CVT vs Selespeed

[Keith Walker <100662.3423@domain.elided>]

Hi

>>Not Audi's, not on any of those counts: better fuel
economy than a manual<<

Automatic cars can fiddle things a bit for the official
fuel economy tests. Normally the throttle and gears
are specified, but with an auto they have to use the
default change up positions for the chosen amount
of throttle. Easy to make the car perform well for
government fuel consumption tests when compared
to a manual.

>>, lower overall drivetrain weight
due to the lack of a torque converter,<<

Selespeed does not use a torque converter. It is a
manual gearbox and clutch, but without a direct
mechanical control for the driver to play with
to operate these items. Far better than a slush
box IF you like to play tunes with the gears.

There have been other odd transmissions. Saab,
Fiat and Renault have all sold cars in Europe over
the last few years with a manual gearbox but
an automatically controlled clutch (NOT a torque
converter or a centrefugal clutch). These have just
use sensors to determine what the driver is trying
to do, and then a hydraulic cylinder to operate the
clutch. Even Ferrari tried it on a version of the
Mondial in the '80s.

>> better
acceleration by 0.1 sec to 60 mph, and currently in
use in vehicles with 220 bhp/221 ft/lb of torque (the
most powerful engine available in their FWD range;
Multitronic is not yet available with quattro).<<

Again I presume you are comparing the CVT Audi
with the Tiptronic Audi, and the Tiptronic box is
just a slush box complete with torque converter
but with an easy form of override to select the
gear you want.Basically all the performance disadvantges
of an auto with only a nominal amount of control
to make up for it. Certainly nothing like the Selespeed
transmission.

>>can't quite get a grip on the price issue, but in the
US it's the cheapest powertrain option -- $700 less
than the 6-speed quattro, and quite a bit cheaper than
the Tiptronic quattro.<<

Cannot remember the figures, but an auto box costs
substantially more than a manual box to make. The
Selespeed transmission is about half way in cost between
a conventional auto and a manual

>>Given the 1300's love of high revs, that would
have been a wonderful pairing; I would love to drive
such a vehicle.<<

My experience with CVT boxes has mainly been in
small cars. One was so slow we thought there was
a serious mechanical problem (a Lancia Y10), the
other just confirmed how dog slow small CVT
boxed cars are (a Fiat Punto). Both revved hard,
but went nowhere. They are also the reason we
landed up buy a Renault Clio with a clutchless
manual transmission.

Although you may land up revving the engine, you
loose all feeling of throttle response, and it would
certainly make adjusting the throttle used while
cornering an unpleasant idea.

All the best

Keith

--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided