Honda CR-V Owners Club Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My work commute has a few stretches of sloping hills. As a habit, in my previous vehicle, I would shift into neutral going down the hills and then back into drive when I reach the bottom and have to go up the other side. I'm usually doing about 60 to 65mph when I switch back to drive. I've noticed on the CVT, I can barely feel the shifts compared to my previous automatic. Is this kind of behavior harmful in any way to the CVT?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
My work commute has a few stretches of sloping hills. As a habit, in my previous vehicle, I would shift into neutral going down the hills and then back into drive when I reach the bottom and have to go up the other side. I'm usually doing about 60 to 65mph when I switch back to drive. I've noticed on the CVT, I can barely feel the shifts compared to my previous automatic. Is this kind of behavior harmful in any way to the CVT?
You don't have to shift to neutral. In fact I believe that the CVT equipped models use engine braking (someone correct me if I'm wrong) to go down a hill, which helps with overuse of brakes. I go over hills in the Bay Area and LA Area and there are some steep grades. In my Odyssey I have to constantly use the brakes to prevent speeding down the hill. In my V I really do not have to use the brakes at all. I maintain speed all the way down.

Keep in mind that a CVT does not use gears in the traditional sense. It uses an infinite set of ratios.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
You don't have to shift to neutral. In fact I believe that the CVT equipped models use engine braking (someone correct me if I'm wrong) to go down a hill, which helps with overuse of brakes. I go over hills in the Bay Area and LA Area and there are some steep grades. In my Odyssey I have to constantly use the brakes to prevent speeding down the hill. In my V I really do not have to use the brakes at all. I maintain speed all the way down.

Keep in mind that a CVT does not use gears in the traditional sense. It uses an infinite set of ratios.
Thanks for the response. What you said is correct but I'm just wondering if doing what I said is harmful to the CVT or even the engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
796 Posts
My work commute has a few stretches of sloping hills. As a habit, in my previous vehicle, I would shift into neutral going down the hills and then back into drive when I reach the bottom and have to go up the other side. I'm usually doing about 60 to 65mph when I switch back to drive. I've noticed on the CVT, I can barely feel the shifts compared to my previous automatic. Is this kind of behavior harmful in any way to the CVT?
Why do you do this? It's potentially harmful to the gearbox as it is not designed to be put back in gear at 60 mph. In addition, it likely uses more fuel as a decelerating, modern engine typically shuts off the fuel supply; an idling engine does not.

You will generally not feel shifts in a CVT as it's designed to continually adjust gear ratios in increments much finer than a 6, 7, 8, 9, et al speed conventional transmission: think of a belt attached to two pulleys, each of which can expand or contract and you'll get the idea of how a CVT "shifts".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Why do you do this? It's potentially harmful to the gearbox as it is not designed to be put back in gear at 60 mph. In addition, it likely uses more fuel as a decelerating, modern engine typically shuts off the fuel supply; an idling engine does not.

You will generally not feel shifts in a CVT as it's designed to continually adjust gear ratios in increments much finer than a 6, 7, 8, 9, et al speed conventional transmission: think of a belt attached to two pulleys, each of which can expand or contract and you'll get the idea of how a CVT "shifts".
Interesting, but wouldn't cutting off fuel stall the engine? Are you saying idling (N) uses more fuel than (D)? I can't imagine this is true under any driving situation but perhaps it applies to CVTs in certain situations.

The reason I was doing this is because as the previous poster mentioned, I feel the engine braking when going downhill. I will stop doing it but was curious as to how things worked with the CVT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
796 Posts
Interesting, but wouldn't cutting off fuel stall the engine? Are you saying idling (N) uses more fuel than (D)? I can't imagine this is true under any driving situation but perhaps it applies to CVTs in certain situations.

The reason I was doing this is because as the previous poster mentioned, I feel the engine braking when going downhill. I will stop doing it but was curious as to how things worked with the CVT.
The engine doesn't stall because it is still attached to the rotating drive wheels. This keeps the engine turning over even without fuel. Pretty much all modern engines follow this strategy. And why not: adding fuel to cylinders of a decelerating car with the throttle at "0" uses fuel unnecessarily and requires the brakes to do slightly more work.

This has nothing to do with idling at a stop; of course gas is required to keep the engine running then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,237 Posts
I totally agree with Dans15. If you constantly putting the tranny into neutral while its going 60 mph. It will ruin the clutch packs. In regards to deceleration, the engine is not using any fuel as long as its above idle. This will save fuel too compared to idling the engine. Unlike a carbureted engine that uses fuel even you are decelarating. This is the reason why you put it in neutral when coasting down on an engine that uses carburetor.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top