CVT Reliability and Durability

[raffy]

It has been quite a while since I've purchased a vehicle, and since then I've noticed that more and more auto manufacturers are employing CVT transmissions in their vehicles. I suspect this is partly due to CAFE requirements by the federal government and maybe they're also a bit cheaper for the manufacturers. None of our current vehicles (and our youngest vehicle is a 2009 Toyota Corolla with the venerable 4-speed conventional automatic) has a CVT - all of them have either conventional automatics or manual transmission. So the only experience I have driving CVT's is with rental cars, with some of those seeming OK and others not so OK. It's rather hard to judge, though, as I haven't driven any of them for more than a few days and 200 miles or so. So I'm wondering what y'all who actually own one have experienced so far... What are your experiences with CVT's? How long do they run before they fail? What are the maintenance requirements for fluid changes, etc.? How does the fluid look after, say 50K miles? How well do they "shift" or manage the engine's powerband in relation to the speed of the vehicle?

 

[Jimzz]

If you get rid of vehicles before 100k then CVTs should be fine. But past that I would not wager on it. Fluid does not get burnt the same way an auto trans does. So color alone is not a good way to judge CVT fluid. I prefer to do drain/fills every 30-40k to be safe. There are plenty of aftermarket fluids now so its not as expensive as it once was. And I would only get a CVT if it was in a smaller vehicle/engine. No mid-size+ and no nissans.

 

[PimTac]

If you buy new the cvt like most transmissions except manuals will learn your driving style. Rental cars are always a bad example in that regard. All the gloom and doom on cvt is Internet blather. They are very efficient and just require some adaption by the driver. Most of the complaints are from drivers who think they are driving automatics.

 

[StevieC]

If you keep the vehicle for 100K or less then CVT is fine If you keep the vehicle for over 100K then frequent servicing of the CVT fluid should be done and care driving the CVT in certain situations should be taken. (Eg: No towing, easier takeoff's from a stop, limit flooring it etc.) In all cases purchase a warranty for as long as you intend on keeping it. (or as long as they offer). - Honda seems to be reliable. One user one here has over 200K miles on his. - I wouldn't buy a Nissan CVT because IMO they haven't been problem free long enough yet. My aunts juke puked its CVT at 90,000km. - Toyota seems to be reliable with the exception of some Corrola models 2014-2017. I'd steer clear of the Corolla model CVT's for a few years. (IMO) - Ford seem OK (IMO) - Subaru seems to be mixed with some problems and again not long enough problem free to feel good about them yet. (IMO) - Mitsu CVT's don't seem reliable from reading I've done. (JMO)

 

[diyjake]

Originally Posted by Jimzz

If you get rid of vehicles before 100k then CVTs should be fine. But past that I would not wager on it.

This might be true to most CVT's but not Nissan. Nissan has a lot of major CVT problems and lot of them are way under 100K miles.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted by PimTac

If you buy new the cvt like most transmissions except manuals will learn your driving style. Rental cars are always a bad example in that regard. All the gloom and doom on cvt is Internet blather. They are very efficient and just require some adaption by the driver. Most of the complaints are from drivers who think they are driving automatics.

I tend to agree. Without any data, it's just a guess. Subaru makes one of the better CVT's out there. I drove the WRX with the CVT and it was fantastic, especially in sport mode. It was so good I'd but it over the manual. I've driven only manuals the last 20 years.

 

[KGMtech]

The arm chair experts here will say lots of negative things about CVT. However, all negativity aside, when Nissan went full bore to CVT, the other OEM's watched and waited. If Nissan was experiencing such a huge amount of problems with this technology, huge warranty claims.. do you honestly think that Toyota, Honda, Subaru, Mitsu, would have signed up? CVT is physically smaller, less expensive to manufacture, uses less fuel. Trifecta of goals for any OEM. Yes, a certain % of these CVT's will fail, and the crowd will roar....but a certain percentage of regular automatic transmissions fail under warranty. The old standard transmission is pretty reliable if the user knows the technique - but now the take rate for manuals is less than 10% if offered at all. Buy what you like, maintain it well - ignore "filled for life" statements, and you should be fine regardless of what you choose.

 

[Ws6]

I've never heard any good stories about 'em. My friend's Forester 2.0XT's died like a dog at less than 90K miles. Steered me right to the CX5 instead, as I'd been considering the 2.0XT.

 

[Driz]

Get something else. There are good ones out th there without that tiny engine cvt turbo foolishness.. we were going tpo look at Honda's once my favorite. Crap tiny 1.5 w/ turbo in even the accords ...¾. No [censored] way after owning a Sonata with their self destructive engines. Toyota Camray have a decent 8 speed auto and a decently powerful 2.5. We just picked up a nice 18 SXE in Florida and love it. It's getting a lowly 27 in the city 29 interstate but at least I know it's not gonna cost me $5 Grand for a trashed tranny after driving it a few years. You're going to find that there are very few decent cars out there in the new and lightly used department. Don't go by only reviews and multi year opinions either. I even looked at 2019 consumer reports and they completely omit anything about the infamous Hyundai / Kia Theta engine fiasco🤣. Not a peep👎🏻 Be careful, use google profusely before buying eye days..........

