The Official CVT vs Manual Transmission Thread
06-10-2010, 04:59 AM
#361
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 1,341
Us "one-percenters" (Per's number) can only buy so many cars in a lifetime. Let alone within only a portion of that time. And some of us tend to keep cars that we like a little longer than do those who couldn't care less and for whom a car is just a way to get from point A to point B. FWIW, 29% of my new cars have been MT Maximas, 40% if you only count the 30 years of the Maxima name.
I'm certain that early experiences and awareness has something to do with it, and most of my early practice and "learner permit driving" was on my Mom's 3-speed column shifted Chevy. Her younger sister drove stick, as did their aunt. All the men did, though my Dad did start driving automatics shortly after he was making the commute in and out of Cambridge, Mass. As far back as I can remember, all of us kids knew that there were these brief pauses in the sound when cars and trucks went from stopped to whatever speed, and we made the same sounds when playing. It's just the way vehicles worked. Guess I should consider myself fortunate to have had that exposure.
But it's still kind of a lousy development that all those people who never got or gave themselves the opportunity to learn to drive stick have effectively been given the authority to deny people like myself and a few others here their preference. At 3% it's like my "votes" don't even count.
I have to mostly agree with light where fuel economy and acceleration potential are concerned, though I think the CVT trades the need for low-ratio torque management in order to get there. I suspect that there is a trade-off between parasitic losses associated with performance requirements and overall efficiency that you ultimately have to choose a point between.
After that, you're pretty much relying on how well the programmers got their job done, and perhaps more importantly how well whatever logic algorithms they came up with match up with the way you as an individual tend to drive. Keeping in mind that not everybody drives like they're a test robot sentenced to making an endless series of EPA certification "drives", or like the guy in the next lane, or maybe even like they themselves did the day before in the same place, it'll suit some people better than it will others even on the efficiency and performance aspects.
I expect to have to use some careful throttle modulation in order to avoid excessive wheelspin on slippery surfaces or to keep the drive wheels from running wide under heavy-ish throttle on corner exit. I don't want to have to resort to it just to make the transmission do (or not do) something, which might not even be consistent with what I want the engine to be doing at that instant. I can look ahead in real time, anticipate what I will likely be doing, and operate my car accordingly; electronics can't do this for me.
Norm
I'm certain that early experiences and awareness has something to do with it, and most of my early practice and "learner permit driving" was on my Mom's 3-speed column shifted Chevy. Her younger sister drove stick, as did their aunt. All the men did, though my Dad did start driving automatics shortly after he was making the commute in and out of Cambridge, Mass. As far back as I can remember, all of us kids knew that there were these brief pauses in the sound when cars and trucks went from stopped to whatever speed, and we made the same sounds when playing. It's just the way vehicles worked. Guess I should consider myself fortunate to have had that exposure.
But it's still kind of a lousy development that all those people who never got or gave themselves the opportunity to learn to drive stick have effectively been given the authority to deny people like myself and a few others here their preference. At 3% it's like my "votes" don't even count.
I have to mostly agree with light where fuel economy and acceleration potential are concerned, though I think the CVT trades the need for low-ratio torque management in order to get there. I suspect that there is a trade-off between parasitic losses associated with performance requirements and overall efficiency that you ultimately have to choose a point between.
After that, you're pretty much relying on how well the programmers got their job done, and perhaps more importantly how well whatever logic algorithms they came up with match up with the way you as an individual tend to drive. Keeping in mind that not everybody drives like they're a test robot sentenced to making an endless series of EPA certification "drives", or like the guy in the next lane, or maybe even like they themselves did the day before in the same place, it'll suit some people better than it will others even on the efficiency and performance aspects.
I expect to have to use some careful throttle modulation in order to avoid excessive wheelspin on slippery surfaces or to keep the drive wheels from running wide under heavy-ish throttle on corner exit. I don't want to have to resort to it just to make the transmission do (or not do) something, which might not even be consistent with what I want the engine to be doing at that instant. I can look ahead in real time, anticipate what I will likely be doing, and operate my car accordingly; electronics can't do this for me.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; 06-10-2010 at 05:36 AM.
06-10-2010, 05:30 AM
#362
But you're also missing the fact that 99% of the American population learned to drive in their mother's station wagon or some similar car, which only came with an automatic. Most American drivers have never had the joy of experiencing a manual transmission and the control and the engagement with the driving experience it gives.
And a MT doesn't always translate to some kind of "engaged" driving experience. I learned to drive on a 1974 Pinto Pony with a 4-speed manual. Believe me, the transmission in that car did nothing for the driving experience.
That's a little broad, because most cars with CVT don't have "nuances" to explore. However, the CVT implementation in the Maxima is a surprising exception.
Last edited by Rochester; 06-10-2010 at 05:41 AM.
