Exactly. One of my cars has a six speed. The sport selector encourages the driver to select the maximum gear to be driven in each situation. So, realistically, we don’t downshift an auto the same way as a manual, we select the upper limit. It still automatically shifts within that limit.
I would argue, that choosing the right upper limit with your selector, not only does what @VDCdriver says is a legitimate use of a transmission, but extends the life of the transmission by shifting less over it’s lifetime. So, engine braking and extending the life of a transmission are not mutually exclusive. They are in agreement when done correctly. I don’t think a well designed CVT is any different. I think limiting the shifting range when appropriate is better for the transmission. So @Diana47, instead of using the paddle to slow your car, be in the correct upper limit before hand for the area you are in. If the stop amounts to a long down hill run, then yes, down shif, but only enough to keep speed from building and help and not replace the brakes…realising this is not a regular occurrence.
According to one CVT related forum, the belt is always stressed to keep constant tension and shifting up or down does little to add wear…interesting discussion. They feel that the CVT will prove to be more durable as they advance then the present automatic.
I detect Stirling Moss or Tuetonic wannbe ism here,use the transmission as it was designed,not as a primary brake and I think $500 is to much for a brake job,till such a time as vehicles(except hybrids )are equipped with dynamic brake assists,I would only use the brakes and transmissions as designed-Kevin
I’m of the school that downshifting to slow down was of an era long ago and far away. It made sense when brakes were not enough to slow you for the corner you were about to enter; circa 1960? With modern, well vented disc brakes, this is hardly an issue.
Now on descending LONG steep grades, selecting a lower gear may make sense to eliminate the need to drag the brakes all the way down. But even then, it’ll take a heavy vehicle and a very long descent get those brakes too hot.
And in the FWIW department, I know three people who own Subarus (all women BTW). Two of the three have needed new head gaskets at under 150k miles. Subaru’s robust reputation is not what it once was, in my eyes.
And CVTs are now used on more than four bangers. I know that Audi pares them up with V6s, and I suspect others do as well.
Funny thing in the Subaru owners maintenance manual. For CVTs that are used for frequent towing, change the CVT fluid every 24,855 miles. I wonder what happens at 24,856 miles.
Define “frequent” towing. Daily, monthly, yearly…What weight ? 500 lbs, 1500 lbs. IMHO, New car manuals ? . They give you entire booklets devoted to the sound system and leave you guessing about the proper operation of the car itself. My new car material has a separate sound system manual twice the bulk of the maintenance manual. I guess, it doesn’t take very long to say, " bring it back to us for service, we’ll rip you off and you WILL like it."
My Dakota has a very thick tome in the glovebox,dont know about 200 pages,when on my model about 6 pages would suffice,all those custom features I didnt get on mine-no wonder they couldnt sell the things,I’m pretty sure a well equipped Ram would have been cheaper-Kevin
dag, the actual word was “repeated” towing so I guess it means 2 times right? Tow once and you never have to change it, tow twice and you have to change it every 24,855 miles or else.
Many of us who live in the hilly bits of the country face long downgrades somewhat regularly. A few miles? No big deal unless incredibly steep, but there are plenty of 50 mile grades in the western US. I see no good reason a CVT would be worse at transferring wheel speed back to the engine. A torque convertor doesn’t do it very well, but it is still worth using for it.
@keith
You got it. Also, how long, over what terrain etc. I suppose the manual could go crazy trying to explain, but it does go out of it’s way on the sound system. IMHO, if the sound system isn’t intuitive with automatic and instant compatability and with few directions, it should NOT be in a car diverting your attention.
The transmission should have much more explanation then it does. It’s apparent by the number of posts we get about down shifting, people don’t believe, trust, aren’t reading or the manual is poorly written conserning proper transmission operation. Some don’t believe the transmission should operate the same as a well shifted manual. Putting the auto into 3 (or equivalant gear) for example in around town driving, is no different then leaving the manual in 3 while driving through town. Both are common sence use of a transmission and help prevent lugging and hunting which both overuse a transmission and are harder on a motor.
Dagosa, I fully agree with you and glad to see you got my attempt at humor. I have read my owners manual, every bit of it and all the supplements that go with it and I have learned more about my CVT in this discussion than what I learned about in the manual. I even went back and reread the sections on the transmission again to see if I just missed something, turns out I didn’t.
I have only had the car with the CVT for 2 months now and have just passed the 1000 mile mark with it. Even though I do not plan on using the paddle shifters much and will rarely downshift, I do like to know what it can and cannot do and what its limits are.
For they guy who said that only large trucks need to downshift on grades, I invite you to visit the Bristlecone Pines in the Inyo National Forest. These are the oldest living organisms on the planet, one tree dates back 4500 years. When you are done visiting and you head back to civilization, see how you do without downshifting.
We went to Yosemite last fall. The Sequoias were quite a sight too. You had to drive “up” into the mountains just to get to hike into the groves. It was my recollection that the tour bus driver spent a lot of time in “low gear” coming back down.
I went there last summer too. I thought I’d take a shortcut to Fresno by going out the south entrance and take that road to Fresno instead of taking the west entrance by the Sequoia’s and then taking I-5 to Fresno. Big mistake, spent a lot of time in 2nd and 3rd gear.
The Sequoia National Forest where the largest tree is is east of Fresno, quite a drive up to them as well. I like the grove at Yosemite better though, it is a lot more interesting.
The best view of Yosemite Valley is near the south entrance though.
@Keith
We hiked every day for over a week up and down the sides of the canyon. I must say, there are a lot of “great views”. Everyone just as breathtaking as the previous.
check with the dealer for the costs of a brake job vs. a tranny rebuild, it will be astounding, I find using the AC on long down-hills acts like a poor-mans engine brake…
Example of irony- people fear the cost to repair a transmission so they baby them to eek every bit of life out of them. Engineers review the history and see transmissions are lasting the life of the car and conclude they are overdesigned. So they make the next generation less robust/weaker/cheaper which generates even more fear and babying…lather, rinse, repeat…
Drive your d@mn car like you stole it so the rest of us (that like engine braking for example) don’t have to live with these weak @ss transmissions! ;-D
My logic says this, regardless of the auto transmission type. First, downshifting does put additional wear on a transmission, I have no doubt. But how much? I would say, no more then the wear on a transmission that happens when you accelerate up the same hill and in the same gear. And, because going down hill eccentrically loads the transmission in the opposite direction for a gear in a regular auto and on a belt in a CVT. It loads it on the opposite side of the gear and the opposite links on the chain of the so called “belt” of a CVT. It does not decrease the life of the auto going forward, but by going backward ( decelerating). Assuming the transmission has the same llife in that gear in each direction, the only thing you now have to be concerned about, is excessive gear changing. There are times when running around in The lower gear in an auto benefits. So, I would not use it for a brake but would use it to control speed on longer runs. IMHO, it adds no appreciable wear to the transmisdion in general, except to the linkage and gear changing actuators when used excessively.
TT, I would argue that the move to CVTs and to less robust transmissions (read: lighter weight) is being driven by the ever-more-stringent CAFE regulations. Thus, rather than place blame on the reliability engineers (the guys who track failure data), it would be more correct to direct any anger toward our representatives in Washington. I truly believe that’s the root cause.
Having said that, most trannys today are far, far, far more durable and long lasting than they were when I was young. So perhaps it would be more accurate to appreciate that improvement than to characterize modern trannys as less robust/weaker/cheaper.