New Veriable Speed transmission

I was out trying to look at a new car, and my wife took a liking to the
Jeep Crossover, with the two-pulley transmission. I am not new to this
design, as I have been using this type of transmission/clutching in the
snow machines.
My concern is that I like simple. This system, unlike the snow
machines, is using hydraulic components to move the second pulley.

Has anyone had any experience with this type of drive on a larger
vehicle?

I would rather purchase the manual transmission, as it is a reasonably
tried and tested design.

Anyone have any input on these (good/Bad)?

Thank you,
Mike
mlawrenc(at)gmail.com

mike wrote:
> I was out trying to look at a new car, and my wife took a liking to the
> Jeep Crossover, with the two-pulley transmission. I am not new to this
> design, as I have been using this type of transmission/clutching in the
> snow machines.
> My concern is that I like simple. This system, unlike the snow
> machines, is using hydraulic components to move the second pulley.
>
> Has anyone had any experience with this type of drive on a larger
> vehicle?
>
> I would rather purchase the manual transmission, as it is a reasonably
> tried and tested design.
>
> Anyone have any input on these (good/Bad)?

Various cars have used these over the years as well - at least one early Civic
had CV (continuously variable) drive.

Matt Ion wrote:
> mike wrote:
>
>> I was out trying to look at a new car, and my wife took a liking to the
>> Jeep Crossover, with the two-pulley transmission. I am not new to this
>> design, as I have been using this type of transmission/clutching in the
>> snow machines.
>> My concern is that I like simple. This system, unlike the snow
>> machines, is using hydraulic components to move the second pulley.
>>
>> Has anyone had any experience with this type of drive on a larger
>> vehicle?
>>
>> I would rather purchase the manual transmission, as it is a reasonably
>> tried and tested design.
>>
>> Anyone have any input on these (good/Bad)?
>
>
> Various cars have used these over the years as well - at least one early
> Civic had CV (continuously variable) drive.

And Subaru.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:51:44 GMT, Matt Ion >
wrote:

>Various cars have used these over the years as well - at least one early Civic
>had CV (continuously variable) drive. <snip>

No Honda Civic ever had a CVT.

"mike" > wrote in message
s.com...
> I was out trying to look at a new car, and my wife took a liking to the
> Jeep Crossover, with the two-pulley transmission. I am not new to this
> design, as I have been using this type of transmission/clutching in the
> snow machines.
> My concern is that I like simple. This system, unlike the snow
> machines, is using hydraulic components to move the second pulley.
>
> Has anyone had any experience with this type of drive on a larger
> vehicle?
>
> I would rather purchase the manual transmission, as it is a reasonably
> tried and tested design.
>

Get the manual. Repair costs over the life of the car will be lower and
the resale value when the car is older will be higher.

Ted

One of the reasons Volvo bought Dutch car maker DAF (gosh, was it the
late 60s, or 70s) was to control DAF's patents on the CVT they had been
using with success for some years......DAFs were small, light cars and
in those days not many Euroboxes were available with automatic. If I
remember, the DAF used centrifugal variable rate pulleys with rubber
belts. With the low weight and power, the belts had a respectable life
of 40,000 miles or some such between replacements.

DAFs were rebadged as little Volvos, but don't think any were sent to
the US. Assume that Volvo continued development of the concept and that
is what is available in the Ford 500 since it is Volvo-based.

Have never heard of any problems with modern units, although I can
certainly remember the uneasy feeling of driving in early 60s Buicks
with Super Turbine Drive.......waiting for them to shift (course, they
never did). Guess you get used to it quick enough.

Don't confuse Honda's CVCC Civic with CVT (wasn't it Compound Vortex
Combustion Chamber or similar).

early Euro automatics: Jos Lucas (The Prince of Darkness) had a
magnetic transmission: somehow it shifted by applying electric current
to different points in a tranny filled with some kind of ferrous powder
which solidified when the juice was applied .....geees, does't that
sound like a British idea? I think the first successful automatic sold
in great numbers in Europe was the Warner Gear (Jaguar and many others)
which oddly enough was developed for and with Studebaker. Didn't
Citroen (sp?) have something called Citromatic. Hope DAF didn't called
their's DAFamatic......that would be right up there with Dodge
Gyromatic.

