2015 Outback - Subaru drops the MT and AT

[nighamreuki]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: JOD

I'm not sure why folks have the assumption that CVT's won't last. There are fewer moving parts than an AT and no friction materials to wear out. I think that mostly it's just fear of the unknown...



While I would agree the vast majority of these units are performing well for most owners I would disagree there are no friction materials to wear out!

Ever see how these typically work?


Well, I'm most familiar with the one in my own car (ZF CFT-30), and there are no friction materials to wear out on this transmission (unless you consider the chain or drive pulleys to be "friction materials"). The friction is provided by the fluid under compression. There are are no sacrificial clutches etc, and there is literally nothing to "wear out" except the fluid.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the Ford (or any) CVT is perfect. There have been a fair number of input shaft failures (most related to an O-ring), but on the transmission itself there are really no wear points like there are with a conventional automatic.

There IS a conventional torque converter, which does contain a typically clutch--so yeah, that potentially will wear out, but 1) it locks down WAY less than the torque converter in a conventional AT and 2) it's no different than the torque converter in a regular AT.

Back to the subject at hand though, I don't see a reason to avoid Subaru's CVT because Nissan had trouble with their transmission... While there may be some bad examples of CVT's out there, the Subie transmission seems pretty reliable so ar.


Your post mentioned Fords. Another quoted poster mentioned two other brands and Subaru. There was nothing to indicate you wished to confine the discussion to Subaru only.

But again I ask, have you actually seen how they work? The pulleys or sheaves slide the belt or chain up and down themselves. This is indeed a severe wear point and is the primary reason that these are NEVER spec'd for any high torque applications. They simply cannot do it. And please note that a TC is not simply on or off anymore, many apps vary the lock up and some even 'stutter' the lock to inhibit the driveline vibe some cars have.

As I stated earlier the average small car buyer is getting good service from a CVT, but they can and will wear out eventually, just like anything else...


New Pathfinder has 5,000lbs towing rating, i would consider it to pretty impressive

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I actually found some pics of the internals as well. All the torque is transfered by the ends of the pins on the chain/belt. I am surprised they can hold as many hp as they do now and it must require alot of force to have any grip at all between the pins and the pullies.
It would be interesting to see some close ups of a set of pullies and chain look like after 100k.


It's likely up to the driver. Many modern vehicles have tons of over protective software that pulls throttle, retards timing, etc., all to protect the slushbox, CVT or regular automatic.

And no offense to the Nissan fans but 5k towing capacity is not very impressive at all. Even a 17 foot runabout on a trailer weighs more than that! My old jet ski and all it's gear could easily get close to that limit. Check back in after a couple hundred thousand miles and let us know how things are...

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I actually found some pics of the internals as well. All the torque is transfered by the ends of the pins on the chain/belt. I am surprised they can hold as many hp as they do now and it must require alot of force to have any grip at all between the pins and the pullies.
It would be interesting to see some close ups of a set of pullies and chain look like after 100k.


It's likely up to the driver. Many modern vehicles have tons of over protective software that pulls throttle, retards timing, etc., all to protect the slushbox, CVT or regular automatic.

And no offense to the Nissan fans but 5k towing capacity is not very impressive at all. Even a 17 foot runabout on a trailer weighs more than that! My old jet ski and all it's gear could easily get close to that limit. Check back in after a couple hundred thousand miles and let us know how things are...

5k though is about the standard for that class of vehicle though, although it used to be able to tow 6k. A CVT wouldn't be my first choice for towing either though, but atleast is shows there is a little reserve in the CVT and drivetrain for regular use.
Interestingly the FWD version also is rated for 5k as well. That's the highest tow rating I've seen for a fwd vehicle.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

The Explorer, Traverse/Enclave and Pilot can tow 5000 pounds in FWD mode.

 

[IndyIan]

I didn't realize these were all fwd based now. Must be interesing getting going even on wet pavement with 5k behind you and fwd...

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Or snow. I imagine they won't move at all in the snow.

 

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I didn't realize these were all fwd based now. Must be interesing getting going even on wet pavement with 5k behind you and fwd...


Originally Posted By: Miller88
Or snow. I imagine they won't move at all in the snow.


Yep. This is exactly why, IMO, anything FWD should have a tow rating of 0 lbs. FWD until slip type AWD isn't much better (which is why I think the Ridgeline is a useless excuse for a truck). For a tow rig, your trailer should be adding weight to the drive wheels.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

I'm starting to see "Ram" Promasters show up here. I can't wait until I see them stuck everywhere in the snow.

 

[supton]

I'm as critical as the next when it comes to FWD towing, but I'm going to disagree here. How many people are attempting to tow while it's either snowing or there is snow on the ground? Even if so, most of the snowmobile trailers I've seen look pretty light duty.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Like supton, I'm going to disagree as well, at least to a certain extent. Regarding trailer weight and drive wheels, If you load the trailer right, and assuming we're talking about a total weight that's well within the rated limits, the tongue weight on the vehicle isn't any more than you'd get with a couple of bags of mulch in the back. Or at most, back seat full of adults.

