"The CVT: Learn it and Love it"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the JATCO CVT is going to be the Olds 350 diesel of the CVT world. There are loads of videos of them malfunctioning on youtube. And having driven a few, they are just awkward and easily confused.

The versa that would randomly rev to 5000 RPM when cruising on a flat road at 55. Or the Sentra that lugs the engine around at 1100RPM all day and cuases a orrible reverberation through the cabin


I really want to test an Accord W/ CVT or one of the Aisin CVTs.
 
Interesting, thanks.

I'm curious how the Honda is too.
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
However, if anyone can make a CVT work in an automobile, it *WILL* be Toyota or Honda.


Now, that's just funny!
28.gif
 
Originally Posted By: BHopkins
Originally Posted By: Miller88
However, if anyone can make a CVT work in an automobile, it *WILL* be Toyota or Honda.


Now, that's just funny!
28.gif




Your Subaru has a Toyota (Aisin) CVT.
 
CVT's are only durable behind smaller engines. Mfgrs are working on torque capacity but most require a ton of torque management written into the software to protect them.

Regular slushboxes do the same, but can easily handle 500 foot pounds and more while towing and such.

According to the driveline engineer I know a CVT also makes the engines easier to calibrate for mileage due to the steady rpm...
 
What does the CVT portend for AAMCO and other tranny repair shops? If they are not repairable, would that translate into less business opportunity for them?
 
Originally Posted By: Joe1
What does the CVT portend for AAMCO and other tranny repair shops? If they are not repairable, would that translate into less business opportunity for them?


Naw, they will just sell new ones.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

According to the driveline engineer I know a CVT also makes the engines easier to calibrate for mileage due to the steady rpm...


IMO, that's what it's all about. Hanging on to those fuel economy ratings. I would think that the CVT units are lighter and contain less parts than a 5,6,7+ speed automagic as well, which would be cheaper for the manufacturer in the long run.

I'm a real-world CVT owner, having owned my 2012 Legacy for nearly 3yrs and 42K miles. It did seem awkward for the first day, but I've completely enjoyed it ever since. I can't say the car is my favorite, but the drivetrain is just plain awesome.

I get a kick out of at all the CVT threads. How can a CVT equipped vehicle be any more irritating than a 6,7,8+ speed AT equipped vehicle, in say a Subaru price range?
 
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
I hold CVT at about the same level as FWD. I'll never buy a vehicle with one.



Problem being that unless you'll settle for a pickup or are willing to spend some pretty long dollars, FWD is hard to avoid and CVTs may soon be as well.


I dislike the way FWD cars drive in the snow and in general. I don't like having my steering wheels lose traction when I'm trying to get the car moving. I like being able to steer.

I also don't like transverse engines, and 4 cylinders.

CVT's are the definition of boring, might as well buy an electric car at that point.

Luckily their are lots of RWD options at all price points new and used, I have never found myself short.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: BHopkins
Originally Posted By: Miller88
However, if anyone can make a CVT work in an automobile, it *WILL* be Toyota or Honda.


Now, that's just funny!
28.gif




Your Subaru has a Toyota (Aisin) CVT.


LOL, now that's really funny!
laugh.gif
 
All you guys saying that CVTs are awkward and don't perform well have never driven a Nissan Rogue. The CVT in those is fantastic.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: buster
I drove a 2014 Forester with the CVT and it wasn't bad.


"The problem is twofold but starts with the transmission, a CVT that displays all the worst qualities of these units. We’d take the four-speed from the old RAV4 over this thing. Heck, we’d even take a two-speed Powerglide. The Subaru CVT tricks your ears into believing the Forester has good throttle response, but the accelerator pedal is about as nuanced as a light switch. Stomping on the gas yields no surge of power, just a rush of revs and noise from the engine. Without steps in the gearing, like those in the CVT that Subaru uses with its more powerful engine, the Forester drones away even as it makes sluggish progress. It finished dead last in acceleration testing, doing zero to 60 mph in 8.6 seconds and turning in a 16.7-second quarter-mile."

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-subaru-forester-25i-touring-page-2


I strongly disagree with this, unless they had a bad one. The Subaru CVT is getting praise in pretty much everything it's being used in. There were even some positive reviews in the new 2015 WRX, which is surprising.


http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/suv/1312_2014_suv_of_the_year_subaru_forester/


Quote:
When the drive loops began, one of the most pleasant surprises was revealed: This CVT is really good. Lieberman explained, "I was incredibly impressed with the CVT on the XT, especially when it's in Sport# and fakes up to 8 'gears.' Subaru went ahead and programmed it as aggressively as Porsche's PDK. When I was really flogging away on the XT, I'd look down at the gear indicator and observe that I was in '2.' Impressive." Not only is the CVT good, but editors had an absolute blast driving the Forester, describing it as being "quite tossable," and they enjoyed the XT's road feel and sportier suspension. It was quick at the track, too, where the XT reached 60 mph in 6.2 seconds. That's faster than the Acura MDX and the BMW x1 xDrive28i.





The CVT in the Forester XT (and beefed up for the WRX) isn't the same as the base model CVT I don't think. From press releases, the people talking at auto shows, etc. they're talking up the CVT in the turbo models like they did some pretty serious work on it. The negative C&D review was of a 2.5i which would have the "older" transmission and probably doesn't feel as crisp to drive and may not be able to handle as much power.


It does seem like pretty much every review of the XT or WRX CVT is a good one -- although time will tell whether that's an actual "this is a good transmission" thing or just a "this is way better than we expected a CVT to be" thing.
 