Yeah - a boring Sunday morning with nothing better to do!

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:43:07 -0400, (Itsfrom Click)
wrote:

>
>One of the reasons Volvo bought Dutch car maker DAF (gosh, was it the
>late 60s, or 70s) was to control DAF's patents on the CVT they had been
>using with success for some years......DAFs were small, light cars and
>in those days not many Euroboxes were available with automatic. If I
>remember, the DAF used centrifugal variable rate pulleys with rubber
>belts. With the low weight and power, the belts had a respectable life
>of 40,000 miles or some such between replacements. <snip>

GM had prototype CVTs in the 1930s, but didn't want to waste any more
R&D money after their successful launch of the four speed HydraMatic
in 1938.
>
>DAFs were rebadged as little Volvos, but don't think any were sent to
>the US.<snip>

I have seen some DAFs on US soil, mostly back in the '60s. Parts and
service were impossible, as they were for Saabs in those days. No
marketing of DAFs in the US ever took place, scared off by a
then-strong VW.

>Have never heard of any problems with modern units, although I can
>certainly remember the uneasy feeling of driving in early 60s Buicks
>with Super Turbine Drive.......waiting for them to shift (course, they
>never did). Guess you get used to it quick enough. <snip>

The problem with GM's hydrokinetic transmissions, notably from Buick
Division, was their horrible efficiency. GM didn't think this was a
problem, and the Buick Division president was quoted, after his 1958
Buick Super came in dead last in the '58 Mobile Economy Run,
"Well...we have to keep our friends at the oil companies happy!"

Several other inefficient hydrokinetic examples from GM filled the
market, from Allison's bus V-drive bus transmission in 1938 to
everything from Buick, Chevy's cheaply designed Powerglide and more
inefficient and unreliable Turboglide, and the Detroit Transmission 2
speed with "switch pitch" converter, the 275, found in many GM
intermediates of the 1960s. Odd, since they had the most efficient
automatic transmission on the market for years with the HydraMatic.
Even the 1956 Dual Coupling aluminum case version was more efficient
than any of GM's horrible hydrokinetic models, including the vaunted
THM 400 and what came later.
>
>Don't confuse Honda's CVCC Civic with CVT (wasn't it Compound Vortex
>Combustion Chamber or similar). <snip>

Exactly...which was a patentable name for a stratfied charge engine. I
still drive one!

> early Euro automatics: Jos Lucas (The Prince of Darkness) had a
>magnetic transmission: somehow it shifted by applying electric current
>to different points in a tranny filled with some kind of ferrous powder
>which solidified when the juice was applied .....geees, does't that
>sound like a British idea? <snip>

OH yes, it does...and so very typically Lucas!

>I think the first successful automatic sold
>in great numbers in Europe was the Warner Gear (Jaguar and many others) <snip>

Jag used a licensed version of GM's HydraMatic back in the '50s, as
did Leyland's truck and bus division, for years. The B-W automatic of
Euro design came a bit later. B-W already was happy with their
royalties from Ford for their MX (Fordomatic) and, after AMC's
contract for HydraMatics expired in '57, supplied AMC for all
automatics until they decided to exit the business, forcing AMC to go
to Chrysler for Torqueflites.

>Didn't Citroen (sp?) have something called Citromatic.<snip>

Yes...and, being French in design, it was as bad as Packard's
Ultramatic.

>Hope DAF didn't called
>their's DAFamatic......that would be right up there with Dodge
>Gyromatic. <snip>

Those truck badges on early '50s Dodges always looked like "Gynomatic"
to me, but I was too young to understand the implications.

