# GM To Fit CVTs To Many Models by 2019



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

*GM To Fit CVTs To Many Car Models For Higher Fuel Economy

*General Motors is in the late stages of developing an in-house continuously variable transmission for use around the world to meet tightening fuel-economy and carbon- dioxide emissions regulations.

Details on the CVT are limited, but sources tell WardsAuto it will find its way into several “high-volume” products by 2019, including models in the U.S., and it will mate to GM’s new family of small-displacement 3-cyl. and 4-cyl. engines rolling out this year.

See:


GM Tooling Up CVT for Fuel-Economy Play | Auto Makers content from WardsAuto
GM To Fit CVTs To Many Car Models For Higher Fuel Economy



​


----------



## TDCruze (Sep 26, 2014)

Interesting. I guess they are coming whether we like them or not!


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

CVTs are freaking awful to drive.


----------



## S-Fitz (Jul 16, 2012)

I'm cool with this. CVT for us laymen and a stick for the people who want to shift. I'm pretty impartial to the drive train as long as it responds in a predictable manner. I still consider myself an enthusiast. Trying flyweights of different masses in a variator is a lot of fun. I know a car's CVT does not use flyweights, but not all CVT's suck. CVT's can be pretty awesome. :brave:


----------



## neirfin (Oct 18, 2012)

I have yet to hear anyone I know say anything good about their CVT. Only bad things regardless of manufacturer. I will stick to my stick, tyvm.


----------



## ChevyGuy (Dec 13, 2014)

It may be time to start pushing for better traffic light synchronization. The stop/start kills your MPG regardless of what you drive. I've got a nice pair of roads. Each is one-way in a out-n-back pairing. One is very well timed (too well), the other is just average. I need to take a few laps and see what readings I get. It irks me to see you guys talk about your mileage and I'm only getting 21 MPG or so. But then my average speed is only 15 MPH.....


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Lesson learned, don't buy the first generation of these CVTs.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Jim Frye said:


> Lesson learned, don't buy the first generation of these CVTs.


Or a Nissan.

They started it - and STILL can't get it right.


----------



## Slammed2014Eco (Feb 13, 2014)

jblackburn said:


> Or a Nissan.
> 
> They started it - and STILL can't get it right.


Subaru is doing it too in the new legacys @@


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

The Honda Accord cvt behaves well. Still don't want one


Sent from the sexy electrician


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Slammed2014Eco said:


> Subaru is doing it too in the new legacys @@


Subarus recent models (Legacy, Impreza) look about as boring as Toyotas anyway, so the CVT seems suiting.

Yeah, Honda's going the way of CVTs too. Acura actually has a very good DCT 8-speed automatic that employs a torque converter as well, but it'll probably never make it into Hondas.


----------



## MOTO13 (Mar 26, 2014)

Isn't a CVT similar in its basic operation to a snowmobile?


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

This is the second year the Chevy Spark gets a CVT. Only the 2013 Spark got a 4 speed auto, the switch to a CVT gained 2MPG city and 2MPG hwy rating. The manual transmission spark only gets 1MPG better in the city, otherwise it matches the CVT MPG. Now if only GM would replace that crappy 1.2L engine with something to compete with the 1.0L 3 cylinder Ecoboost fiesta.

From left to right on link below, 15 manual spark, 15 CVT spark, 13 4speed auto spark: 
Compare Side-by-Side


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

In my opinion, the VAST majority of people would be better served by a CVT than a traditional automatic. Most people would be oblivious to the change, and these are the folks he CVT is targeted at.

Obviously, the population on a car forum is skewed heavily towards the enthusiast type owner, so a poll here will not reflect that.

A CVT that operated properly (!) is nothing to be worried about and can save a TON of fuel. In my opinion, a CVT has the potential to save more fuel than the EPA standard tests will indicate, similar to how an eco-minded driver can operate a manual transmission and beat EPA targets.

I had a Nissan Altima rental for a trip to Boston last year and was very impressed by the mileage I got in such a big car. When driving lightly around town at low speeds, the CVT would keep engine RPM below 1500 most of the time. Compare that to a Cruze with the 6 speed auto that won't let the engine get much below 1500 RPM at any time!

From a pure geekery perspective, CVTs have a mechanical transmission efficiency approaching that of a manual transmission along with the ease of use of an automatic, added to infinite ratios that can keep the engine in a highly efficient operating range much more consistently.

The Altima had a few drivability quirks, no doubt, and overall was likely a little less refined than an average automatic, but 90% of those issues are probably related to programming and software rather than the hardware of the transmission itself.

As long as the CVT doesn't displace the manuals I'm all for them. Hopefully GM can get them calibrated well so they're not a pita to drive.


----------



## Slammed2014Eco (Feb 13, 2014)

^ True, When me and my wife were in California last year we had an altima as well. We went from LA to San Fran to Monteray back to LA got roughly 33 mpg round trip and only filled up once


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I think if Toyota would DI their 2.5 I4, they'd be right there with Accord/Altima without using a CVT. While I don't particularly like the engine in our Toyota (it's much less refined than Honda's), it does have a good amount of low-end torque, and shifts are usually handed off appropriately at sub-2000 RPM to make use of the engine's power curve. They have a proven DI technology using both port and DI injectors that keeps intake valves from carboning up, but I think it's too expensive to implement on their 4 cyl models.