06-10-2010, 05:58 AM
#363
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 1,341
I looked into population distribution earlier this morning. Seems that for 2010 and by 5 year age groups it's pretty steady at 6% - 7% per group up to age 60, after which it drops at a rate of about 1% per group up to age 80. I'm not quite sure how that correlates to mostly AT exposure when young, though I think I recall seeing in Marks' Mechanical Engineers Handbook where AT fitment was above 60% by some point during the 1960's.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/20...-age-1950.html
Ford must have sourced a different MT for your Pinto experience. Our 8 year time with a 1972 2-liter Pinto was quite different (and that was the car that my wife learned stick on). Big jump between 1st and 2nd, but not much different from the 1-2 on todays 5 and 6 speed MTs. I drove an AT-equipped Pinto exactly once. You not think the 4-speed MT hurt the driving experience if you ever drove the 3AT version.
Norm
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/20...-age-1950.html
Ford must have sourced a different MT for your Pinto experience. Our 8 year time with a 1972 2-liter Pinto was quite different (and that was the car that my wife learned stick on). Big jump between 1st and 2nd, but not much different from the 1-2 on todays 5 and 6 speed MTs. I drove an AT-equipped Pinto exactly once. You not think the 4-speed MT hurt the driving experience if you ever drove the 3AT version.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; 06-10-2010 at 06:01 AM.
06-10-2010, 06:05 AM
#364
Ford must have sourced a different MT for your Pinto experience. Our 8 year time with a 1972 2-liter Pinto was quite different (and that was the car that my wife learned stick on). Big jump between 1st and 2nd, but little different from 1-2 on todays 5 and 6 speed MTs. I drove an AT-equipped Pinto exactly once. You think the 4-speed MT hurt the driving experience?
Took my road test in my sister's '78 Pinto Hatchback, with a MT. So I had the unique experience of having 2 Pintos in the family, with both transmission options.Based on that, I can say with confidence the Pinto was entirely inconsequential to my interest in cars, except maybe to inspire me to want something better. Which would be anything.
06-10-2010, 06:37 AM
#365
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 1,341
I wish I could post the only picture I have of our Pinto being driven enthusiastically.
Before letting this side discussion drop, I'll tell you that we bought the little car with clear beforehand intent that it would be modified extensively in the direction of the sport coupes of the day (think 240Z). I was buying the potential as much as I was the car itself. Engine, suspension, exhaust, fat radials on 13 x 7 wheels (this in 1972!) No street tire Z-car ever beat me at autocross, and I was a rank novice driver at that game.
As modified, it was a fun car well beyond Ford's intent. Bone stock on 6.00-13 tires and OE 13 x 4 wheels . . . well, like your experience suggests it did get you to where you were going, if free of much driving excitement.
Norm
Before letting this side discussion drop, I'll tell you that we bought the little car with clear beforehand intent that it would be modified extensively in the direction of the sport coupes of the day (think 240Z). I was buying the potential as much as I was the car itself. Engine, suspension, exhaust, fat radials on 13 x 7 wheels (this in 1972!) No street tire Z-car ever beat me at autocross, and I was a rank novice driver at that game.
As modified, it was a fun car well beyond Ford's intent. Bone stock on 6.00-13 tires and OE 13 x 4 wheels . . . well, like your experience suggests it did get you to where you were going, if free of much driving excitement.
Norm
06-10-2010, 06:58 AM
#366
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northen Ky, by Cincinnati
Posts: 213
Manual Driver Numbers
In reference to the statements that very few people buy manuals as a rationalization that car makers should not offer them anymore I have this comment.
It is not that people necessarily didn't want manuals, it was that car makers forced the situation by not offering manuals in the desirable cars. Long ago Honda & Toyota stopped offering manuals in Accords & Camry's, except for the base models. (To their credit Honda now offers it in their coupe v-6.) Most people want the higher end model so most people who would drive manual gave in an went automatic to get the car they wanted. Even Nissan, when they offer a manual in the Max, only allowed a black interior with it, I always wanted Tan but had to settle.
It's kind of like if every fast food joint in the country got together and said you can only have a hamburger if you get it plain and without fries or a drink or any other item. If you order a chicken sandwich you can get fries, drink, ice cream, additional sandwiches (except a burger), whatever, but if you order a burger that's all you get is 1 plain burger nothing else. Well, pretty soon burger sales would plummet and then the fast food joints would say, huh, look nobody wants hamburgers anymore so we will stop serving them. That is what I believe happened to manuals in this country.
Oh my gosh, and don't even get me started on the weak color choices/combo's we have anymore. Soooo many cars only offer 1 interior color choice anymore, how weak is that? I may have to go BMW just to be able to get what I want.
It is not that people necessarily didn't want manuals, it was that car makers forced the situation by not offering manuals in the desirable cars. Long ago Honda & Toyota stopped offering manuals in Accords & Camry's, except for the base models. (To their credit Honda now offers it in their coupe v-6.) Most people want the higher end model so most people who would drive manual gave in an went automatic to get the car they wanted. Even Nissan, when they offer a manual in the Max, only allowed a black interior with it, I always wanted Tan but had to settle.
It's kind of like if every fast food joint in the country got together and said you can only have a hamburger if you get it plain and without fries or a drink or any other item. If you order a chicken sandwich you can get fries, drink, ice cream, additional sandwiches (except a burger), whatever, but if you order a burger that's all you get is 1 plain burger nothing else. Well, pretty soon burger sales would plummet and then the fast food joints would say, huh, look nobody wants hamburgers anymore so we will stop serving them. That is what I believe happened to manuals in this country.
