I have a 2014 suby with a CVT, I like it a lot for my applications, mostly conservative driving around town with its stop lights and the ability to increase speed once moving very quickly for a 4 banger. Cruises the flat interstates at 80-85MPH at under 3K RPM with some reserve acceleration if needed.
The truth about CVT's (at least Subaru's) and cats
- Thread starter bobdoo
- Start date
Originally Posted by IveBeenRued
Within my immediate family, we have four Subaru CVTs and two Ford eCVTs; we have had zero issues with any of these transmissions. Both our Ford and Subaru CVTs are quiet, drive nicely, help these vehicles get great fuel economy, and are easy to maintain with drain plug and fill plugs that are easily accessible.
My only minor complaint is in regards to the fake gears that Subaru puts into their programming which are supposed to "enhance the feeling of acceleration", I much prefer the Ford set-up that just matches the engine RPM to the power demand from the driver.
and incredible gas mileage to boot. I owned a 2013 Accord for a while.....35-40 mpg daily on a fairly large car, just amazing.
Within my immediate family, we have four Subaru CVTs and two Ford eCVTs; we have had zero issues with any of these transmissions. Both our Ford and Subaru CVTs are quiet, drive nicely, help these vehicles get great fuel economy, and are easy to maintain with drain plug and fill plugs that are easily accessible.
My only minor complaint is in regards to the fake gears that Subaru puts into their programming which are supposed to "enhance the feeling of acceleration", I much prefer the Ford set-up that just matches the engine RPM to the power demand from the driver.
and incredible gas mileage to boot. I owned a 2013 Accord for a while.....35-40 mpg daily on a fairly large car, just amazing.
I think jATCO make low torque app CVT used in some cars that has the best of bosth worlds. A 2 speed planetary - do you cabn get a harder launch with a better "1st gear" ration, then it unbraces the planetary and you have the CVT pullies to vary to a good O-drive on the highway.
I will say the old gen JATCO in my NIssan has been trouble free ( It will now break in a week after typing this!!!) I did a 34K drain and fill - well the Nissan dealer did. But Id ont see good efficiency around town. Im lucky to get above 24 MPG ave with 80/20 town/interstate. I could EASILY coax 32mpg from the wife's old 2009 Forester EJ25 with a 5 speed manual. But that had Subaru's version of VTEC where it idles one of the intakes valves at low rpm and had them both on a conservative cam lobe.
CVT still has the losses of linkbelt drive with two sheaves - pully friction heat losses through friction drive and oil windage losses.
I will say the old gen JATCO in my NIssan has been trouble free ( It will now break in a week after typing this!!!) I did a 34K drain and fill - well the Nissan dealer did. But Id ont see good efficiency around town. Im lucky to get above 24 MPG ave with 80/20 town/interstate. I could EASILY coax 32mpg from the wife's old 2009 Forester EJ25 with a 5 speed manual. But that had Subaru's version of VTEC where it idles one of the intakes valves at low rpm and had them both on a conservative cam lobe.
CVT still has the losses of linkbelt drive with two sheaves - pully friction heat losses through friction drive and oil windage losses.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted by IveBeenRued
Within my immediate family, we have four Subaru CVTs and two Ford eCVTs; we have had zero issues with any of these transmissions. Both our Ford and Subaru CVTs are quiet, drive nicely, help these vehicles get great fuel economy, and are easy to maintain with drain plug and fill plugs that are easily accessible.
My only minor complaint is in regards to the fake gears that Subaru puts into their programming which are supposed to "enhance the feeling of acceleration", I much prefer the Ford set-up that just matches the engine RPM to the power demand from the driver.
+1
Our '14 FXT's CVT has a few set positions it seems to prefer for given torque requested; however, it doesn't simulate shifts like our '15 Legacy does. The FXT does simulate an 8-speed AT in Sport Sharp-mode, but it feels more rubber-bandy than sporty. Sport and Intelligent drive modes do not simulate shifting.
I much prefer 15# of boost and a nearly-constant 3,500RPM for my usual romp up to highway speed. With that said, the CVT is obviously continuously changing its ratio in the scenario I just mentioned, at max torque and moderate final drive output. I don't know the answer to one question: Does this cause more wear/strain on the CVT than simulated shifts??? I've always assumed simulating shifts was purely for the CVT-hating public, but maybe not entirely.
