CVT (Sport) or MT which is faster?

SCharged · Aug 22, 2007, 12:17 PM

So?? It's a question I had before buying, but went with the manual.

Anyone has an answer now?? I think the MT is quicker (both acceleration and top speed)

krynsky · Aug 22, 2007, 12:21 PM

It can be quicker because you get to keep the car in the gear you want and keep the RPM's as high as you want. Of course if you don't know how to drive a stick very well then your performance may vary

**Blacksheepdj** · Aug 22, 2007, 12:32 PM

Moved to Transmission forum.

Answer - A good driver will be faster in manual. A bad driver will be faster in automatic (because you just mash the gas and go). As long as you know how to shift, the manual will always be faster. The CVT is about comfort and smoothness, not rapid acceleration.

If you mean the "manual" mode of the CVT (paddle shifters and all that), the MT car will still be faster (just due to gearing).

Rabidhamster · Aug 22, 2007, 01:03 PM

I really hope your speaking only on the lancers :P

cause the auto in my F100 will outshift any human on a stick :P (ofcourse a 5.0 with a couple bolt ons and a T5 will outrun it with it's current motor right now

breakage sucks!!! )

**Blacksheepdj** · Aug 22, 2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rabidhamster

I really hope your speaking only on the lancers :P

Um, yes.

The CVT in the Lancer has that stereotypical "slushbox with no go" feeling that most people associate with AT.

evo_soul · Aug 22, 2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blacksheepdj

Moved to Transmission forum.

Answer - A good driver will be faster in manual. A bad driver will be faster in automatic (because you just mash the gas and go). As long as you know how to shift, the manual will always be faster. The CVT is about comfort and smoothness, not rapid acceleration.

If you mean the "manual" mode of the CVT (paddle shifters and all that), the MT car will still be faster (just due to gearing).

WRONG WRONG about the CVT.

MANUAL for Safe Non abusive drivers, CVT for people who want to break it and probably get it replaced under warranty

MUHAAHAH take it to the track and beat the hell out of it

Joking...

Blacksheep is right

Mark Hubley · Aug 28, 2007, 01:57 PM

First off, I hate driving cars that have only two pedals for the feet. To me, it is just not much fun to drive a car with any sort of automatic or "sequential manual" transmission. Perhaps if I had to commute through heavy traffic every day I would change my mind, but I don't, and I love using a clutch pedal and shifting my own gears. I like the fact that in my Lancer or my Boxster I can be cruising at 60 in 5th, step on the clutch, go straight to 3rd, and step on the gas. I don't need to worry about when the car will shift or how many gears I have to pop through. My hand knows exactly where to go. (Granted, I have missed a shift on occasion, but that's part of the fun

.)

Anyway, that being said, here are some thoughts I'll add to this thread. I'm not sure how some of this will apply to CVT's, but maybe someone else can fill in the gaps . . .

In the past, a car with a manual tranny would be faster than an auto (assuming a competent driver). There are two basic reasons:
1. In the past (say the 80's), the typical manual would have five gears and many auto trannys would have only three or four. More gears typically means you can get more torque to the rear wheels with shorter gear ratios at the lower end. More torque at the rear wheels obviously leads to better acceleration. (More gears also means you can get a taller top gear, which would lead to improved gas mileage as well, particularly on highways.)
2. In the past, auto transmissions were pretty slow and sloppy at executing shifts. When I was a teenager I could execute a shift faster in my old manual VW Beetle than what the auto would do in my mother's Buick Skylark.

In modern cars (at least those made by some manufacturers) things have changed:
1. Many automatic transmissions offer as many gear ratios as their sister cars with manuals (e.g., six-speed manual or six-speed auto). Thus, the advantage of gear ratios (for acceleration, top speed, or mileage) is no longer really an issue. I believe it is Lexus that touts an eight-speed automatic (which I think is silly). A CVT has an "infinite" array of gear ratios, so a CVT with proper computer control should have the advantage over a manual in this respect.
Any comments???
2. Various modern automatic or sequential manual transmissions can shift gears faster than a person can shift a manual. Ferrari claims the gearbox in the F430 shifts in less than 150 milliseconds from the time you pull the paddle to the time the new gear is engaged. That's faster than I can go from stepping on the clutch to going in the new gear in either of my cars, and probably faster than your typically professional race driver. Some new autos (Acura, BMW M6, maybe Ferrari and Porsche?) will even blip the throttle to boost revs during a downshift. This prevents the motor from slowing the car during a downshift, basically mimicking the heel-toe technique that racers use in a car with a manual.
I'm not sure how the issue of 'speed of shifting' applies to the Lancer's CVT either in auto or manual mode. It seems to me that in theory during auto mode shifting happens continuously and the time it takes to shift should not be an issue. How fast does a "shift" occur in manual mode?
Again, any comments???

