VRX Manual vs CVT

[Sir Lancer-lot]

CVT is great - you can drive it like Miss Daisy to work and back all day everyday OR slip it into manual mode and paddle shift like a maniac and it a totally different tranny...no more manual leg aches and jerky changes for me...

[Chubb]

All the CVT hate :/

Drive both and buy what you feel is best. Fact of the matter is I bet not a single one of you manual drivers could keep up with me down a mountain range with my CVT. However the CVT is not designed for being driven as hard as I have treated it over the 85,000 kms and mine is showing it's age, particularly the last track day hurt it a bit when I boiled the fluid.

The sound and feeling of the CVT you will get used to, the usable torque range is awesome as well. That being said I have now bought a manual car so....

[big_d]

My preference will always be manual (I own a manual 2008 VRX).
It took me a while to get use to the Cruse Control on the manual and how the ECU holds the revs high when you drive aggressively (I had a lightened flywheel in my old Cyborg, so I was use to the revs dropping instantly and having to blip the throttle to keep the revs up when downshifting) but you get the hang of it.

I have never had any issues with the transmission - works like a charm.
Then again, I am in NZ, so the Manual gearbox issues may only effect Aus Lancers?

[SIX]

OK i have a family of VRX two sedans both auto (parent and bothers ) i have a Manual sportback , and i would never buy the CVT , its a little less fun compared the the manuall and the manual is way more fun !!! and doesnt sound like a wind up toy either !!!

[SAM-24A]

MAN or CVT ...... Hmmmm ......

The biggest Misconception that "Manuals are better than a CVT" is because they are being compared to each other during:
"Performance Driving Conditions".

Sure, a CVT can feel Lame & Mundane during normal suburban driving conditions.
But so will a Manual if you drive it conservatively and change gears at an economical rpm range .... as is the inherent design of a CVT.

The Engineered Intent of each are so different that a "Fair Comparison" cannot be evaluated equitably.

So a Manual can be driven either conservatively or spirited ..... True ....
And a CVT can only be driven conservatively (by design) ....... Not True ....

I have an Aspire which only comes with a 2.4 & CVT .... so I should be .... .... well "NO"
I have applied some purposeful mods such as Air Intake, Exhaust & a Merlin Tune.

It drives just as smoothly as stock in Drive during suburban conditions, but totally transforms in Sequential Mode using the Paddles at WOT.
The gear changes are very quick & crisp and the torque range becomes very evident when pedalling a selected gear within the MIVEC rpm range.

I'm not going to dispute anyone who states a Manual still out-weights a CVT for prolonged performance, launch capabilities and power/drive loss.
However I will state, that combined with some sensible hardware & ECU mods, a CVT can sound different & be used in a Performance Manner much quicker & easier than a Manual.

Each has it's application of use & limit of function .... and should be purchased in accordance with your intent & need of use.



Sam .....
Merlinised MIVEC - AspiRe 2.4L
Merlin Inspired Variable Engine Control

[aspir3]

One thing that is undisputed the CVT is more economical on the freeway due to its better gearing.

CVT is slower off the line due to such a high first gear. My car does 90km/h in first gear. Once the CVT gets to about 50km/h it will perform better then the manual in accelerating due to it staying in the highest torque range.

Personally I fine the CVT great. It is very relaxing to drive daily in traffic, great economy on the freeway and good fun when wanted around the hills with the use of the paddles. The only down side it is slower off the line but it was never bought to use as a drag car.

[Gleno]

Agree with Troy and Sam. Probably because I drive a CVT myself. I recently learnt on a manual only because the job that I was applying for required you to be able to drive a manual.
So when I was in Queensland,I hired a car for 1 week and it was a manual. Pretty much have mastered it but wouldn't be as good as a experienced manual driver.

However I thought it was terrible changing gears all the time and pressing the clutch pedal in did my head in after one day. Especially in peak hour traffic.
Only advantage of a manual would be there $2000 less when brand new.
On the freeway CVT craps all over the manual,engine is basically idling at 100kph.

But the good thing on knowing how to drive a manual is at least if I'm in a position where I had to drive a manual car,then at least that gets me out of trouble.

[SIX]

i dont know about you guys but im getting 650 kms out of a tank of petrol out of my manual where the CVT in my house hold struggle to get 550??? and im not excatly light or conservative on my lancer either , around the city mine sits arounf 6.9 liters out of 100 km where the cvt for the others sit around 7.5 to 8... thats just what i have found having both types of cars in the same house hold

[aspir3]

I get between 700 a tank traveling to work and back. I made it from Adelaide-Melbourne(760km) on less then 55 litres travelling 100-110km/h.

[SIX]

maybe its the way there driving theres then lol

[Seffy]

Have achieved 6.8 per 100 km on mine before and mine's CVT.
But I'm just about always in traffic jams so it's hard for me to get a range past 600.

[squala]

Manual: Better for initial take-off, non-artificial shifts (duh), possibly more economical in city driving because of it being able to use the torque better, but isn't Honda slick and lacks a sixth gear for freeway duty.

CVT: A bit sluggish and drone under acceleration, but very smooth and ideal for cruising, theoretically higher top speed because of its infinite ratios allowing more kph with less rpm, also likely to be more economical on the highway.