Manual vs. CVT?

5 SPEED FTMFW...

 

sorry, wats ftmfw?

 

What is BOT? and ftmfw=for the mutha fuckin win. Just fyi. The 2.4 gts lancer that belgaram has is complete bolt-ons. The cvt can barely handle 4 psi turbo'd. For the $4 grand you would be better off going the same route as him. If you turbo you will more than likely (85%) break your cvt transmission. If thats what you wanted to know.

 

BOT=bolt-on turbo maybe? I'm not really sure, but that's what I'm thinking.

 

yea guys BOT=bolt on turbo

 

ya actually its not worth to BOT on cvt with the price u pay with such low boost. always best option is to do it on MT

 

I used to run a boosted automatic and had 8 psi going. We maxed out at 10 psi before the transmission started to give out. I blew 2 transmissions before I finally got the right levels. The CVT transmission is not the strongest, however like any transmission, it has a weakness. Heat. Heat kills transmissions, just like it kills motors. To run a proper turbo set up on a CVT you'd need an oil cooler to lower the temperatures, and to really make it worth running higher boost, you would need a beefed up transmission. The axles are fine, and so are the engine's internals if your making less than double digit boost.

I spoke to Rob with RRM and he was telling me about how they have several CVT kits out already and the most they have run is about 3 psi. Most people laugh at that, but when you consider the plus side to an automatic ie: no turbo lag, and your at boost much faster than a manual. Most people take back their statements. According to him, and I'm yet to verify the numbers, but their CVT kit was making 3 psi and keeping pace with the manual kit at 8 psi. When you take all that into consideration, it is an idea to do a BOT, however you can't whomp on the gas, you've got to baby the car, and the psi will always stay lower. To some people it's worth the money if they want show, and to others it isn't because there not that much more go.

Personally I'd do it once the CVT issue is figure out. Even with my basic NA mods, I've seen some real noticeable gains. Coupled with my newest sponsor Ultra Racing USA, I'm looking forward to putting the turbo on the kit since this is my daily driver with an edge. I guess you could say to each his own, but we'll see. The kit is still a bit pricey, however for those with CVT and looking to boost, hang tight, Rob and his team are on their way to figuring out the kinks. I'll do my research as well and keep everyone updated. If anyone runs into something of interest, keep me posted too.

 

The newer lancers, bolt ons are good. For a 3 psi cvt to keep up with an 8 psi manual. The guy driving the manual was indeed not driving. Lemme get this right, the lancer 2.4 cvt is putting down 160 at the wheels. With the turbo at 3 psi it should be putting down just under 200. With a 2.0 manual it is puttin down 136 at the wheels. With the turbo at 8 psi it should be at 215. So around 20 hp difference. The guy with the manual can put it foot to the floor where as the cvt has to baby it and still keep up. I don't think so.

Realistically speaking the manual will beat it off the line giving it a 5-8 sec lead right there. Your telling me a babied acceleration owns a normal acceleration. The only way I could see this is once again the driver of the manul was not indeed driving. He most likely went wot during initial take off. Causing him to spin his tires which means the cvt will be moving already ahead while dumbass is still spinning wheels.

Not bashing rrm and their kit. Im bashing mitsu and the cvt tranny. I don't like it at all. I drove a lancer and a galant with the paddle shifters and it has a lag in between shifts and I do not like that at all. I am howevwr bashing the driver of the manual though and giving compliments to the cvt driver.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

 

I got cvt, I didn't know cvt has 6 gears until my brother was driving it and he was shitting the gears on the freeway. Manual is better even though it only have 5 speed but its much more fun.

 

The CVT doesnt have gears as u are thinking of. In normal mode it has the ability to keep the engine in a given rpm range. Think of a bicycle gear set except without individual gears. Its actually pretty cool except for the fact it cant take as much abuse as a manual or even a normal auto. It does help Mitsubishi make its govt. mandated fuel requirements.
In sport mode it uses 6 different ratios programed into it so it feels like it has separate gears but it really doesn't. At least not like we think of it.

 

so anyone did comparison on 1.8MT vs teh 2.0 cVT?
besides that, does the 2.4engine able to mate with the 1.8MT/2.0MT transmission FMM5B MT

 

Nope. The 2.4 uses the F4A4B instead of the FMM5B. Nice try, but you'd ultimately need to swap out wiring and axles to do the proper swap. Easier said than done. It's a great idea, if it was up to me, I'd take my 2.0 CVT, throw the 2.4 with the F4A4B into it, slap a turbo on it and call it a day.

2008+ 2.0L F1CJA (CVT) 1 spd
2008+ 2.4L F4A4B (auto) 4 spd
2007+ 3.8L F5A5A (auto)/ 4 SP F4A5A (auto)
2002+ 2.0L F4A42 (auto)

 

Thanks for your info.
as for the MT vs cvt even within same CC i.e 2.0 also very hard to proved that MT is better rite?

 

Thank you for answering his question.

 

wow. i forgot this thread. lol nice