Anyway, Ferrari race cars (e.g., those used in ALMS) use paddle-shift sequentials. I assume this means that Ferrari figures their automatic cars are faster than their manuals, even with professional drivers. Porsche's stated 0-60 times are lower for their "tiptronic" cars than their cars with manuals. I believe I remember reading that Walter Rohrl (long-time factory driver for Porsche) says he can drive the tiptronic 911 Turbo faster than its manual counterpart.

So, modern automatics (and I assume this includes CVT's) certainly have the potential to be faster than manuals. The question, then is how many car makers are developing their automatic transmissions to their potentials? My wife and I own two vehicles with automatic trannys: a '97 Suburban and an '03 Toyota Tacoma. Both are pigs with horrible shifting. I imagine that a current Chevy Cobalt would similarly suck. I'd love to test drive a paddle-shift Ferrari, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Has Mitsu done with the CVT what could be done? It seems to me the potential to get better performance from the CVT compared to the manual is there, (but I'll stick with my three pedals regardless

).

focus · Sep 7, 2007, 05:19 PM

A DSG VW or Audi is faster than a manual. Other than that not many.

Mark Hubley · Sep 7, 2007, 07:25 PM

An article in Automobile magazine says that the paddle-shift tranny in the Ferrari F430 is now down to 60 milliseconds. Sure wish I could test that out myself!

jedilancer · Sep 7, 2007, 08:38 PM

I think a manual with the right kind of driver is faster but due to unfortunate circumstances i am going to be gettin a 08 GTS CVT lancer becuase i shouldnt use my left leg too much ne more. if we can get someone with a pigy back ecu to reduce the **** times we will be equal not one faster than the other. that is what i would like to see.

David Kelly · Sep 7, 2007, 11:59 PM

from my understanding, the manual is currently faster because, even though the sport mode autos shifts are performed much smoother and faster, the timing of the shift is still ultimately controlled by the vehicle, meaning that the driver will not be able to take risks with it or push it harder than the safety settings programmed in to the car will allow.

i think it is kind of like a boost controller for a turbo- it is capable of being faster and more powerful, but it would be unsafe for an unmodified vehicle to operate under these conditions so it is prevented.

i believe the stock gts with the CVT could be driven much harder than the programming will allow. if this could be reprogrammed, however, and if the CVT proves hardy enough to handle it, i think it would be faster than the manual because of its quick response time, smoothness, and 6th gear.

stock, the manual is faster.

chino ali · Sep 8, 2007, 06:59 AM

I think the manual is faster.
Marks comments leaves you with food for thought on why a CVT should perform better.
I don't really know if Mitsubishi made the CVT with superior performance over their manual.
I personally bought if for comfort.
But when you look at AUDI's DSG which utilizes paddle shifters, kind of makes you more curious. But CVT and DSG are two complete different styles of engineering.
Isn't it?
Nissan has tuned their CVT for more performance. The real question is whether or not Mitsubishi's CVT can be tuned since the gear ratios are infinite.

**Blacksheepdj** · Sep 8, 2007, 07:28 AM

In the end, the manual is faster. It's not about CVT shifting or programming. It's about the fact that the CVT is still just an automatic transmission. Same slow takeoff as an auto, same worthless "first gear" slowness, etc.

Nothing will change the fact that the CVT is just an AT that you have control over. It'll never be as fast as an MT with gears that just go.

DoHBoY · Sep 10, 2007, 11:39 AM

Black just sum'd it up. MT is a hell of alot faster due to the pure and simple fact that you can LAUNCH. you dont have to start first gear at 1.5k rpms, you can get up and go from the start and instantly be ahead by alot.

Now, if both cars went from a roll at say 20mph, the CVT would pull ahead because of faster shifts. Hell, my GTS can keep pace with a mustang from a roll, it was only after i let off that he finally pulled ahead. I also had a corolla S pull up on me, that was hilarious!

From a start, CVT sucks, it would be nice if we had way to launch and it would be golden, but because the car constantly adjusts itself and doesnt have sec physical gears it will just hesitate and then go like normal.

Start: MT
Roll: CVT

evo_soul · Sep 10, 2007, 12:23 PM

something freaky happend with my car the other day that i cant explain but I hope and I swear I really hope that what ever is causing the CVT to be conservative can be turned off.

I have tried late late last night to recreate it but i am going to make some calls to see if there is such a thing.

basically I some how started the car in neutral which isnt or shouldnt be possible. anyways make a long story short, driving in D mode, the car did not drive below 2000km even lightly touching the gas. and when it was pulling away it just stayed in the power zone. lol

I did not have my camera but if i can recreate it I will so record this mother.
If this works, I challange any 5 speed to a ummm virtual drag? lol

Anyways I cant remember if I tried to start the car in neutral and got nothing and switched it to park and then cranked it again, i dont know. but when my girlfriend gets home with the car from shopping, i am going to burn a whole lot of gas.

has anyone else had anything simililar ?

message me directly.

why , oh why did i turn off the car