CVT Reliability and Durability

[badtlc]

Originally Posted by raffy


As some of you have said, it seems that currently Honda CVT's are the best of the bunch.


A quick google shows there are several lawsuits and recalls involving Honda CVTs. I'm not sure Honda is the best of the bunch.

 

[4WD]

Yeah … far cry from the V8 + 6 speeds I'm used to …

 

[gathermewool]

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.


No such thing as a '14+ Forester XT with a manual. The VAST majority of Subarus are sold with CVT's and I'm on NASIOC, the Forester and the Legacy forums every day. I rarely hear of CVT failures. I feel as if SOA is offering the 100k extended warranty on CVT's mostly as a sign of faith in the CVT, so that people feel more comfortable giving Subaru and their CVT a try or to retain existing Subaru owners as they consider other makes that offer conventions AT's for their next vehicle out of fear of CVT durability.


I've got 67k miles on the FXT's high-torque CVT and it's still going great. I actually "upgraded" from an '08 STI to the FXT. We were expecting to build a family soon when I went in for a test-drive; I was expecting to hate the CVT. I didn't. It was actually pretty freaking great!

I love that it parks the revs at 3-4K and the turbo boosts to 14#+, resulting in an incredibly smooth acceleration. It also engine-brakes pretty well, all the way down to low speeds, which I find ideal.

The '14+ Forester XT and '15+ WRX FA20DIT engine and CVT are 99% the same, with different tuning and "shifting" characteristics.
I'm almost certain that the average Joe driving a CVT FXT or WRX will out-pace a MT WRX 9 times out of ten. Each has low boost lag due to the twin-scroll turbo, but the CVT simply puts you in the power band, maxes out boost and keeps it there the whole time! Combine that with some left-foot braking and you're even farther ahead in most scenarios.

Fun note: my '14 FXT allows application of throttle while braking, offering a pretty gnarly launch feature (for a CUV).
I wouldn't recommend this and have only done this once to test it out.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted by raffy


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?


I think you'll find the most relevant experiences to be those with the specific CVT which you're considering. As you've seen in this thread, there are a lot of opinions, conjecture and generalizations--some is likely on point, and a lot of it based on "CVT's" that were produced 4 decades ago. It's like asking "are turbo engines reliable"? Kinda depends on the engine.

The one in my Ford Freestyle has been extremely durable (I think it's over 240K now), and there are a lot of weirdly high mileage FS's out there (never seen so many cars for sale w/over 200K on them?). It seems high on durability, moderate on reliability (common fault was in input shaft bearing, mine never had a problem). That doesn't really mean much to you though if you're looking at a Toyota. There is nothing inherent to a CVT that makes it unreliable or lacking in durability, though.

Dana is actually coming out w/a chainless CVT for car applications (it's been in use in bike applications for years). Should be interesting. In your case, I'd check out the Toyota forums for some specific info on the car you're considering--probably your best bet.

 

[tomcat27]

We had two of them. we are down to one. We will not purchase another. We had repeat problems (not imaginary) and the problems had NOTHING to do with how they shifted - unless you consider a violent shudder on deceleration to be "internet blather" or "me thinking that I am driving an automatic". One of them started shuddering at around 20k; and it also started squealing on acceleration at around the same time. While the dealer fixed the shudder, the squealing was "normal". 3 visits to the dealer and they finally wised up and fixed it - but only for 20k miles - when the squealing returned. Our Rogue started squealing around 35k. we got rid of it. a sample failure of 100% in our case. to anyone that buys one, good luck. but put aside several thousand dollars to replace it, just in case.

 

[JTK]

raffy, there's gotta be a hundred threads on this topic, so why not 101!

Seriously though, I find the posts with owner or mechanic/tech experiences interesting and all the opinion posts entertaining on this.

If you're comparing a present day 8, 9 or 10speed conventional automatic or a DCT with a current day CVT, the jury is still out in regards to which is more durable or reliable. In fact, I'd like to see the data (if real data existed) associated with what style of transmission is likely to fail first. Every one of them is lightweight, fragile and complicated these days, regardless of design. ALL of them are thousands of $ to repair/replace. Would I buy a used, high mileage CVT equipped vehicle? Not unless I knew it's background and service history.

Comparing a current day CVTs to a 1988 Subaru Justy CVT is ridiculous, as is comparing one to a 2009 Corolla with the bullet proof 4spd auto. These are apples/oranges comparisons.

I've owned 3 CVT equipped vehicles at this point. A 2012 Subaru legacy, a 2016 Subaru Forester and currently a 2016 Nissan Quest. I've put about 130K miles combined with the three. I didn't select these vehicles specifically because they had CVTs, it just came with the vehicle.

I found my 4cyl Subarus to be nice to drive with CVT, but other 4cyl/CVT equipped vehicles I've driven are buzzy and gutless. Our Quest with the VQ35DE and CVT is a hoot to drive. Very fast, powerful and always in the right RPM range. Very easy to DIY service as well, where most are not.

 

[bbhero]

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.

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.



Funny....I have a 08 Nissan Altima VQ with a CVT with 261k miles.... And the original fluid in it... Still runs great. Zero issues since I got it in 2012.

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by 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)




Again... I have the original CVT fluid in my car with 261k miles.. runs great. And yes I do push and have had many quick starts from a dead stop..

I do agree with you about not towing with a CVT... And I agree that the Nissan after my generation have had a fair amount of issues with those cvts. I believe a CVT is actually best paired with a moderately powered motor... Aka like my 3.5 motor. Not too much power but no so little that the transmission does operate in it's best zone of operation.

