CVT Reliability and Durability

[Andrew1972]

They seem to built for the typical 150k design life of vehicle components and many folks going beyond that. The early mass market tries really taint the opinions of folks however great data is still coming about. Some real duds were early Nissan and GM garbage in the Saturn.

 

[Cujet]

The best advice I've ever received was one that touted going with the proven and conventional. It was in regard to financial matters. But it applies to vehicles equally well. An unpublished datapoint is that 14% of Subaru CVT's fail within the warranty period. One failed on me at 2400 miles since new. Rental car agencies are having a [censored] of a time with Subarus and CVT's. Same goes for Nissan Altimas.

 

[PandaBear]

The question about how long do they last is like how long will a car last. From my work on CVT 25 years ago as a student, they run HOT, and they fail in a sudden failure when the belt slip. They are efficient because of they are better at keeping the rpm low. This was back then on a 97 Jatco CVT mated to a 1.0L 70hp engine, when the typical automatic is 4 speed. Today the competition is 6-8 speed automatic on the high end as well as 300HP V6. The higher HP engine will likely rip through the CVT if it is not designed correctly (the power train firmware) or when the belt stretch over time and the design isn't designed to adjust correctly. I also do not trust Nissan spending enough effort on CVT, as their quality on the rest of the car is pretty bad (liquid filled control arm bushing, foam hood insulation glued on, drooping roof in the showroom). I personally trust Toyota not to cut these kind of corner intentionally when they put it on a Corolla because they know what their buyers are buying (overpriced boring reliable appliance). Still, it is hard to guarantee them living just as long if not longer than a typical automatic. If this is your concern you should buy a car with a traditional automatic (Aisin if possible).

 

[emg]

Originally Posted by Cujet

An unpublished datapoint is that 14% of Subaru CVT's fail within the warranty period.

So how come this isn't plastered all over the Subaru forums? I've seen very, very few people there report that their CVT failed, unless some gormless mechanic had filled it with ATF instead of CVT fluid, whereas there should be tens of thousands of owners who've had the CVT fail.

 

[emg]

Originally Posted by 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.

If I remember correctly, the CVT in the Williams race car was handling over 500lb-ft of torque and close to 1000hp. And beating all the competition.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by emg

Originally Posted by Cujet

An unpublished datapoint is that 14% of Subaru CVT's fail within the warranty period.

So how come this isn't plastered all over the Subaru forums? I've seen very, very few people there report that their CVT failed, unless some gormless mechanic had filled it with ATF instead of CVT fluid, whereas there should be tens of thousands of owners who've had the CVT fail.

I would imagine because those on the Subaru forums are typically manual transmission owners and not boring CVT drivers.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by emg

Originally Posted by 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.

If I remember correctly, the CVT in the Williams race car was handling over 500lb-ft of torque and close to 1000hp. And beating all the competition.

For 200,000 miles though?

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted by Cujet

The best advice I've ever received was one that touted going with the proven and conventional. It was in regard to financial matters. But it applies to vehicles equally well. An unpublished datapoint is that 14% of Subaru CVT's fail within the warranty period. One failed on me at 2400 miles since new. Rental car agencies are having a [censored] of a time with Subarus and CVT's. Same goes for Nissan Altimas.

As posted above, I had mine fail within the extended warranty period and 20kmiles after the original warranty had ended...I don't doubt this data point, could you share where you found it? It's probably a small portion of that percentage, but a few early adopters of the '14+ FXT at subaruforester.com promptly starting modding their vehicles and finding that their CVTs were failing above ~300HP (stock is 250)...seemed like the old 4EAT worked fine at much higher power levels (although I have to argue that it was a crummy tranny otherwise). The standard action seemed to be to return to stock, get Subaru to cover as much of the repair as possible, and then trade the vehicle in.

 

[emg]

Originally Posted by StevieC

I would imagine because those on the Subaru forums are typically manual transmission owners and not boring CVT drivers.

You can't even buy a Forester with a manual transmission any more. I think that's true of some of the other models. If 14% of transmissions were failing, it would be a huge scandal, far more than the few percent of oil burners that everyone whines about.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by emg

Originally Posted by StevieC

I would imagine because those on the Subaru forums are typically manual transmission owners and not boring CVT drivers.

You can't even buy a Forester with a manual transmission any more. I think that's true of some of the other models. If 14% of transmissions were failing, it would be a huge scandal, far more than the few percent of oil burners that everyone whines about.

No what I mean is that the Subaru owners on the forums most likely have manual transmission equipped models instead of CVT models.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted by StevieC

Originally Posted by emg

Originally Posted by Cujet

An unpublished datapoint is that 14% of Subaru CVT's fail within the warranty period.

So how come this isn't plastered all over the Subaru forums? I've seen very, very few people there report that their CVT failed, unless some gormless mechanic had filled it with ATF instead of CVT fluid, whereas there should be tens of thousands of owners who've had the CVT fail.

I would imagine because those on the Subaru forums are typically manual transmission owners and not boring CVT drivers.

HEY!!!! ;^) The CVT was the only available tranny for the '14+ FXT that just died an ignominious death...the WRX could be had with a stick, but that car is tiny, extraordinarily uncomfortable for me, and is not very useful for carrying stuff. Meaning it is not useful to me as a vehicle at all...and I just plain don't believe in having more than one vehicle per person in a house. Just my preference...

