Manual versus CVT

[Samson]

I know this sounds stupid, but humor me OK!!! I seriously got in this arguement.

[Cody_300ex]

Manual by far.

[jab0400]

Survey says?? MANUAL ... Jeff

[bradley300]

sorry boys, but a cvt is a much more efficient tranny, to bad they are so darn bulky

[speeddemon105]

Frankly I don't want all the power in my engine going through a rubber band. I'll stick with a manual.

[bradley300]

the belts do need replaced more often, but they are only like 40 bucks, how much does it ost to replace a clutch?

cvt's are much more efficent at getting keeping the motor at the best rpm, not to mention, they are sooo much easier to ride

[nofear911]

I had to vote CVT for ease of use.

But unless it's a 700 Praire, I'd buy the manual version.
Just personal preference.

[Samson]

Originally posted by bradley300
cvt's are much more efficent at getting keeping the motor at the best rpm, not to mention, they are sooo much easier to ride

That's the part that confuses me. Can you even stall the engine to get it to peak torque assuming it's 4500-6000rpm's and still have a rider friendly machine? And if it holds that rpm throughout the cvt's range aren't your losing power? I mean instead of holding second gear like you would a manual, a continuously variable transmission would be increasing somewhere between 2nd and 3rd, right? Throwing off you gear ratio? I mean a manual pulls harder in 2nd than 3rd, so wouldn't any machine pull harder in a 2nd gear ratio than say 2nd-and-a-half?

Am I missing something? :confused:

I'm not even touching weight and belt slippage.

Thanks for your input!

[hondarider2006]

I don't know about all the gear ratios and stuff, but I would have to say manual. Riding around all day on a CVT just gets boring....shifting is a must:macho

[bradley300]

Originally posted by Samson
That's the part that confuses me. Can you even stall the engine to get it to peak torque assuming it's 4500-6000rpm's and still have a rider friendly machine? And if it holds that rpm throughout the cvt's range aren't your losing power? I mean instead of holding second gear like you would a manual, a continuously variable transmission would be increasing somewhere between 2nd and 3rd, right? Throwing off you gear ratio? I mean a manual pulls harder in 2nd than 3rd, so wouldn't any machine pull harder in a 2nd gear ratio than say 2nd-and-a-half?

Am I missing something? :confused:

I'm not even touching weight and belt slippage.

Thanks for your input!

easisest way i can explain it is imagine having an infinite number of gears on your 400ex that you dont have to shift thru yourself. with so many gears to choose, the motor can stay at peak power all the time, get it?

for racing=manual....ease of use with weekend warrior type=CVT

[RideRed04]

Are you guys serious about cvt being more efficent? There is a HUGE power loss through a cvt tranny. Example so you don't think I'm talking out of my butt: A scramber 400 makes about 36 hp at the crank, according to a dyno sheet I saw. According to FMF's dyno, at the wheels it is 18. That's huge. I know they are getting better, but a manual will always have better power transfer. I'll keep my manual trannies in everything I drive.

[bradley300]

well, i cant imagine how an 18hp scrambler tha wieghs 460 lbs can smoke my blaster wich also has around 18 horse and a 140 lbd wieght advantage.

i dont mean as in getting power to the ground, but using the power they have, they are a much better tranny for hillclimbing, flat tracking, etc. b/c the motor is always in the powerband. i would take a properly tuned cvt over a manual in my quads any day