Even with the lawn tractor all the way to the front of my trailer, you can see that my FWD-based vehicle sat pretty level and the trailer sat pretty level. The whole kit and kaboodle probably weighed 1,000 pounds, well within the rated limit of this particular towing vehicle, and plenty safe.

And if we're talking about FWD and towing something somewhat heavy, we're probably talking something relatively recent (past 10 or 15 years) and most of these vehicles are equipped with brake force distribution systems which will bias-in more rear brake with heavier loads.

Would an F-250 have pulled it better? Sure it would have. I think it's a little dramatic, though, to say that FWD shouldn't be able to tow anything, period. Is a 5,000 pound rating pushing it? Eh...maybe. But 0? I disagree; FWD vehicles tow reasonable loads just fine.

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

And no offense to the Nissan fans but 5k towing capacity is not very impressive at all. Even a 17 foot runabout on a trailer weighs more than that! My old jet ski and all it's gear could easily get close to that limit. Check back in after a couple hundred thousand miles and let us know how things are...


That was one heavy jet ski you had.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: JTK
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

And no offense to the Nissan fans but 5k towing capacity is not very impressive at all. Even a 17 foot runabout on a trailer weighs more than that! My old jet ski and all it's gear could easily get close to that limit. Check back in after a couple hundred thousand miles and let us know how things are...


That was one heavy jet ski you had.


An old Polaris 3 seater with one of the early plastic hulls. IIRC it weighed about 800 pounds fully fueled. But factor in a big trailer and 3 weeks worth of fuel and gear for a 250 mile river trip and you can see the needle rising on the scale fast...

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: rslifkin
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
I didn't realize these were all fwd based now. Must be interesing getting going even on wet pavement with 5k behind you and fwd...

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Or snow. I imagine they won't move at all in the snow.

Yep. This is exactly why, IMO, anything FWD should have a tow rating of 0 lbs. FWD until slip type AWD isn't much better (which is why I think the Ridgeline is a useless excuse for a truck). For a tow rig, your trailer should be adding weight to the drive wheels.

Useless excuse for an informed post. The VTM-4 AWD system in Pilot and Ridgeline is NOT FWD until slip. It proactively sends up to 70% of torque (depending on vehicle speed and throttle position) to the rear anytime you accelerate irrespective of whether the front wheels slip. Note the FWD Pilot can only tow 2000 lbs.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: supton
I'm as critical as the next when it comes to FWD towing, but I'm going to disagree here. How many people are attempting to tow while it's either snowing or there is snow on the ground? Even if so, most of the snowmobile trailers I've seen look pretty light duty.

I do see a few people towing 2 sleds in the winter with minivans. But that setup would be about 3000lbs. Snow tires would be mandatory I'd assume, plus a bit of skill and experience knowing what you can and can't do based on the conditions.
Perhaps 5k lbs with a bigger SUV/minivan is similar for towing?

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
Note the FWD Pilot can only tow 2000 lbs.


The new MDX also has a higher rating with AWD than without. 3,500 pounds without and 5,000 pounds with, as long as the transmission cooler is also added.

2014 is the first year the MDX has been available with a FWD option. Who'd buy one over an SH-AWD version, I don't know, but it is what it is I guess.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: gofast182
Note the FWD Pilot can only tow 2000 lbs.


The new MDX also has a higher rating with AWD than without. 3,500 pounds without and 5,000 pounds with, as long as the transmission cooler is also added.

2014 is the first year the MDX has been available with a FWD option. Who'd buy one over an SH-AWD version, I don't know, but it is what it is I guess.


If I bought a cute ute ... or any of the FWD/AWD SUVs, I'd get the front wheel drive. I don't have a need for AWD. Since they are FWD and the weight bias is towards the front, it would do just fine with a set of snow tires.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
I don't have a need for AWD.


I'm not talking about snow traction here... There's simply no comparison in how an SH-AWD MDX drives compared with an other FWD model, MDX or otherwise. No comparison at all. And given that the SH-AWD is only a $2,000 difference between FWD in this case...it's a pure no-brainer to me.

The SH-AWD makes the MDX handle in ways you'd think impossible for a large SUV.

If your only criteria is getting from point A to B in the snow, then I agree with you: FWD is fine.

 

[buster]

Good AWD systems are fantastic in rain/snow. You really appreciate it most when the roads are bad.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I don't have a need for AWD.


I'm not talking about snow traction here... There's simply no comparison in how an SH-AWD MDX drives compared with an other FWD model, MDX or otherwise. No comparison at all. And given that the SH-AWD is only a $2,000 difference between FWD in this case...it's a pure no-brainer to me.

The SH-AWD makes the MDX handle in ways you'd think impossible for a large SUV.

If your only criteria is getting from point A to B in the snow, then I agree with you: FWD is fine.


I'm sure it does help handling characteristics of it - it's a pretty bulky vehicle for a FWD platform. I imagine the FWD ones understeer like no other.

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I don't have a need for AWD.


...

The SH-AWD makes the MDX handle in ways you'd think impossible for a large SUV.

...

I can attest to that first-hand. It is amazing what that system can get such a big car to do. There's a particular on-ramp near home that I can take faster in the MDX than I can in my S2000, no joke. And it's very good in the snow considering the all-season rubber.