Based on how CVT's in other applications behave, I'd imagine there isn't any additional wear.
Within my immediate family, we have four Subaru CVTs and two Ford eCVTs; we have had zero issues with any of these transmissions. Both our Ford and Subaru CVTs are quiet, drive nicely, help these vehicles get great fuel economy, and are easy to maintain with drain plug and fill plugs that are easily accessible.
My only minor complaint is in regards to the fake gears that Subaru puts into their programming which are supposed to "enhance the feeling of acceleration", I much prefer the Ford set-up that just matches the engine RPM to the power demand from the driver.
+1
Our '14 FXT's CVT has a few set positions it seems to prefer for given torque requested; however, it doesn't simulate shifts like our '15 Legacy does. The FXT does simulate an 8-speed AT in Sport Sharp-mode, but it feels more rubber-bandy than sporty. Sport and Intelligent drive modes do not simulate shifting.
I much prefer 15# of boost and a nearly-constant 3,500RPM for my usual romp up to highway speed. With that said, the CVT is obviously continuously changing its ratio in the scenario I just mentioned, at max torque and moderate final drive output. I don't know the answer to one question: Does this cause more wear/strain on the CVT than simulated shifts??? I've always assumed simulating shifts was purely for the CVT-hating public, but maybe not entirely.
Based on how CVT's in other applications behave, I'd imagine there isn't any additional wear.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I don't really have anything against CVTs, but I still am not really ready to buy one. The ones I have driven have not been really objectionable, but it's not exactly exciting either. It's actually quite disappointing to me that Subaru is going to kill the manual even for the WRX, in their pursuit of being the "safest car manufacturer" because you can't have automatic braking with EyeSight and a stick.
I dislike the fact that "generally" you cannot add large amounts of HP to today's true automatics without worrying about lunching parts, and looking at a 4k+ repair bill.
Back in my Fox-body days, the manual was not much more reliable under large HP increases as T5s acted like they had gearsets made of glass, but once the T56 started they have generally been better. That being said, I did some really stupid things (in retrospect) with the stock T5 in my 95 Cobra that it should have never lived through, but did. Like 5800 RPM clutch drops on 8.5" slicks that would lift the front tires about 12" for about, well, 12" of forward travel (LOL). No broken gears, smoked clutches, or broken axles. I'd never attempt that now that I am wiser
So, in short, the truth is, ALL transmissions have their inherent individual drawbacks, and positives. CVTs are simply a newer, different set of each. Pick your vehicle based on your comfort level with each respective transmission type.
Really good post here ^^^^^
Big +1
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I don't really have anything against CVTs, but I still am not really ready to buy one. The ones I have driven have not been really objectionable, but it's not exactly exciting either. It's actually quite disappointing to me that Subaru is going to kill the manual even for the WRX, in their pursuit of being the "safest car manufacturer" because you can't have automatic braking with EyeSight and a stick.
I dislike the fact that "generally" you cannot add large amounts of HP to today's true automatics without worrying about lunching parts, and looking at a 4k+ repair bill.
Back in my Fox-body days, the manual was not much more reliable under large HP increases as T5s acted like they had gearsets made of glass, but once the T56 started they have generally been better. That being said, I did some really stupid things (in retrospect) with the stock T5 in my 95 Cobra that it should have never lived through, but did. Like 5800 RPM clutch drops on 8.5" slicks that would lift the front tires about 12" for about, well, 12" of forward travel (LOL). No broken gears, smoked clutches, or broken axles. I'd never attempt that now that I am wiser
So, in short, the truth is, ALL transmissions have their inherent individual drawbacks, and positives. CVTs are simply a newer, different set of each. Pick your vehicle based on your comfort level with each respective transmission type.
Really good post here ^^^^^
Big +1
bobdoo, welcome to the site and thanks for your post. This topic obviously brings out lots of love and hate opinions, but after all, it's a discussion forum.
My experience with Subaru CVTs is much the same as yours, although I only clocked about 90K combined miles on the two Subarus with CVTs that I owned. Not enough time to have a personal experience with reliability IMO.