Oh my gosh, and don't even get me started on the weak color choices/combo's we have anymore. Soooo many cars only offer 1 interior color choice anymore, how weak is that? I may have to go BMW just to be able to get what I want.
06-10-2010, 07:24 AM
#368
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northen Ky, by Cincinnati
Posts: 213
Oh yeah
Trure, I forgot that Silver was also available. I guess my point is that I wanted Tan and they made a Tan leather interior but wouldn't put it in the '06 6-Speed or '01 5 speed that I owned. Stuff like that is aggravating when spending 25K+ on a car, I mean, they have the parts, they designed the seats, dash, everything, why not just offer it?
06-10-2010, 07:34 AM
#369
Trure, I forgot that Silver was also available. I guess my point is that I wanted Tan and they made a Tan leather interior but wouldn't put it in the '06 6-Speed or '01 5 speed that I owned. Stuff like that is aggravating when spending 25K+ on a car, I mean, they have the parts, they designed the seats, dash, everything, why not just offer it?
.......anyway, back to most hating on the CVT
06-10-2010, 07:48 AM
#370
Supporting Maxima.org Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northen Ky, by Cincinnati
Posts: 213
Seats
I agree, if you have the base cloth seats it is probably worth it to pay after market for leather in the color you want.
Not hating on the CVT, just hating that the car manufacturers are giving us a 1 size fits all solution.
I go in peace.
06-10-2010, 08:15 AM
#371
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 910
06-10-2010, 08:25 AM
#372
Lots of 4-door sport sedans with a MT in the 30K+ market...
That's what I find frustrating. I want the higher performance powertrain with a MT, and that's not always the case. Nissan used to be the manufacturer who supported that configuration (base model, high-performance engine, MT option), but no more.
- Infiniti G37S Sedan
- Lexus I250
- Acura TL-S
- Mazda 6
- Subaru WRX
- Volkswagon CC
That's what I find frustrating. I want the higher performance powertrain with a MT, and that's not always the case. Nissan used to be the manufacturer who supported that configuration (base model, high-performance engine, MT option), but no more.
06-10-2010, 09:12 AM
#373
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 1,341
If I told you that my wife has asked that very question once or twice over the years (couldn't you just swap a stick into it?), would you believe me?
Norm
06-10-2010, 09:45 AM
#374
...again...who is telling you these lies? or are you just assuming this all on your own to make a BMW comment?
06-10-2010, 09:47 PM
#375
Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 133
Far more important, you are missing the point that Nissan gave us a manual option of the Maxima for a qarter of a century, and nobody was buying it. By 2006, manuals had dropped to less than 3% of total Maximas sold. That is BRUTAL. With manuals available, dealers just wouldn't accept them from Nissan, because they usually had to let them go well below invoice just to get them off their lot. Despite the pro-manual feelings here, Nissan would have been very foolish to continue making something nobody was buying.
You are also NOT correct about the CVT being no more efficient than a manual or automatic. I am getting 30 MPG (sometimes 31) on open freeway trips with a 290 HP engine. I never reached 30 MPG in my many previous lower-powered Maximas with shifting trannies.
You are also misled about the shifting options on the 7th gen Maxima. The best performance is obtained by simply using 'D' (normal drive), because any other option has many of the same drawbacks as shifting trannies.
[qoute]You are also misled as to why Nissan went to a CVT. The impending higher government fuel efficiency requirements could not be obtained via manual or automatic trannies, and the fact the CVT weighs HALF as much as an automatic tranny helps even more to improve fuel efficiency. Of course the CVT has half the parts of an automatic tranny, which does make them more efficient to build.[/quote]
Come on, you can't possibly be that naive! The minimal difference in weight of the two transmissions has no appreciable impact on mileage in a 3,500 pound car. And by efficient, you mean cheaper, right?
The fact you consider your friend's CVT boring to drive simply tells us you have not yet mastered the many nuances of driving a CVT. Those who think it is simply dhifting to 'D' and mashing the gas are truly neophytes.
As to the fun of a manual? Depends on where you are driving. I found I was shifting my Datsun 200SX 5 speed manual approximately 800 times going to work, and 800 times returning home, and averaging around 15 MPH. Anyone who does that every workday of every week, and thinks it is 'fun' is truly a glutton for punishment.
Folks don't have to like the CVT, but they should take the time to find out the facts concerning CVTs before denigrating them.
Last edited by Per; 06-10-2010 at 10:03 PM.
06-10-2010, 10:01 PM
#376
Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 133
Then why do they build cars like the GT-R? Do you think even 1/100 of 1% of car buyers will buy a GT-R? You guys can say what you want, it was still an economy move by Nissan, just like they cheapened the Maxima by deleting dual sunshades, the cruise set light, the folding mirrors, and the heated rear seats.
06-10-2010, 10:11 PM
#377
i hear this same quote from prius owners from time to time. i sell auto insurance so i've insured a good deal of them over a period of time and at least half of prius owners say "i don't know what the big deal is...im only seeing 28-30 mpg. i should've just kept my honda accord instead of giving into claims made by others."
