Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!haapanen
From: haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS])
Newsgroups: net.auto.tech
Subject: Re: Continuous Transmission
Message-ID: <1854@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Nov-85 09:16:45 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1854
Posted: Sat Nov  9 09:16:45 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 09:43:47 EST
References: <10878@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <340@tekchips.UUCP>
Reply-To: haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS])
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 55
Summary: 

In article <340@tekchips.UUCP> toma@tekchips.UUCP (Tom Almy) writes:

>>	Have anyone heard about this so-called continuous
>>transmission? ...

>These things have been promoted as something new, but my mother had a 1963 
>(nineteen sixty-three) DAF with one of those transmissions.  The car, about
>the size of a VW Bug, had a 2 opposed cylinder, 30HP, air cooled front engine
>with a centrifugal clutch, with the transmission in the rear.  By having two
>belts, one for each wheel, no differential was needed, and the resulting
>"limited slip" operation make it fantastic on snow and ice. But the car had
>many problems, mostly related to the transmission.  (BTW, the cars basic
>model sold for about $1200, making it one of the cheapest cars available at
>the time, and by far the cheapest with an automatic transmission which at the
>time was only available on very few small cars).
>
>1. Belt life was limited to about 8-10k miles.  While the car could be driven
>   with one belt missing, it would slip so much that you wouldn't dare stop
>   on a hill.
>
>2. Belt slippage was a problem, especially when wet.
>
>3. Performance was awful, even compared with contemporary small cars.  Top
>   speed was about 60, and acceleration was  worse than the 40hp VW Buses
>   of the time!  Gas mileage was about 30-32 in suburban driving.  This car
>   was no match at all for the popular VW Bugs and Renault Dauphines of the
>   time.
>
>4. The transmission (Forward--Neutral--Reverse) had to be shifted swiftly
>   between F and R.  Because of the lack of a manual clutch if you stopped
>   in N you couldn't shift it into gear.  In this situation you had to turn
>   the engine off, wait about 10 seconds for the driveshaft to stop spinning,
>   put it in gear and restart (YES, you always started the car in gear!).
>
>To be fair, I am sure they improved things over the years.  After they
>stopped importing them in the late 60s, DAF switched to a more powerful 4
>cylinder engine.  The company was purchased by Volvo a few years
>ago, and the cars are now sold under the Volvo name in Europe.  I may need
>to be corrected on this last statement, since I am not sure.

You're actually very close.  Volvo indeed now manufactures CVT models
at the old DAF factory.  It's a different model, though, and is known
as a Volvo 343.  It's about the size of a Golf II, and is considerably
more civilized than an old DAF.  The transmission is still a
mechanic's nightmare, though.

VW and other companies are working on "second-generation" CVTs.


				   \tom haapanen
				   watmath!watdcsu!haapanen
Im all lost in the Supermarket
I can no longer shop happily
I came in here for that special offer
Guaranteed personality				 (c) The Clash, 1979