We currently have a Nissan Quest minivan with the 3.5L V6 and a CVT. It's got ~65K miles on the ticker at this point and has been great so far. I've done several drian/fills on it's CVT starting at about 32K miles.
For the type of vehicles I've had CVTs in and the way we use them, I don't find them any more annoying than any slushbox I've owned.
Staying on topic with Subaru. If you've put any miles on a late model with a 5 or 6spd manual, aside from maybe a WRX, etc. You will see that Subaru doesn't seem to be designing their car line to HAVE a manual transmission these days. IMO, that's how horrible the driving experience is with a late model Subaru 5 or 6 speed. I put about 40K miles on my 2014 XV Crosstrek 5spd and wanted to drive it off a cliff after about 6mo of ownership. I've only put a few 100 miles on a family member's 6spd 2016 Forester and find it slightly better than the 5spd, but still terrible, like it was an afterthought of Subaru.
My experience with Subaru CVTs is much the same as yours, although I only clocked about 90K combined miles on the two Subarus with CVTs that I owned. Not enough time to have a personal experience with reliability IMO.
We currently have a Nissan Quest minivan with the 3.5L V6 and a CVT. It's got ~65K miles on the ticker at this point and has been great so far. I've done several drian/fills on it's CVT starting at about 32K miles.
For the type of vehicles I've had CVTs in and the way we use them, I don't find them any more annoying than any slushbox I've owned.
Staying on topic with Subaru. If you've put any miles on a late model with a 5 or 6spd manual, aside from maybe a WRX, etc. You will see that Subaru doesn't seem to be designing their car line to HAVE a manual transmission these days. IMO, that's how horrible the driving experience is with a late model Subaru 5 or 6 speed. I put about 40K miles on my 2014 XV Crosstrek 5spd and wanted to drive it off a cliff after about 6mo of ownership. I've only put a few 100 miles on a family member's 6spd 2016 Forester and find it slightly better than the 5spd, but still terrible, like it was an afterthought of Subaru.
Last edited:
Guys & gals, I had surgery today. I won't post until I'm off the meds that make my posts nonsense. Might be4-6 days?
I'm ok, the surgery went well.
I'm ok, the surgery went well.
Just wanted to say thanks for the fine welcome.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted by bobdoo
I won't post until I'm off the meds that make my posts nonsense.
Oh, great. Get well soon. It's always good to go easy on the body and interwebs after major surgeries.
Originally Posted by bobdoo
Just wanted to say thanks for the fine welcome, except for the post from the guy who is the punchline to the joke where a guy is pushing peanuts around with his [****].
What happened - you were doing so well..for 12 minutes!!!
I won't post until I'm off the meds that make my posts nonsense.
Oh, great. Get well soon. It's always good to go easy on the body and interwebs after major surgeries.
Originally Posted by bobdoo
Just wanted to say thanks for the fine welcome, except for the post from the guy who is the punchline to the joke where a guy is pushing peanuts around with his [****].
What happened - you were doing so well..for 12 minutes!!!
Originally Posted by Phishin
I don't like them for the following reasons:
1.) I don't like how they "feel" when you drive them
2.) I don't trust their reliability yet ...
I notice CVT detractors mainly fall into either of two camps: Those with irrational dislikes of "rubber-band feel," etc, and those skeptical of CVT durability, which is rational and justified in some cases. (The jury is still out in others.) Your post puts you in both groups.
Another complaint, mentioned only once I see so far, is lower mechanical efficiency than a manual, and I suspect lower than some step-wise automatics, too.
I don't like them for the following reasons:
1.) I don't like how they "feel" when you drive them
2.) I don't trust their reliability yet ...
I notice CVT detractors mainly fall into either of two camps: Those with irrational dislikes of "rubber-band feel," etc, and those skeptical of CVT durability, which is rational and justified in some cases. (The jury is still out in others.) Your post puts you in both groups.
Another complaint, mentioned only once I see so far, is lower mechanical efficiency than a manual, and I suspect lower than some step-wise automatics, too.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by bobdoo
Well, OK, I won't be talking about cats...