06-11-2010, 01:01 AM
#378
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
You keep saying nobody bought the manual, yet they were very hard to get, and the manuals I saw in 2004-2006 disappeared quickly. You statement don't agree with the facts.
This can be twisted any way you wish, but you and I both know the reason manuals were hard to find is because dealers didn't want them because they were hard to move. When they did have a manual, both my nearby dealers would usually let them go at cost or below in order to make room for a Maxima with an automatic, which lots of folks wanted to buy. To deny that is to deny reality.
Mileage varies with driving. However, I drive our freind's 2010 Maxima regularly--exactly the way I drive my 2006 manual, and the 2010 gets no better mileage than mine. The greater efficiency claimed by many has no real-world application.
As I suspected, you are driving the CVT just as you would an auto tranny, and getting the same efficiency as an auto tranny. But we have had several here on the ORG get OVER 30 MPH on long trips with this new Maxima CVT, and they never reached that level with their previous less-powerful Maximas.
You're misquoting me. All I said was I suspect very few use the manual shifting.
Yes, you are correct with that point.
[qoute]You are also misled as to why Nissan went to a CVT. The impending higher government fuel efficiency requirements could not be obtained via manual or automatic trannies, and the fact the CVT weighs HALF as much as an automatic tranny helps even more to improve fuel efficiency. Of course the CVT has half the parts of an automatic tranny, which does make them more efficient to build.
This can be twisted any way you wish, but you and I both know the reason manuals were hard to find is because dealers didn't want them because they were hard to move. When they did have a manual, both my nearby dealers would usually let them go at cost or below in order to make room for a Maxima with an automatic, which lots of folks wanted to buy. To deny that is to deny reality.
Mileage varies with driving. However, I drive our freind's 2010 Maxima regularly--exactly the way I drive my 2006 manual, and the 2010 gets no better mileage than mine. The greater efficiency claimed by many has no real-world application.
As I suspected, you are driving the CVT just as you would an auto tranny, and getting the same efficiency as an auto tranny. But we have had several here on the ORG get OVER 30 MPH on long trips with this new Maxima CVT, and they never reached that level with their previous less-powerful Maximas.
You're misquoting me. All I said was I suspect very few use the manual shifting.
Yes, you are correct with that point.
[qoute]You are also misled as to why Nissan went to a CVT. The impending higher government fuel efficiency requirements could not be obtained via manual or automatic trannies, and the fact the CVT weighs HALF as much as an automatic tranny helps even more to improve fuel efficiency. Of course the CVT has half the parts of an automatic tranny, which does make them more efficient to build.
Well, both Nissan and the auto mags said the CVT in the Maxima weighs half as much as the auto tranny used in the '06, and less weight helps both fuel efficiency and acceleration, and fewer parts mean more reliability. Your argument is with them, not with me.
What is there to master? Why in the world should I mess with the manual shift in an automatic when we're driving around town?
As far as what there is to master, I find I can control the RPMs exactly as I wish with this new Maxima CVT. More than that, to some extent, I can control BOTH the RPMs and speed at the same time, with no direct correlation, such we have in shifting trannies. I was never able to do that in almost sixty years of driving manuals and automatics, because those are stuck with fixed gear ratios. I enjoy working to make my CVT an extension of me, and enjoy doing that more than just mashing a clutch moving a gearshift to another notch. To each his own.
I have the luxury of being retired, so shifting is not a big deal. Besides, for small errands around town we use the Civic, which gets 40+ MPG.
Yes, being retired certainly helps one to avoid the worst traffic. Unfortunately, most folks still have to go to work each day, many during the worst rush hours.
Believe me, I have all the facts, and the CVT doesn't impress me. but our two female friends (60 and 55) enjoy their 2010 Maximas![/QUOTE]
Poor choice of words. That could easily be construed as hinting the CVT is a 'sissy' tranny. By such a statement, I suspect you don't have quite as many of the 'Facts' regarding the CVT as you might think.
The CVT is a technologically advanced tranny, with the promise of becoming even more efficient in both acceleration and fuel efficiency. By contrast, the manual is fast becoming a plaything for those who have no interest in moving to newer improved trannies because they enjoy the act of shifting gears. They have that right, but need to understand the number of folks still stuck in the manual era is fast dwindling, and those folks should not expect to find many manuals as we move into the future.
As I said before, you don't have to like the CVT. I easily understand why folks still tied to manuals are not usually enthusiastic about it. Until this newly redesigned 7th gen Maxima CVT, I certainly was not excited about the CVT. But I still say you are letting your fairly understandable preference of shifting trannies cloud your judgement of the CVT.
Last edited by lightonthehill; 06-11-2010 at 01:10 AM.
06-11-2010, 01:30 AM
#379
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
Us "one-percenters" (Per's number) can only buy so many cars in a lifetime. Let alone within only a portion of that time. And some of us tend to keep cars that we like a little longer than do those who couldn't care less and for whom a car is just a way to get from point A to point B. FWIW, 29% of my new cars have been MT Maximas, 40% if you only count the 30 years of the Maxima name.
