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