2012 Subaru Impreza 2.0i Limited: Review notes: An attractivefuel-efficient and all-wheel-drive combo

[AD]

On Mar 5, 2:19.am, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> wrote:
> On 2/11/2012 11:17 PM, sjmmail2000-..............uk wrote:
>
> > WEST COAST EDITOR MARK VAUGHN: CVTs--continuously variable transmissions--are popping up in more small cars because they are more efficient and return better gas mileage.
> > Read More:http://www.autoweek.com/article/2012...IEWS/120209857
>
> > --
> > Subaru NewsHub: Latest auto news sourced from websites, portals and blogs
> >http://www.carshops247.co.uk/news/Subaru.html
>
> I wonder how these continuously variable A/T-s can facilitate engine
> brake in downhills. On long downhill engine brake is important to save
> brake pads.

why would the engine braking be different from a slushbox?
it's the same deal where all the drivetrain is lugging the wheels
since the engine is connected to the wheels at all times.

[Rebus]

cameo wrote:

> If you ever drove cars with manual transmission and then with A/T (not
> the continuosly variable,) you already felt the much weaker engine
> brake. So I wonder how much weaker it might be with continuously
> variable A/T. As far as I know, manual transmission gives you firmer
> connection between the engine and wheels than an A/T does. Solid
> connection vs. soft connection.

Wikipedia is your friend. You can't get much more solid than with a CVT,
there is not even a clutch in some cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continu...e_transmission

[AD]

On Mar 6, 6:36.am, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 6:59 PM, Rebus wrote:
>
> > Wikipedia is your friend. .You can't get much more solid than with a CVT,
> > there is not even a clutch in some cases:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continu...e_transmission
>
> Thanks for that pointer but my impression was that even the CVT-s use
> some kind of slipping hydraulic torque converter as the following quote
> indicates from the bottom of that Wikipedia article:
>
> "In 2010, the US Patent Office issued patent number 7,647,768 B1 for a
> series of hydraulic Torque Converters that use hydraulic friction rather
> than mechanical friction as a CVT."
>
patent is issued but are there any know applications of it just yet?
Don't think there are any

I could not feel much difference in engine braking between M/T and
slushbox
though I haven't driven a shushbox downhill in quite a while so can't
be sure

[AD]

On Mar 6, 11:30.pm, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 10:06 AM, AD wrote:
>
> > patent is issued but are there any know applications of it just yet?
> > Don't think there are any
>
> You might be right but I just wanted to explain what my impression was
> of CVTs, however wrong that may have been.
>
> > I could not feel much difference in engine braking between M/T and
> > slushbox
> > though I haven't driven a shushbox downhill in quite a while so can't
> > be sure
>
> Forgive my ignorance (again,) but what exactly is slushbox? Another name
> for CVT?

a proper name for a conventional 2 to 8 speed automatics