I'm certain that early experiences and awareness has something to do with it, and most of my early practice and "learner permit driving" was on my Mom's 3-speed column shifted Chevy. Her younger sister drove stick, as did their aunt. All the men did, though my Dad did start driving automatics shortly after he was making the commute in and out of Cambridge, Mass. As far back as I can remember, all of us kids knew that there were these brief pauses in the sound when cars and trucks went from stopped to whatever speed, and we made the same sounds when playing. It's just the way vehicles worked. Guess I should consider myself fortunate to have had that exposure.
But it's still kind of a lousy development that all those people who never got or gave themselves the opportunity to learn to drive stick have effectively been given the authority to deny people like myself and a few others here their preference. At 3% it's like my "votes" don't even count.
I have to mostly agree with light where fuel economy and acceleration potential are concerned, though I think the CVT trades the need for low-ratio torque management in order to get there. I suspect that there is a trade-off between parasitic losses associated with performance requirements and overall efficiency that you ultimately have to choose a point between.
After that, you're pretty much relying on how well the programmers got their job done, and perhaps more importantly how well whatever logic algorithms they came up with match up with the way you as an individual tend to drive. Keeping in mind that not everybody drives like they're a test robot sentenced to making an endless series of EPA certification "drives", or like the guy in the next lane, or maybe even like they themselves did the day before in the same place, it'll suit some people better than it will others even on the efficiency and performance aspects.
I expect to have to use some careful throttle modulation in order to avoid excessive wheelspin on slippery surfaces or to keep the drive wheels from running wide under heavy-ish throttle on corner exit. I don't want to have to resort to it just to make the transmission do (or not do) something, which might not even be consistent with what I want the engine to be doing at that instant. I can look ahead in real time, anticipate what I will likely be doing, and operate my car accordingly; electronics can't do this for me.
Norm
I'm certain that early experiences and awareness has something to do with it, and most of my early practice and "learner permit driving" was on my Mom's 3-speed column shifted Chevy. Her younger sister drove stick, as did their aunt. All the men did, though my Dad did start driving automatics shortly after he was making the commute in and out of Cambridge, Mass. As far back as I can remember, all of us kids knew that there were these brief pauses in the sound when cars and trucks went from stopped to whatever speed, and we made the same sounds when playing. It's just the way vehicles worked. Guess I should consider myself fortunate to have had that exposure.
But it's still kind of a lousy development that all those people who never got or gave themselves the opportunity to learn to drive stick have effectively been given the authority to deny people like myself and a few others here their preference. At 3% it's like my "votes" don't even count.
I have to mostly agree with light where fuel economy and acceleration potential are concerned, though I think the CVT trades the need for low-ratio torque management in order to get there. I suspect that there is a trade-off between parasitic losses associated with performance requirements and overall efficiency that you ultimately have to choose a point between.
After that, you're pretty much relying on how well the programmers got their job done, and perhaps more importantly how well whatever logic algorithms they came up with match up with the way you as an individual tend to drive. Keeping in mind that not everybody drives like they're a test robot sentenced to making an endless series of EPA certification "drives", or like the guy in the next lane, or maybe even like they themselves did the day before in the same place, it'll suit some people better than it will others even on the efficiency and performance aspects.
I expect to have to use some careful throttle modulation in order to avoid excessive wheelspin on slippery surfaces or to keep the drive wheels from running wide under heavy-ish throttle on corner exit. I don't want to have to resort to it just to make the transmission do (or not do) something, which might not even be consistent with what I want the engine to be doing at that instant. I can look ahead in real time, anticipate what I will likely be doing, and operate my car accordingly; electronics can't do this for me.
Norm
As you mentioned, the 7th gen CVT is a tad muted at takeoff, and I think that may be Nissan's way of protecting their CVT when it is at its most vulnerable point. Can't say I blame then, now that they guarantee these CVTs for TEN YEARS.
I think there is a tendency here to lump all manual tranny drivers together. My experience is that there are manual tranny drivers who are lousy shifters, grinding the gears, etc. Then there are average manual tranny drivers who don't grind the gears, but who shift at somewhat strange RPM points, and don't know how to properly use engine compression for slowing down. And then there are manual tranny drivers who are extremely proficient shifters, and who have better control over the shifting process than any auto or CVT can offer.
It is that third group I have sympathy for. They have mastered a skill that offers great fun in driving, yet have fewer and fewer vehicles in which they can use that skill.
06-11-2010, 07:33 AM
#380
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 910
Then why do they build cars like the GT-R? Do you think even 1/100 of 1% of car buyers will buy a GT-R? You guys can say what you want, it was still an economy move by Nissan, just like they cheapened the Maxima by deleting dual sunshades, the cruise set light, the folding mirrors, and the heated rear seats.
People will shop around (well at least most people, looking at you light
) before they purchase the Maxima. They will make money on it. They will however lose money on it if they produce a select number of Manual Transmission optioned Maximas to please those few people like I mentioned. Nissan won't be willing to do that for the exact opposite reason they make the GT-R. Two different cars with two different markets and goals. So what if they cheapened up the Maxima a bit? By removing those things, and essentially taking things out of a package that I would not use, they have lessened the price of the vehicle which works out quite well for me.