The Accord's not BAD for a CVT, but I still don't like the way it drives. Stick Accord Sport? Oh heck yes, car instantly improved.

Cannot stand the Altima or Maxima. Constantly sounds like it's bogging the engine, acceleration is jerky, and the transmission is slow to respond and feels connected by a rubber band. No steering feedback whatsoever, noisy interior (2014 model, 15 might be better), and feels like driving a boat.

I think Hyundai and Ford will both resist going the CVT route as long as possible. Both the Fusion and Sonata have pretty decent and responsive powertrains.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

J, totally agree the Altima itself is an underwhelming heap of a car. I was referring just to its use of a CVT which, from a fuel economy perspective, was quite good and much better than I thought it would be.

To be fair, I didn't ask it to do anything remotely resembling sporty driving... the chassis made it quite clear I'd be wasting my time.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Oh! The Eco button/mode!

I think these will start becoming a huge thing on cars in the near future - in fact, I think I remember seeing one on the 2016 Cruze spy photos. Dull throttle response, keep RPMs to a minimum, basically ruin any driving experience for MPG. For those drivers that complain that they can never get EPA MPG numbers because they leave me in the dust at stoplights.

Had one on a 2013 Sonata rental. Car felt like a slug - found the button, turned it off, and was actually quite impressed by the powertrain from that point on. Only got 22 MPG though, because everyone knows rental car = race car.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Blue Angel said:


> I had a Nissan Altima rental for a trip to Boston last year and was very impressed by the mileage I got in such a big car. When driving lightly around town at low speeds, the CVT would keep engine RPM below 1500 most of the time. Compare that to a Cruze with the 6 speed auto that won't let the engine get much below 1500 RPM at any time!


I have never driven a CVT but can imagine it would be infinitely better in the city vs a 6 speed auto. I can name a few exact speeds I'm cruising along at less than 1500RPM with the auto cruze, but that's the problem with gears its to small of a speed range. I slow down a few MPH I need to downshift or speed up a few I need to upshift. With a CVT It seems I could go the speed I need to without constantly monitoring my speed vs downshift points and traffic speed. 

In city driving I prefer my old 4 speed auto to a 6 speed. Sure I can get my cruze auto to shift like butter at around 2K RPM with a light foot, but that's the thing it seems to ALWAYS be shifting compared to a 4 speed. With a 4 speed even in stop and go traffic you use 3 gears, with the cruze 6 speed you use 5 gears from 0-30mph!!! 

In the same distance across town my old 4 speed auto car shifted 12 times, the cruze 6 speed auto shifts 21 times! That is over a 1-2 mile distance, at that rate surprised these trans don't implode well before 100K. Would think shifting twice as often would contribute to more wear.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

jblackburn said:


> Oh! The Eco button/mode!


Both the GMC terrain my brother has owned have a ECO button. Asked him once if he ever tried it without the ECO button pressed, he said no. I assumed it was just a change in transmission programming & asked him to try it sometime. He finally did and was shocked he got better MPG with the **** button off. Since he has a 2.4L terrain I can only assume forcing the trans to shift at a low RPM was keeping it under acceleration for longer. 

I like the idea of an ECO button, it just needs to be better thought out. Better yet give me a performance button so the trans knows to hold lower gears longer and downshift sooner on braking for improved driveability in corners.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> I like the idea of an ECO button, it just needs to be better thought out. Better yet give me a performance button so the trans knows to hold lower gears longer and downshift sooner on braking for improved driveability in corners.


My 1998 car had both modes for the transmission (Econ/Sport). The transmission programming/torque from the turbo engine was perfect enough in Econ mode that I hated Sport mode unless I was absolutely flogging the car for everything it had. 

Back then, "Econ" wasn't really any sort of economy mode, though. It was more like a normal drive mode that shifted at 3K most times. 

Still, having separate modes is IMO a lot better than this "learning" transmission crap.


----------



## Blue Angel (Feb 18, 2011)

spacedout said:


> Would think shifting twice as often would contribute to more wear.


Twice as often, but 50% more gears. Only 33% more shifts per gear.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Still, having separate modes is IMO a lot better than this "learning" transmission crap.


Oh yeah!. My '92 Saturn SC had a dual mode switch on the transmission, Normal and Performance. And it learned your habits in each also. SWMBO drove in Normal mode, and I in Performance mode. It was like two different cars. That transaxle was a solid design. At 200K miles, it would still spin the tires on the 1 - 2 shift as well as from a dead stop. The only maintenance on it was Mobil1 ATF every 30K miles and new spin-on transmission fluid filter, apparently, something was lost in the GM coup of Saturn.


----------



## Dvan5693 (Jul 8, 2014)

MOTO13 said:


> Isn't a CVT similar in its basic operation to a snowmobile?


Same thing lol.


----------

