He can't stand the ride. The gas mileage is worse than he thought. He
does nothing but complain about how over-priced they are for what you get.
It has also been in the shop twice now for extended periods, but for the
life of me I can't recall exactly why. I will ask tomorrow.
He also regrets getting the CVT (with the creeper gear) because he says it
just feels "weird".
These are all pretty much things that he should have noticed on a test
drive. If you are aware of them you can either accept them or look
I have to agree with you and your friend about that CVT tranny. Rented a
Caliber on my last business trip to NM, it was weird. I kept thinking, "The
clutch is slipping". What happens when you REALLY need that additional gear;
i.e. avoiding an accident?
Nothing like my old snowmobile or Polaris Quad with the same style tranny!
Steve, I personally have only driven a very early example of a CVT. I
can't even remember what car that was on, but it just plain sucked then. I
have been reading that they have improved immensely since then. Even Car
and Driver doesn't bitch about them too much any more. But it definitely
is a different experience. On the Patriot the RPM's run up to about 3500
and just hang there under "normal" acceleration. It still seems like a
"gimmick" to me. My personal preference would still be a good old slushbox
with, oh, maybe 6 or 7 gears. But sadly I am stuck in AT world with my
wife being a shift-dweeb!! But the Hyundai AT is pretty damned good in
most cases, although it is a little slow to downshift at times.
Why a gimmick? Having an IC engine run at its torque peak RPM
constantly is the best way to maximize acceleration and efficiency,
assuming that the CVT itself has no more loss than does an AT. This is
the next best thing to an electric motor which makes 100% of its torque
at zero RPM.
Breathes better, yes; collects finer particles, no. It is pretty well
known that K&N sacrifices filter efficiency for airflow. Great for
racing, but not so good for a street vehicle that you want to have a
I have to respectfully disagree with you. I might be opening a can of worms
here, which is not my intention.
I have a brother (Air Force trained) rotary wing mechanic and saw their use
in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. on choppers, tanks, Humvees, etc.
Why would they be used if their filtration isn't all that great? And as far
as racing goes, the company originally was founded and developed air filters
for off-road motorcycle use, which is inherently dusty as well?
Well, there was this little incident in Iran a few years ago. Need I
Hey, it is your engine, you get to make the call. However, for me, I'll
stick with a good paper filter.
I don't recall the incident in which you refer to, however I do offer my
It's ironic in the fact the AC Delco filter finished 1st in all categories,
when considering the test vehicle was a Chevrolet....although the claim is
made that the testing facility offered to perform all these tests for free?
The machine was $285,000....
Interesting how they make no comparison tests of their filter to other
filters. And how they use only "coarse" dirt in their testing.
The test wasn't performed by or commissioned by Chevrolet or Delco. It
was performed by an owner of a Chevy and an owner of a Ford. I've seen
other similar tests of K&N filters compared to OEM paper and the results
are always the same.
Like I said earlier, your car, your choice.
Oh, I forgot to answer this in my last post.
The incident was the failed rescue attempt of the Iran hostages. This
mission had many problems, but one was that the helicopters couldn't
handle the sand and dust...
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.