You seem to be desperately grasping at straws here.
Last edited by Mreim769; 06-11-2010 at 07:49 AM.
06-11-2010, 07:42 AM
#381
Then why do they build cars like the GT-R? Do you think even 1/100 of 1% of car buyers will buy a GT-R? You guys can say what you want, it was still an economy move by Nissan, just like they cheapened the Maxima by deleting dual sunshades, the cruise set light, the folding mirrors, and the heated rear seats.
Anyway... all manufacturer decisions are geared towards maximizing profit, particularly a design consideration as significant as a transmission. There's debate on the details of that goal, but the underlying motivation is the same. Profit.
Step 1: Collect Underpants...
06-11-2010, 09:12 AM
#382
Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 133
Well, both Nissan and the auto mags said the CVT in the Maxima weighs half as much as the auto tranny used in the '06, and less weight helps both fuel efficiency and acceleration, and fewer parts mean more reliability. Your argument is with them, not with me.
OK, say the automatic weighs 200 pounds and the CVT 100 pounds. That is 2.8% weight savings. Couple that with the fact that weight only has any measureable impact when accelerating and climbing hills, and the 100 pounds will have far less than 1% impact on economy. When was the last time you noticed less fuel efficiency by having someone in the car with you? And you’re darn right my beef is with Nissan. I refuse to be taken in by car salesmen who care more about their stockholders than their customers! Nevertheless, I enjoy a good discussion on a civil level!
As far as what there is to master, I find I can control the RPMs exactly as I wish with this new Maxima CVT. More than that, to some extent, I can control BOTH the RPMs and speed at the same time, with no direct correlation, such we have in shifting trannies. I was never able to do that in almost sixty years of driving manuals and automatics, because those are stuck with fixed gear ratios. I enjoy working to make my CVT an extension of me, and enjoy doing that more than just mashing a clutch moving a gearshift to another notch. To each his own.
I happy you enjoy perfectly controlling RPMs while going to the grocery store or cruising the highway at 55 MPH (If you get 30 MPG+, I know you can’t be going any faster!). Me, I just drive.
I have the luxury of being retired, so shifting is not a big deal. Besides, for small errands around town we use the Civic, which gets 40+ MPG.
Yes, being retired certainly helps one to avoid the worst traffic. Unfortunately, most folks still have to go to work each day, many during the worst rush hours.
Believe me, I have all the facts, and the CVT doesn't impress me. but our two female friends (60 and 55) enjoy their 2010 Maximas!
Poor choice of words. That could easily be construed as hinting the CVT is a 'sissy' tranny. By such a statement, I suspect you don't have quite as many of the 'Facts' regarding the CVT as you might think.
The CVT is a technologically advanced tranny, with the promise of becoming even more efficient in both acceleration and fuel efficiency. By contrast, the manual is fast becoming a plaything for those who have no interest in moving to newer improved trannies because they enjoy the act of shifting gears. They have that right, but need to understand the number of folks still stuck in the manual era is fast dwindling, and those folks should not expect to find many manuals as we move into the future.
As I said before, you don't have to like the CVT. I easily understand why folks still tied to manuals are not usually enthusiastic about it. Until this newly redesigned 7th gen Maxima CVT, I certainly was not excited about the CVT. But I still say you are letting your fairly understandable preference of shifting trannies cloud your judgement of the CVT.
Keep in mind, fuel efficiency once in a set gear is dependent on the engine, not the transmission. Most fuel consumed while driving is during acceleration, and tehr ate of acceleration, and thus fuel economy is determined by the driver. The less HP used, the better fuel economy.
Last edited by Per; 06-11-2010 at 09:19 AM.
06-11-2010, 09:28 AM
#383
Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 133
That is a highly irrelevant point. The GT-R has a sole purpose of performance. When it comes to performance cars people aren't going to shop around, instead they will know what they want and how they want it. Besides they don't make the GT-R to make money. They make it because it is a pinnacle of technology right now and is more of a showcase. GASP it doesn't have a MANUAL transmisson! Blasphemy! Right?
You seem to be desperately grasping at straws here.
You seem to be desperately grasping at straws here.
And check you facts; the GT-R has a manual transmission with a dual-clutch automatic shift feature. You wouldn't want the people who buy the GT-R to have to shift on the way to the country club to show off their new purchase, would you?
06-11-2010, 09:36 AM
#384
That's kind of an important point. I'm just saying...
06-11-2010, 09:54 AM
#385
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 910
Actually it is very relevant. If they are willing to lose (lots) of money on the GT-R, why not build a few Manual tranny Maximas for the folks that want them. I'd even be willing to pay list, or close to it--which is about $7,000 more than folks pay for a top-of-the-line Maxima.
And check you facts; the GT-R has a manual transmission with a dual-clutch automatic shift feature. You wouldn't want the people who buy the GT-R to have to shift on the way to the country club to show off their new purchase, would you?
And check you facts; the GT-R has a manual transmission with a dual-clutch automatic shift feature. You wouldn't want the people who buy the GT-R to have to shift on the way to the country club to show off their new purchase, would you?