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by Jimzz

If you get rid of vehicles before 100k then CVTs should be fine.

That's like these warnings on medications that say, "Not to be taken by pregnant women". Otherwise, everyone else can swallow away and don't worry, you'll be just fine. Why buy something that is inherently weak? You can't pull anything with CVT's, like you can a standard automatic. You don't see them in trucks or anything rated for towing because they are inherently weak. So why own one based on the principal,...... "You might be OK if you get rid of it soon enough, and don't floor it too often?" That's ridiculous. In time these things will be improved enough to where they might be ready for prime time. But there is no reason to take a chance with them now. And I would recommend anyone who is even remotely considering one of these things, to rent a vehicle with one and drive it for a day or two before you buy it. Most people hate the way they drive. And let's face it, a transmission on a brand new car isn't something you should have to, "learn to like".

 

[Trav]

I wont own one if you pay for it. All the gloom and doom is not all internet blather, people that make those kind of statements usually have one and are hoping praying theirs turns out to be a good one. I remember them all the way back to the Justy CVT which was a total failure and again 30+ years later Subaru is having issues with the more modern units. https://certifiedtransmissionrepair.com/cvt-transmissions-pros-cons/

 

[4WD]

Does the Nissan Rogue have this ... I have a rental and while the engine screams ? Well - it's a real DOG ...

 

[diyjake]

Originally Posted by 4WD

Does the Nissan Rogue have this ... I have a rental and while the engine screams ? Well - it's a real DOG ...

Yes it does.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted by 4WD

Does the Nissan Rogue have this ... I have a rental and while the engine screams ? Well - it's a real DOG ...

Yes, it has a CVT. And you are experiencing what they all do. The engine revs way up at the slightest depression of the throttle. You find yourself constantly trying to feather the gas, to try and prevent it. When I test drove a Corolla with a CVT, I engaged the cruise control, and the engine RPM was all over the place. I thought there was something wrong with it. But the salesman informed me that was the way they drove. And then he gave me the whole, "you'll get used to it" song and dance. It reminded me of the car salesman in the movie, "Vacation". Telling Chevy Chase.... "You think you hate it now, just wait until you drive it!"

 

[NO2]

A CVT works just as well as a conventional transmission and is quieter at highway speeds. You don't have a choice in most cars anyway. If people were truly concerned only with reliability they'd just be purchasing the models that last the longest - like Toyota Camry's and Honda Accords or Suburbans and Silverados. There are even CVT models on the longest lasting lists - Subaru Legacy and Outback for example.

 

[Donald]

Both Subaru vehicles with CVT seem fine to me. I really do not notice CVT. Neither has over 100K miles.

 

[badtlc]

I like my Subaru CVT much more than expected. It seems really simple and reliable from looking at the design. I can see how just basic fluid maintenance should make the CVT last forever.

 

[benjy]

with tranny jobs costing close to an engine i would not chance it. the comment on a CVT made by subaru in a WRX makes me laugh as one owner on a subie forum is on his THIRD replacement thankfully under warranty. if you trade before warranty is gone its their $$$ or buy a VW with 6 yr 60 thou BUMPER to BUMPER warranty + a real reliable standard automatic tranny!!

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Subaru extended the warranties on its CVTs to 100kmiles a few years ago...that's a sign that they were having some issues. I had my fluid changed by a dealer at 60kmiles and then started throwing tranny codes at 80kmiles...a fairly major repair was done by the same dealer under warranty, but during the course of this repair it came out that they used the wrong CVT fluid at 60k (Subaru uses a special high torque fluid for some applications and there seems to be a lot of confusion over this fact) and they did another drain and fill just after the repair because they had used the wrong one again. So, I really don't know if the CVT failed on its own or because of the incorrect fluid. The main symptom of the problem I was having (beyond the codes) was a reluctance of my car to move in reverse. I actually like the way the CVT operates in my FXT, other than the slight lag it supposedly causes at launch (the consensus on subaruforester.org and NASIOC was that it was the CVT and not the turbo, as the manual WRXs with a very similar engine have less lag). Once you get past the lag, the tranny operation is very smooth compared to what I experienced in my RAV4 V6 with a 5 speed. The Toyota was kind herky jerky and usually would not respond well if I stepped on it at around 50mph on the highway...it also didn't seem to be able to pick the right gear when I left my neighborhood by making a left into a hill, that was always frustrating. The Subie CVT just pours it on in all conditions...

 

[Pelican]

Having been around the CTV since it was introduced by DAF (A Dutch auto co.) I can tell you that it was never meant to be used in engines with med-hi torque. The "Belt" is the Achilles' heel as it can't stand torque without breaking. Improvements have been made to make it more resistant, but IMO still not enough. For this reason I did not buy a Subaru, though I had one that gave me great service, for I wanted the 3.6R (6Cyl) and not the 2.5 which I find anemic and wasn't sure the tranny would stand up to the torque. If one is buying small engines not higher than 2.5 litre I don't see a problem, but if of bigger displacement in terms of longevity...hhmmI wouldn't bet on it. FWIW Subaru was the 1st in Northamerica with a CTV in the Justy, then eliminated it as problematic, they've made great strides and is the only manufacturer that makes its own transmissions.