Subaru is a strong believer in CVT
The WRX 2.0 with >260hp and 350Nm still using CVT

I think you can ask subaru to import for you if you really want to https://www.subaru.asia/my/en/vehicles/wrx/


This post has been edited by twincharger07: Nov 11 2021, 11:02 AM

BTW lest anyone forget, Subaru uses chain belt CVT whereas others uses plain steel belt.

Thus the difference in terms of durability, among other factors.

Ativa torque is too low to create any concern.
Ativa = Toyota drive train
compare to Honda, Toyota component will be the last to breakdown

You reminded me my old AE92 1.3 Corolla manual

That was a 1km+ long straight with very steep uphill.

3rd gear floored the throttle already, speed was dropping.

Dropped to 2nd gear continued floor it, accelerated until about 80km/h 6000rpm redline. Those cars high rpm sound is very irritating, like engine going to explode.

So shifted up to 3rd gear, and damn speed dropping again.

In the end gave up crawled at 50-60km/h until the top. Almost everyone was overtaking me. Except Kancil crawled together with me.

That time king of the road haven't release. Wonder what the scene would be? 1.5L should be fine. 1.3 probably crawl together.

How about Nissan?

Altima (Teana sister model at US) 2.5s gave me good impression. Never check the engine torque and CVT spec, but it handle 181hp just fine.

You know being a rental car, we don't pamper it. Seems no problem to take the abuse.

Lease price is same as Camry, if the transmission is really fragile like people claim, won't the leasing company just stick to Camry to save operating cost?

It's belt also.

When talking about Nissan CVTs in terms of reliability, all bets are off. The new Almera looks very promising, but it's the CVT that gives me pause (other than, you know, TanChong).

But when they work, Nissan has one of the best CVTs.

No point you floor your accelerator on 3rd and overload your engine. And revving till redline isn't gonna help when you are already way pass your torque limit.
I checked online for your model. Your engine model is 2E has a max torque RPM of 4200.

If it were me I would rev up to 4500 so that when it drops (as you shift to 3rd gear) it still has plenty of torque. And especially your engine has already aged, it has lost even more power.

Also modern engine of today cannot be compared with old carb engines even with the same capacity.
The Vvti system does help in low end and mid range torque.

In indo, they previously had a Daihatsu Xenia which only had the 1.0L "Viva" engine and manual gear. I can imagine how well the 1.0L can cope with a full load.
But surely Toyota engineers had designed the gear ratio for full load on to cope with a 1.0l engine.

Coming back to CVT, Cvt does wonders by optimising engine load and road condition all the time.
So while your car equipped with a regular 4AT will struggle up Genting, the Cvt equipped vehicle will climb up easier.

Gears multiply the engine torque to wheels.

I'm speaking from experience owning Cvt and manual trans cars. So I'm just curious why you say "going uphill with a Cvt with a long face"

Agree, CVT really excell in climbing hills smoothly as it can always switch to the best ratio on the go compare to manual or normal automatics which already set or fixed ratio.

Even with low engine torque, it can still climb, but it will climb slowly. When you multiply torque with gear ratio, you trade speed for torque. Unless you have plenty of torque to begin with before going through the transmission.

Hence the "going uphill with a long face".

I know very well how good CVT is with hill climbs, I've been advocating this advantage of the CVT in this forum for as long as I can remember. This is one of the reason I traded my 4AT for a CVT.

But it is not a miracle transmission, you don't get something for nothing, there is no free lunch.

This post has been edited by dares: Nov 11 2021, 04:24 PM

Haha, a lot of people don't understand how transmission work.

Gear is a torque and speed converter like you said trade speed for torque or trade torque for speed.

On speed reduction gears let's say 10:1. Output rotation speed is 10% of input rotation speed, but output torque is 10x of input torque.

But input/output horsepower power remains constant during the torque/speed conversion if we disregard the loss. Horsepower in layman term is how frequent we apply torque. Hence "work done per unit time". The stupid wall analogy is totally misleading.

This post has been edited by constant_weight: Nov 11 2021, 04:38 PM

I think he is referring to any low torque car as a general. With aggressive speed reduction gearing, car can always climb albeit very slowly.

Because torque and speed are inversely proportional to each other during the conversion.

10x multiplication of torque = 10x slower rotation at output. Thus the long face analogy, because of moving really realy slowly.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I was referring to the Avanza 7-seater with 137Nm of torque, not the CVT in particular.

But Avanza has never been known for high torque, so at least the new one with CVT will be abit better than 4AT, I guess.

This post has been edited by dares: Nov 11 2021, 05:32 PM

The biggest issue with CVT for me is the rubber band effect. It's just not intuitive for spirited driving and quick overtaking. Even with enough power, that split second lag is just.. uninspiring.