And again. This may be difficult to grasp but I will try again. The GT-R is not a vehicle for mass consumption like the Maxima. They can take the hit on the GT-R because of what it is and what it offers. The Maxima is a vehicle they need to make money on. If they offered a manual for the Maxima they would incure costs that would probably exceed that of the list price. Think of it in terms of the production line alone. They would have to stop production on the normal CVT Maxima and make about 3 or 4 Maximas with a 5 or 6 speed manual transmission with a clutch for those that want it and then resume production on the normal one again. You would also have to pay extra for the research for it as well because you can't just bolt on a new tranny and call it a day. This is all really simple stuff. And to be completely honest here, Nissan does not really care that you want a manual transmission on your Maxima. They would probably rather you moved on.
06-11-2010, 10:04 AM
#386
At one point, Nissan was intending to introduce a diesel in the 2010 Maxima, matched with a manual transmission so as to handle the torque. I bring this up, because in this case the choice of a MT wasn't market-driven.
Economic twists and turns have shelved that idea. Bummer.
Honestly, I don't know what some of you guys are arguing about anymore.
Economic twists and turns have shelved that idea. Bummer.
Honestly, I don't know what some of you guys are arguing about anymore.
06-11-2010, 10:58 AM
#387
I had a recent experience with the "technologically advanced transmission". I was driving my friend's 2010 onto a short freeway access road with a truck bearing down on us. I floored the accelerator, and the CVT took it's sweet time getting going. We finally got out of his way. In my Maxima, I would have slammed it into 2nd, and would have been gone!
06-11-2010, 06:34 PM
#389
Actually it is very relevant. If they are willing to lose (lots) of money on the GT-R, why not build a few Manual tranny Maximas for the folks that want them. I'd even be willing to pay list, or close to it--which is about $7,000 more than folks pay for a top-of-the-line Maxima.
And check you facts; the GT-R has a manual transmission with a dual-clutch automatic shift feature. You wouldn't want the people who buy the GT-R to have to shift on the way to the country club to show off their new purchase, would you?
And check you facts; the GT-R has a manual transmission with a dual-clutch automatic shift feature. You wouldn't want the people who buy the GT-R to have to shift on the way to the country club to show off their new purchase, would you?
All super cars now have sequential DSG type gear boxes it's not about having the pedal it's all about the ultimate performance and a human can't shift faster than the new transmissions. Nothing to do with country clubs...
06-11-2010, 10:48 PM
#390
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: a meadow south of Atlanta
Posts: 8,143
[FONT=Verdana]
I had a recent experience with the "technologically advanced transmission". I was driving my friend's 2010 onto a short freeway access road with a truck bearing down on us. I floored the accelerator, and the CVT took it's sweet time getting going. We finally got out of his way. In my Maxima, I would have slammed it into 2nd, and would have been gone!
I had a recent experience with the "technologically advanced transmission". I was driving my friend's 2010 onto a short freeway access road with a truck bearing down on us. I floored the accelerator, and the CVT took it's sweet time getting going. We finally got out of his way. In my Maxima, I would have slammed it into 2nd, and would have been gone!
Just another example of a person not really familiar with this newly redesigned CVT. This CVT can be operated in four different ways, and several offer us the option of enabling us to make the CVT instantly shift to a simulated gear that pours on the quick burst of power you needed in that situation.
But it is easy to understand why someone not experienced in driving the CVT would miss this. There are options/functions with this CVT I haven't yet fully mastered. It is really a very impressive tranny.
06-13-2010, 03:52 PM
#392
I had a recent experience with the "technologically advanced transmission". I was driving my friend's 2010 onto a short freeway access road with a truck bearing down on us. I floored the accelerator, and the CVT took it's sweet time getting going. We finally got out of his way. In my Maxima, I would have slammed it into 2nd, and would have been gone!
The 7th Gen is just as fast as the 6th, 5th and 4th Gen, with the exception of added weight, your reply made me laugh
06-13-2010, 03:55 PM
#393
After reading that quote, Im calling BS, your full of it, you have never driven the car, you think you have but you have not, your the same as kids on bimmer forums talking about how they put an intake on their 325 and because they have a 6speed manual, blew the doors off an M3, you can't read about cars, you have to experience them and drive them, and anyone who has a 7th Gen Maxima, knows on a roll getting on it, the car takes off.
The 7th Gen is just as fast as the 6th, 5th and 4th Gen, with the exception of added weight, your reply made me laugh
The 7th Gen is just as fast as the 6th, 5th and 4th Gen, with the exception of added weight, your reply made me laugh
06-13-2010, 04:45 PM
#394
Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 133
After reading that quote, Im calling BS, your full of it, you have never driven the car, you think you have but you have not, your the same as kids on bimmer forums talking about how they put an intake on their 325 and because they have a 6speed manual, blew the doors off an M3, you can't read about cars, you have to experience them and drive them, and anyone who has a 7th Gen Maxima, knows on a roll getting on it, the car takes off.
The 7th Gen is just as fast as the 6th, 5th and 4th Gen, with the exception of added weight, your reply made me laugh
The 7th Gen is just as fast as the 6th, 5th and 4th Gen, with the exception of added weight, your reply made me laugh
06-13-2010, 04:52 PM
#395
Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 133
Nissan isn't losing one cent on the GT-R. I have institutional knowledge of this fact.
