+1

 

My Lancer had a CVT. It had 80k when we got rid of it and it had no CVT problems, and that car had the **** beaten out of it before I got it. With that said, I hate CVT's and the day Ford trucks come with them is the day I switch brands. I hate the way they manage torque with the rubber band feeling, I hate the way they hold RPM's to get to speed, and I hate the fact that they are not proven.

 

I could be wrong but CVT could not handle towing heavy weight. Anyone confirm this?

 

I can't speak to CVTs in trucks but... I have a 2008 CanAm Outlander 400. That little beoch tows ridiculously heavy loads... 1200-1500 pounds all day... In the soft sand.

If its a pound for pound comparison... Well... You see where I'm going?

 

I remember when no one wanted cvt's on their atv, arguments about loss of power, durability, bad driveability and so on were commonly heard.... now everyone but honda uses them and they truly are great. the cvts in atvs are very basic compared to what is used in the automotive industry. All this being said, I would still prefer a manual trans( in my dreams;I know) but CVT's will eventually be the way to go in most common vehicles including trucks, and for some reason IM ok with that, my 800 outlander and my skidoo mxz have proven to me that a CVTs can be fun and are very tunable.

 

The CVT, if it ever comes to trucks, will be optional. You can go with an 8 speed transmission or whatever and get 24 mpg, or opt for a CVT for an additional $700 and get 26 mpg.. Something like that.

No need to switch brands because of optional components.

 

Ok we're comparing CVT's in an ATV to what a CVT might do in a Truck. Interesting perspective... My Nissan Murano had a CVT and on a trip with the car fully loaded with luggage and other stuff, the CVT during an uphill climb out of Salt Lake to Denver started slipping and loosing momentum in a big way. To the point I wasn't sure I was going to make it up the hill. In any case once crested the hill it ran fine again, so my point is let's throw a 5 or 6KLBs on the back of an F150 with a CVT and see how she does going up a hill or mountain road. I don't want to be the one paying the repair bill on that thing.

 

For what I have read modern vehicle cvt use chain belts, not rubber belts like atvs. Nissan didn't use them in high power vehicles, especially high torque engines like trucks and SUVs. Only recently have they put them in the now neutered Pathfinder. Like others I would not be interested in a cvt for a truck until they have several million miles of development on honest trucks with truck torque and gearing.

 

my comparison to atvs was mostly to point out cvt acceptance in atvs which is similar to what we are seeing and going to see in the automotive industry.

 

Yes CVT tech works great in ATV's, sleds, smaller cars/suvs etc. but bottom line is thats all dealing with lower load applications. Truth is that they are physically limited by a certain friction coefficient to pulley wear ratio. The perfect balance where the belt/clutch combination has enough grab while not wearing out the entire assembly. The technology and material just isn't there yet to make it a candidate for a truck meant to tow 11 000lbs on top of its own gross weight. But who knows maybe fords blown millions on materials/mechanical engineering over the past few years and will blow everyone away with it. Would be a quantum leap in CVT technology for sure. Hell Id even trust it since I know ford wouldn't sabotage it's flagship vehicle with unfit tech.

But if they really want to make me grin, just put a damn standard into it.. come on ford id be happier than a fat kid on a smarty. Standard ecoboost... my god... haha