 

[dblshock]

close to 40k here...all good, actually like it...proven quicker than the manual.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by dblshock
close to 40k here...all good, actually like it...proven quicker than the manual.

Ummm???

2016 Civic with CVT 2.0
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15101602/2016-honda-civic-20l-cvt-test-review/
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 22.1 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 37.7 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.4 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.3 sec @ 88 mph
Top speed (C/D est): 125 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 174 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.84 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 31/41 mpg
C/D observed: 30 mpg
*Stability-control-inhibited

2016 Civic Manual 2.0
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15101102/2016-honda-civic-coupe-20l-manual-test-review/
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.7 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 35.5 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 11.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 12.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.9 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 130 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 188 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.82 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 26/38 mpg
C/D observed: 26 mpg
*Stability-control-inhibited

The CVT was more fuel-thrifty though. Definitely a worse performance tool, otherwise.

 

[HowAboutThis]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by dblshock
close to 40k here...all good, actually like it...proven quicker than the manual.

Ummm???

2016 Civic with CVT 2.0
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15101602/2016-honda-civic-20l-cvt-test-review/
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 22.1 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 37.7 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.4 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.3 sec @ 88 mph
Top speed (C/D est): 125 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 174 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.84 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 31/41 mpg
C/D observed: 30 mpg
*Stability-control-inhibited

2016 Civic Manual 2.0
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15101102/2016-honda-civic-coupe-20l-manual-test-review/
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.7 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 35.5 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 11.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 12.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.9 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 130 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 188 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.82 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 26/38 mpg
C/D observed: 26 mpg
*Stability-control-inhibited

The CVT was more fuel-thrifty though. Definitely a worse performance tool, otherwise.


I've read and seen on many YouTube car shows CVTs are (supposedly) quicker than manuals. My Corolla has been in twice for CVT "updates". And it's always been the slowest car on the planet. Mountain bikes pass me merging onto the interstate...

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by HowAboutThis
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by dblshock
close to 40k here...all good, actually like it...proven quicker than the manual.

Ummm???

2016 Civic with CVT 2.0
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15101602/2016-honda-civic-20l-cvt-test-review/
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 8.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 22.1 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 37.7 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.4 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 16.3 sec @ 88 mph
Top speed (C/D est): 125 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 174 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.84 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 31/41 mpg
C/D observed: 30 mpg
*Stability-control-inhibited

2016 Civic Manual 2.0
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15101102/2016-honda-civic-coupe-20l-manual-test-review/
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.7 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 35.5 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.2 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 11.9 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 12.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.9 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 130 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 188 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.82 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 26/38 mpg
C/D observed: 26 mpg
*Stability-control-inhibited

The CVT was more fuel-thrifty though. Definitely a worse performance tool, otherwise.


I've read and seen on many YouTube car shows CVTs are (supposedly) quicker than manuals. My Corolla has been in twice for CVT "updates". And it's always been the slowest car on the planet. Mountain bikes pass me merging onto the interstate...


Well, there's objective data using OP's own vehicle, comparing the two. I have never seen a head-to-head test showing the CVT to overall be faster than a manual in the same vehicle/engine combo.

 

[dblshock]

I remember seeing tests supporting my claim...btw: it is the 1.5L version...in any case this is no supercar but the CVT matches well to the engine always in a good position never stumbles, amazing fuel mileage/power ratio..I'm sure the trans plays a huge roll in that.

i got to do a fluid refresh been putting it off.

 

[ARB1977]

My wife's CRV with the CVT has been awesome (15K) so far. Will wait till 30K before it's first fluid change.

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted by bbhero


Funny....I have a 08 Nissan Altima VQ with a CVT with 261k miles.... And the original fluid in it... Still runs great. Zero issues since I got it in 2012.




Wow! I knew you were up there in miles on your VQ35 + CVT, but I didn't know it was original NS-2 in there. I though you had done some NS-2 spill and fills on it.

 

[bbhero]

Yeah man it is up there.

I am going to do a drain and refill on it soon. Then wait about 3 months and do another one.

I do think it must be said that a transmission and motor is a relationship between the two. My mom's Ford Expedition has had a regular 4 speed transmission replaced at 125k miles.... Now the second one is acting up. That transmission in that Ford is just not up to par. And never was. A "better" one mated with that Triton motor would have done much much better. I believe a CVT with a high hp motor would not be a good combination. Also a CVT with a weak motor is a very poor match has well. A solid powered motor like mine is a best match for a CVT. It keeps the transmission in a better operating band or condition. Also the "programming" is really, really important to CVT transmissions has well. On older 4 speeds the gearing was a sizeable part of them working well or not.... I always noticed that my mom's Ford Expedition would up shift and down shift in speeds between 35-50 mph... It just was always hunting the right gear... Compared to my lady's Camry which has a very "tall" third gear setup. It never hurts for the right gear or is going up and down all the time. The big three actually worked together to make a better 6 speed transmission... Because of the fact they made some rather bad regular transmissions. Seems like Honda started making some bad automatic transmissions a good while back... Really no manufacturer has been perfect in what transmissions they have made. And the automatic transmission has long been not the beholder of perfection... Quite the opposite in fact in a number of instances. So much so that my parents only purchased standard transmissions after our lovely automatic Pontiac became yard art after blowing up it's transmission two times. They had enough of poor reliability from their previous automatic transmissions. We never had another transmission failure after that point.

 

[gizzsdad]

I put 80K+ on my 2010 Maxima and never changed the fluid, and never any problems. I currently have 55K on my 2016, and no problems.

An internet friend is approaching 400K on his 2009.