My Jeep has a CVT. It is a Jatco unit like/similar to those used in many Nissans. It is my 1st experience owning one. Have to say after the initial adjustment period to get used to driving them( and it is not that much of an adjustment )I don't even think about it anymore. I just drive.

I have heard so many people talking about the horror stories of CVT's but to be honest I haven't seen any of it. Pretty much drives like a regular AT. I really don't see the huge difference between the CVT and an auto trans so many talk about?

About the only noticeable thing I have seen is flooring the gas pedal results in bogging down. You need to ease into the pedal for optimal performance( or manually shift )when you need to really get into it( enter highway, pass, etc... ). Other than that just drives normally.

I would own another at this point without any fears.
 
Originally Posted By: rationull
Originally Posted By: buster
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: buster
I drove a 2014 Forester with the CVT and it wasn't bad.


"The problem is twofold but starts with the transmission, a CVT that displays all the worst qualities of these units. We’d take the four-speed from the old RAV4 over this thing. Heck, we’d even take a two-speed Powerglide. The Subaru CVT tricks your ears into believing the Forester has good throttle response, but the accelerator pedal is about as nuanced as a light switch. Stomping on the gas yields no surge of power, just a rush of revs and noise from the engine. Without steps in the gearing, like those in the CVT that Subaru uses with its more powerful engine, the Forester drones away even as it makes sluggish progress. It finished dead last in acceleration testing, doing zero to 60 mph in 8.6 seconds and turning in a 16.7-second quarter-mile."

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-subaru-forester-25i-touring-page-2


I strongly disagree with this, unless they had a bad one. The Subaru CVT is getting praise in pretty much everything it's being used in. There were even some positive reviews in the new 2015 WRX, which is surprising.


http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/suv/1312_2014_suv_of_the_year_subaru_forester/


Quote:
When the drive loops began, one of the most pleasant surprises was revealed: This CVT is really good. Lieberman explained, "I was incredibly impressed with the CVT on the XT, especially when it's in Sport# and fakes up to 8 'gears.' Subaru went ahead and programmed it as aggressively as Porsche's PDK. When I was really flogging away on the XT, I'd look down at the gear indicator and observe that I was in '2.' Impressive." Not only is the CVT good, but editors had an absolute blast driving the Forester, describing it as being "quite tossable," and they enjoyed the XT's road feel and sportier suspension. It was quick at the track, too, where the XT reached 60 mph in 6.2 seconds. That's faster than the Acura MDX and the BMW x1 xDrive28i.





The CVT in the Forester XT (and beefed up for the WRX) isn't the same as the base model CVT I don't think. From press releases, the people talking at auto shows, etc. they're talking up the CVT in the turbo models like they did some pretty serious work on it. The negative C&D review was of a 2.5i which would have the "older" transmission and probably doesn't feel as crisp to drive and may not be able to handle as much power.


It does seem like pretty much every review of the XT or WRX CVT is a good one -- although time will tell whether that's an actual "this is a good transmission" thing or just a "this is way better than we expected a CVT to be" thing.


Good points. I think you're right.
 
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
My Jeep has a CVT. It is a Jatco unit like/similar to those used in many Nissans. It is my 1st experience owning one. Have to say after the initial adjustment period to get used to driving them( and it is not that much of an adjustment )I don't even think about it anymore. I just drive.

I have heard so many people talking about the horror stories of CVT's but to be honest I haven't seen any of it. Pretty much drives like a regular AT. I really don't see the huge difference between the CVT and an auto trans so many talk about?

About the only noticeable thing I have seen is flooring the gas pedal results in bogging down. You need to ease into the pedal for optimal performance( or manually shift )when you need to really get into it( enter highway, pass, etc... ). Other than that just drives normally.

I would own another at this point without any fears.


I think part of disliking them is the initial change. I'm finding quite a few people really like the CVT, especially if it's a good one.

I would take a Honda MT over a Honda CVT though.
 
"Not all cars have throttles (I believe the S54)"

Well, having spent a lot of time under the hood and inside my M3's S54, they most certainly do have throttles. In fact, I replaced the factory individual throttle bodies with bored ITB's when I was installing the CSL CF induction setup.

Sorry, I had to correct that or my OCD would go nuts.


The N52 and newer engines, many of them use Valvetronic and eschew traditional throttle bodies tho.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Quote:
While it may be good in theory, it just doesn't work in practice.


How so? You may be right and it could be short lived, but that's not what I've been reading.

Long term durability of the latest CVT is unknown, but so far it seems very good.

The Subaru CVT is about $8,000 to replace (per someone on the Outback forum that asked the service manager). It is not a component that techs can work on. If it breaks, the entire unit gets replaced.

I'd get an extended warranty and not worry about it.

No doubt MT's are more durable. Unfortunately, most people don't want a MT. They are disappearing. Subaru could have made a better 6spd MT, but they know more people will want the CVT.


By the time the CVT goes boom, most people will be in the market for a new car anyway.

BITOGers care about things that most of the intended audience does not. As enthusiasts, we are a tough crowd to cater to -- and most automakers do not cater to us because there isn't a justifiable reason to.
 
"Drove a few and hated ALL of them" was my CVT experience.
(They're MUCH worse than a decent automatic, and automatics on some cars these days are actually pretty good, as far as driving feel goes, at least in the 2 main cars we own)
 
Actually the manual gearbox has had a tiny resurgence in the US over the past several years, and it might become bigger because one of the most expensive options on any car is that of the automatic or CVT, you can usually save at least a thousand bucks by ordering a car with a manual transmission, and these days most folks don't have a lot of spare change to waste.

As for the Rest Of the World, the manual gearbox is not going anywhere as most other countries prefer it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top