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by StevieC

Originally Posted by emg

Originally Posted by StevieC

I would imagine because those on the Subaru forums are typically manual transmission owners and not boring CVT drivers.

You can't even buy a Forester with a manual transmission any more. I think that's true of some of the other models. If 14% of transmissions were failing, it would be a huge scandal, far more than the few percent of oil burners that everyone whines about.

No what I mean is that the Subaru owners on the forums most likely have manual transmission equipped models instead of CVT models.

Perhaps. but I have to wonder if "most" buyers just don't frequent forums. Plenty of people still do not get on the internet. And/or stick to Facebook instead. I also wonder how many use this opportunity to get upside down while at the dealer. As in, go in for a repair, find out the cost, then drive off in a new car.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi

HEY!!!! ;^) The CVT was the only available tranny for the '14+ FXT that just died an ignominious death...the WRX could be had with a stick, but that car is tiny, extraordinarily uncomfortable for me, and is not very useful for carrying stuff. Meaning it is not useful to me as a vehicle at all...and I just plain don't believe in having more than one vehicle per person in a house. Just my preference...

I meant drivers of a "boring CVT", not "boring drivers" of a CVT. CVT's are boring and in your situation I would have looked elsewhere than settled for the CVT. Just me though...

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted by StevieC

Originally Posted by Virtus_Probi

HEY!!!! ;^) The CVT was the only available tranny for the '14+ FXT that just died an ignominious death...the WRX could be had with a stick, but that car is tiny, extraordinarily uncomfortable for me, and is not very useful for carrying stuff. Meaning it is not useful to me as a vehicle at all...and I just plain don't believe in having more than one vehicle per person in a house. Just my preference...

I meant drivers of a "boring CVT", not "boring drivers" of a CVT. CVT's are boring and in your situation I would have looked elsewhere than settled for the CVT. Just me though...

Wanna race me in your GC?? ;^) Hot small SUVs are becoming harder to find without going way up in price in recent years...I am fine with the performance of my CVT, but worried about durability. I was close to buying an Acura RDX (back when it was a V6), maybe I would have been happier with it than the FXT but it had the crummy AWD from the CR-V at the time and I appreciate a better system as a skier. My RAV4 V6 was also pretty fun, but I didn't appreciate the conventional auto tranny when it was searching for right gear in some situations when I wanted it to really take off. So, speaking of boring, why did you settle for a minivan?

 

[StevieC]

I "settled" for my van because I needed something I knew was reliable that was lower in cost to replace the Highlander which I had a fiasco with.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by StevieC

I "settled" for my van because I needed something I knew was reliable that was lower in cost to replace the Highlander which I had a fiasco with.

That fiasco was kinda short lived though. In the end you made the choice best for you.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted by StevieC

I "settled" for my van because I needed something I knew was reliable that was lower in cost to replace the Highlander which I had a fiasco with.

Minivans are boring and in your situation I would have looked elsewhere than settled (sic) for the minivan. Just me though (sic)… (no smiley because I don't find your condescending attitude amusing in the slightest...)

 

[KrisZ]

It is hard to have a discussion with non-technical people about these types of things because the commonly accepted expectation is a catastrophic failure and guts spilled on the side of the road somewhere. Hence you see people arguing that lack of broken down cars on the side of the roads is evidence enough that the problem is minimal. This is why we can't discuss things like push to thin oils, CVTs or fuel dilution, to name a few. CVTs are an engineered component and being one of the most important ones in a vehicle, it is guaranteed that certain fails safe features and safety factors were implemented. So one cannot expect to see only catastrophic failures. As for me, I will pass on the belt driven CVTs.

 

[raffy]

CVT's appear to be one of those items that look good on paper (or on a computer screen with CAD software), but don't deliver over the long term in real life. What many of you are saying echo the same concerns I have over these transmissions. Some of you also mentioned concerns over the new smaller turbo engines that are becoming more popular in vehicles of all sizes, which also probably will not be as durable over the long term as the former non-turbo engines (of larger displacements) they replaced. IMO, it's false economy to have vehicles that eke out 5 mpg (if that) more but only last half as long. Maybe this is a conspiracy to get more of us to spend the extra $$$ to buy a hybrid vehicle (such as the Toyota Prius, which has a very well demonstrated long term reliability record). As some of you have said, it seems that currently Honda CVT's are the best of the bunch. I saw the recent "soft" recall of Toyota Corolla CVT's, which I find to be quite disturbing. That would make me want to avoid all Corollas on the used market that have CVT's - too much risk there. My 18 year old son is starting to look around for his first vehicle, and I've told him to try to find a small car with a manual transmission because of the risk with automatics and CVT's. That is a bit hard these days, as less than 10% of vehicles on the used market have them.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by PimTac

Originally Posted by StevieC

I "settled" for my van because I needed something I knew was reliable that was lower in cost to replace the Highlander which I had a fiasco with.

That fiasco was kinda short lived though. In the end you made the choice best for you.

Yup. I would do it all over again. Judging by the 2012 I drove that my dad now owns with high mileage, I know I will get the miles out of this 2018 and there is no Turbo, no Direct Injection, no CVT, just a debugged vehicle that they have had 6 years to tweak before I bought one and it has been great so far. I look forward to driving the odometer as high or higher than my Santa Fe