I always treat cars for what they are. So anything equipped with CVT I'd take it steadily. However comparing a Persona and Accord with conventional auto, with a Honda City and Saga CVT, for city driving the CVT is unmatched. They're so much more comfortable. The Accord's auto is refined and smooth enough, but still the cars with CVT feels more relaxed.

Plus for economy driving some conventional autos can easily be confused. Both CVTs I use "know" when you are driving economically. They don't have to hunt for gears, they just lock the engine RPM wherever suitable and the seamless ratio change takes over.

But of course for CVTs, I still have worries whenever I need plenty of torque for a long period of time, like climbing uphill when the car is heavy, or when I want to overtake up hill. Also shorts burst of acceleration when overtaking. The quick drop in ratio scare me a little when I imagine how hard the metal belt is being put to work. Perhaps there's no need for worry, but I do anyway.

I'll buy a CVT equipped car, absolutely, but only when I know I don't need the power.

Clutch based gearboxes will have an easier time getting good efficiency ratings. Other manufacturers are taking the other route to cater for their more "traditional" drivers. Everyone else who opt for clutch based are more interested in getting the efficiency ratings up. They're slightly more difficult to program to be smooth, and will have the occasional slip-ups like not engaging when you want them to at very low throttle inputs, or no creep. But sooner or later they will be as smooth and intuitive, and most probably be cheaper.

Proton, Ford, VW (just to name a few), are helping the development of this technology, either by engineering them directly, or funding the companies who make them by using them in their own products.

So it's more like, "why can't other companies deal with wet clutch?"

This post has been edited by VagueConcerns: Aug 15 2014, 03:11 AM

I've never opened up a CVT, but I would love too!

Well it shouldn't have any toll on fuel consumption, and in my experience the driver has more effect on the FC. In most cases even with torque converter CVTs the fuel consumption can actually improve, and more and more CVTs are actually bettering FC of manuals.

People tend to make CVT's FC worse (or not reaping the benefit of CVTs) because they drive it with a throttle input like that of a conventional (and older) TC automatics. Once the engine has reached a certain optimal RPM point it'll stay there for as long as it can (that depends on YOUR throttle input). For every CVT (yes, same goes for Proton's) I notice that they can even lock the RPM at 1500 and the car still accelerates (rather modestly) until the ratio is too big and you've reached higher speeds. Usually the engine is happy staying at 2000 while you're accelerating towards highway speed, IF you allow it to stay at 2000 rpm. To get the same FC with a conventional stepped gearbox, you will be accelerating considerably slower and you'd still have to let the engine go beyond 2000 rpm. In fact, you can never match the FC with a conventional auto at all given that scenario. You'd have better luck with a manual, but it is a manual.

In short, it doesn't give better FC results, it ALLOWS better FC results. YOU have the greater part in making that happen. It's even better than a conventional manual for economy driving because it's a lot more consistent.

This post has been edited by VagueConcerns: Aug 24 2014, 04:14 PM

Yeah, it's much easier. You only have one thing to get control of and that's the throttle. Acceleration isn't as detrimental to FC compared to a stepped transmission.