One of the deciding factors for me going for a Mazda (currently being shipped!) over other brands is because they still use a real gearbox (and not a CVT), and because their media system controls are physical buttons and not a touch screen. I hate taking my eyes off the road and the Mazda seemed like the safest option to reduce that as much as possible.
I'm new to cars - I haven't passed my test yet. I also live in the UK, where manuals are the norm (and that's what I'm learning on). What is it that you dislike about CVTs? When you say a real gearbox, is it manual or automatic?
Not the person you're replying to, but I know what they're talking about.
CVTs work by a "belt" riding on "cones". These cones can slide in and out and change the size of each side, meaning they can change their gear ratio dynamically. This is great in many ways: the vehicle can always get exactly the gearing it wants for a given situation and there's no shift lag or shudder or whatever. Just nice, smooth, continuous adjustment of the gear ratio.
However, that belt riding on the cones depends on a good bit of friction to work. Friction means wear and tear. For a car level CVT, they make it out of a lot of little metal wedges on a metal band instead of what you'd normally think of a belt. However, it'll still constantly wear out leaving lots of tiny metal shavings. Owners are typically pretty bad about actually maintaining their cars, so transmission fluids and belt replacements often go long or skipped entirely leading to early deaths for these transmissions. Plus, you typically can't put as much power through them without risking damage.
They probably mean a real transmission as in one with actual interlocking gears whether that be automatic or manual.