>Yeah - a boring Sunday morning with nothing better to do! <snip>

Yes, all the Sunday morning political shows are done. Even Robert
Novak concedes the Republipedoes are OUT!

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Ion wrote:
>> mike wrote:
>>
>>> I was out trying to look at a new car, and my wife took a liking to the
>>> Jeep Crossover, with the two-pulley transmission. I am not new to this
>>> design, as I have been using this type of transmission/clutching in the
>>> snow machines.
>>> My concern is that I like simple. This system, unlike the snow
>>> machines, is using hydraulic components to move the second pulley.
>>>
>>> Has anyone had any experience with this type of drive on a larger
>>> vehicle?
>>>
>>> I would rather purchase the manual transmission, as it is a reasonably
>>> tried and tested design.
>>>
>>> Anyone have any input on these (good/Bad)?
>>
>>
>> Various cars have used these over the years as well - at least one early
>> Civic had CV (continuously variable) drive.
>
> And Subaru.
>

I believe there were plenty of problems with the Subaru. But that was a
while ago and hopefully bugs were worked out.

Itsfrom Click wrote:
> One of the reasons Volvo bought Dutch car maker DAF (gosh, was it the
> late 60s, or 70s) was to control DAF's patents on the CVT they had been
> using with success for some years......DAFs were small, light cars and
> in those days not many Euroboxes were available with automatic. If I
> remember, the DAF used centrifugal variable rate pulleys with rubber
> belts. With the low weight and power, the belts had a respectable life
> of 40,000 miles or some such between replacements.
Yup.

>
> DAFs were rebadged as little Volvos, but don't think any were sent to
> the US. Assume that Volvo continued development of the concept and that
> is what is available in the Ford 500 since it is Volvo-based.

There is one in Wichita I know of and a early 60s DAF Dafodil here in
Kansas City.
>
> Have never heard of any problems with modern units, although I can
> certainly remember the uneasy feeling of driving in early 60s Buicks
> with Super Turbine Drive.......waiting for them to shift (course, they
> never did). Guess you get used to it quick enough.
>
> Don't confuse Honda's CVCC Civic with CVT (wasn't it Compound Vortex
> Combustion Chamber or similar).
>
> early Euro automatics: Jos Lucas (The Prince of Darkness) had a
> magnetic transmission: somehow it shifted by applying electric current
> to different points in a tranny filled with some kind of ferrous powder
> which solidified when the juice was applied .....geees, does't that
> sound like a British idea?

It was actually a French idea and was on Renaults. many were imported
here. Those still in existence tend to be ones converted to electric
cars. The mag powder clutch was not retained.



I think the first successful automatic sold
> in great numbers in Europe was the Warner Gear (Jaguar and many others)
> which oddly enough was developed for and with Studebaker.

A ****box. It's the reason half or more V8 Jag swaps were done.

Didn't
> Citroen (sp?) have something called Citromatic.

Yes, a nightmare.

"Itsfrom Click" > wrote

>....DAFs were small, light cars and
> in those days not many Euroboxes were available with automatic. If I
> remember, the DAF used centrifugal variable rate pulleys with rubber
> belts. With the low weight and power, the belts had a respectable life
> of 40,000 miles or some such between replacements.

The other significant thing was thatDAFs were Dutch. Holland has virtually
no hills, which was crucial to the success of these early CVTs, since they
would soon burn out otherwise.

I recently test drove a CVT Caliber, and am looking seriously at a CVT
Compass as a replacement for my Focus. I really liked the CVT on the
Caliber. Some people say they feel sluggush, but that's just an illusion
caused by the lack of any shifts. In fact they go like stink because the
engine gets up on the cam and stays there, pumping out max hp in a steady
stream.

Ford is putting them in the 500 and Freestyle, Nissan in the Murano, and
they're common in Europe.

Based on my test drive, I think they're the wave of the future if they prove
reliable, which I think is likely because they're basically very simple. And
if you look at their cost as an option in the Caliber and Compass, they're
about the same price as the regular 4-speed Chrysler automatic.