. For some people shifting adds to the fun, and some people prefer not to have to worry about it.

 

That's too general of a statement. Are you telling me you don't have wider range of control with a manual (or other transmission that lets the driver choose a range of ratios) than today's ATV CVT? I'll give you a few situations, but not the majority. That is precisely why I chose the Hondamatic. It has both. I just wish I had more choices of ATVs with that transmission's features and performance.

 

I don't think he was making the argument of which one gives the rider the most control. He's saying that, hypothetically, there is no performance difference between a geared transmission vs. a CVT.

 

hypothetically?

 

a properly tuned CVT will keep the engine in it's sweet spot. a 5 speed will briefly pass through the sweet spot 5 times. not to mention the total loss of power transfer druing the shift.

it still boils down to personal preference, tho. that's more important than the tiny edge one may have over the other.

monty

 

CVT's are great for simplicty of operation and basic design.

Geared transmissions are more ... umm can't think of the word, but versatile is close enough. You can wind out your engine for performance, or you can gear up to keep RPM's down during trail riding.

That's my only complaint with the CVT, even when trail riding at slow speeds, your RPM is up in that "sweet" spot.

 

I agree a CVT will have an advantage of not dropping power during a shift and on both sides of the peak. however, when you look at the real performance of a car with the two different transmissions (for example) look what really happens. Maybe due the the overall inefficiency of the CVT? Maybe they are more efficient at part throttle and not as efficient at full throttle? There aren't many examples like this, but

MINI Cooper: 1,598cc manual: 0-60: 8.9 seconds; top speed: 125mph; combined mpg 42.2; CO2 emissions 163g/km; Emissions Class EU4; Insurance Group 8

MINI Cooper: 1,598cc CVT auto: 0-60: 10.1 seconds; top speed: 115mph; combined mpg 36.7; CO2 emissions 187g/km; Emissions Class EU4; Insurance Group 8

like to see this done with a Vinson, but I realize a drag race might be won by the CVT version, semi-autos are a little slower to shift than a manual and probably not enough HP to take advantage of the difference in efficiency. I really don't know, the broader the HP/torque curve and the closer/more ratios there are, the less fall off there is. I do think CVTs have a future and current CVTs do a decent job. Right now they just don't have the overall performance that makes me prefer one over the other types that are currently available. It will always factor in to my choice, but I will not rule out an ATV because of a CVT anymore, well-some CVTs

 

Does it matter if it's hypothetical or not? So what if he didn't say hypothetically... Do you agree or disagree?

 

Honda did have a belt drive motor for years. It was the 150cc GY6 motor.Very popular motor.

 

Looks like motermouth is getting what he wanted, a dispute. Im going to have to say CVT is my choice of being more efficient