All super cars now have sequential DSG type gear boxes it's not about having the pedal it's all about the ultimate performance and a human can't shift faster than the new transmissions. Nothing to do with country clubs...
All super cars now have sequential DSG type gear boxes it's not about having the pedal it's all about the ultimate performance and a human can't shift faster than the new transmissions. Nothing to do with country clubs...
06-13-2010, 05:05 PM
#396
I don't take kindly to someone calling me a liar! Why don't you try to tell me that to my face sometime! I drive my friend's 2010 Maxima on a regular basis, serial number 1N4AA5AP1AC804775, and I related that incidence from my own experience! And I demand an apology!
"don't take kindly..." You do know that Gunsmoke has been off the air for decades, right?
You got your britches all bunched up for nuttin', dag nab it.
06-13-2010, 05:08 PM
#397
Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 133
So we are arguing semantics now? I was implying a 5 or 6 speed manual transmission with a clutch.
And again. This may be difficult to grasp but I will try again. The GT-R is not a vehicle for mass consumption like the Maxima. They can take the hit on the GT-R because of what it is and what it offers. The Maxima is a vehicle they need to make money on. If they offered a manual for the Maxima they would incure costs that would probably exceed that of the list price. Think of it in terms of the production line alone. They would have to stop production on the normal CVT Maxima and make about 3 or 4 Maximas with a 5 or 6 speed manual transmission with a clutch for those that want it and then resume production on the normal one again.
And again. This may be difficult to grasp but I will try again. The GT-R is not a vehicle for mass consumption like the Maxima. They can take the hit on the GT-R because of what it is and what it offers. The Maxima is a vehicle they need to make money on. If they offered a manual for the Maxima they would incure costs that would probably exceed that of the list price. Think of it in terms of the production line alone. They would have to stop production on the normal CVT Maxima and make about 3 or 4 Maximas with a 5 or 6 speed manual transmission with a clutch for those that want it and then resume production on the normal one again.
You would also have to pay extra for the research for it as well because you can't just bolt on a new tranny and call it a day. This is all really simple stuff.
And to be completely honest here, Nissan does not really care that you want a manual transmission on your Maxima. They would probably rather you moved on.
06-13-2010, 05:37 PM
#398
Love my '09
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,013
Folks, As a reminder. This thread isn't actively moderated except for road racing, spammers and gross violations of the forum rules. It's like the wild west in here and it's a place for folks to blow off steam, ***** and whine about things we as consumers aren't going to be able to fix. DO not post in here if you don't have on your Flame Retardant Nomex fire suit on.
Just because it's allowed to blow off steam in this ONE thread, do NOT assume that moderators aren't watching and don't assume that 3/4 of the behavior in this thread is allowed in any other posting on this forum.
Ok, back to bashing CVT's, Manual transmissions, Automatics, Fred Flintstone transmissions, etc.
Just because it's allowed to blow off steam in this ONE thread, do NOT assume that moderators aren't watching and don't assume that 3/4 of the behavior in this thread is allowed in any other posting on this forum.
Ok, back to bashing CVT's, Manual transmissions, Automatics, Fred Flintstone transmissions, etc.
06-13-2010, 09:58 PM
#399
I hate math but if you want to do a financial analysis knock yourself out, Nissan is a public corporation all of their financial statements are available online for the public and investors to read.
06-13-2010, 10:09 PM
#400
I had a chance to go through the Toyota Tundra factory here in San Antonio. Like in any modern car factory, vehicles with different engines and other optional items is intermingled on the line. They don't run V-6s, then small V-8s and then big V-8s. They even have started to intermingle Tacomas on the same production line, so running a few manual transmissions in the Maxima would be no problem from a production standpoint.
Actually, I suspect the 6th gen tranny would handle the 7th gen engine with no problem, so it would be really simple stuff to make a manual-shift 7th gen Maxima.
You got that one right! And that is my beef with Nissan!
Actually, I suspect the 6th gen tranny would handle the 7th gen engine with no problem, so it would be really simple stuff to make a manual-shift 7th gen Maxima.
You got that one right! And that is my beef with Nissan!
The one thing that few people seem to forget on this forum is that Nissan is constantly evolving, changing, and reinventing itself. Just because in 2002 you could get a 6 speed Maxima doesn't mean it will be something long lived forever.
Honestly I always thought it was a joke to put a 5 or 6 speed in a FWD V6 powered car. The maxima was marketed as a performance car back in the day but that was really a lot of hype. Yes it was quick but not what you would really call a barn stormer or a decent track car. It was always too heavy for autox and that FWD was a killer at the drag strip for it to be taken seriously. Oh and don't get me started with all of the manual transmission issues...
The Maxima is a nice daily driver, reliable, quick and quiet, it will never be this imaginary Porsche killer you seem to be fantasying about. Sounds like to me you need to get a Z, GT-R or leave Nissan and get a life because the Maxima is what it is and complaining about a CVT in a FWD car that weighs over 3500 lbs well that is just plain silly.