These are my experiences with CVTs over the last 20 years (snowmobiles) and 6 years for autos.
CVT-slow?
CVT's have one overriding characteristic. They (can) keep the engine at or near peak power while the vehicle accelerates. Those of you who have ridden two-stroke motorcycles know just how slow an engine can be when it's below the power peak. Once a CVT-equipped vehicle reaches peak power RPM, it WILL out-accelerate other transmission types, vehicle weight and HP being equal. CVT's also do not suffer from between-gears slowdowns (which would make riding snowmobiles very impractical).
The SCCA had (has?) a D-sports class that had several very fast CVT equipped race cars. So you curmudgeons can stop with the rhetoric.
There is a downside hidden here. CVT's have a limited range of gear ratios, so your typical Subaru Impreza, for instance (I owned one for 6 years), which has an overall ratio intended to keep the RPM down at higher speeds, has a very tall "first gear" (the lowest ratio). This means you won't be launching a typical CVT auto from a stop. It's as if it starts out in second gear.
Data Point: My 2012 Subaru Impreza Sport Limited with a whopping 148 HP and tons of AWD weight, would accelerate 0-60 in 8.5 seconds (as measured with a GoPro, using the 30 frames-per-second to time, and the tach to determine launch, and a GPS-calibrated speedo to determine 60 MPH). For a car that heavy, that's not at all bad. HOWEVER, that extended to 9.8 seconds if the CVT was NOT in manual shift mode. In 'auto shift' mode, the computer kept revs at peak torque, not peak HP RPM. NO review of that time noted this discrepancy, and quoted the slower time (fake news!).
Driving a CVT on hilly terrain is a pleasure, as the RPM is genty varied to meet power needs. Same thing when strong headwinds came my way.
Economy. My Imp achieved three tanks of 38+ MPG US (hand-calculated). I commuted 40 miles on county roads, with speeds mosty 55 MPH, and stops every 2 to 6 miles. In normal driving, I got 34 MPG summer, and 27 winter. At the time, I thought this was fantastic.
Cold temps and the CVT. My Impreza took about 10 miles of driving to warm up its CVT oil. MPG was not good prior to that. My Current CX-5 can get 28+ MPG with short 2-miles-one-way trips. The Imp would have been around 23.
The CVT sound. Most reviewers say it drones. Well, it certainly attempts to stay at one RPM, which isn't really sporting, and the CVT steel drive chain also whines when the CVT is cold.
Reliability. NASIOC the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, had something like TWO CVT failures while I was a member. The Subie CVT is very reliable. It would have been very expensive to replace out of warranty, as only replacements were available.
Subaru dealers mostly told customers that CVT oil changes were not recommended. This may bite Subaru as time goes on.
I have owned a dozen motorcycles, 4 manual trans autos, and one Honda CUT with manual transmissions. I drove an 18-speed pop truck for a while (and could double clutch its 5 speed tranny with 3 speed transaxle). I almost always enjoyed shifting when *I* wanted the engine to shift. I found using the flappy-paddle shifters on the Imp to be an acceptable substitute. I very much missed being able to launch the car at peak HP RPM, although the several impromptu stoplight drags I ran didn't seem to care. (I don't know if the other drivers knew they were racing...haha)
I talked the wife into a 2012 Outback. It is SLOW. I hate it. I also owned a 2000 Outback with LSD, and a 5-speed manual. That is my most favorite owned car, which includes a 1996 CRX, a modded Mitsu Eclipse (that would spin all four tires in first gear!), an audi turbo awd a4 that I hate, and my current CX-5, by far the best engineered car I have owned.
I hope that this post will educate those of you with open minds. CVT's aren't inherently evil, and don't have to be boring, if you can 'shift' them at will.
There's a big difference between the CVT on a snowmobile (which is tuned to keep the engine at peak power) and a car (likely tuned for fuel economy).
On a snowmobile the CVT gives a feeling of always-there power and responsiveness, in a car the CVT gives a weird throttle-attached-to-a-rubber-band feel (and good fuel economy) though when you floor it you get good acceleration.
I don't mind a CVT in a car, it's better than a slushbox, but I prefer a manual.
Well, OK, I won't be talking about cats...
These are my experiences with CVTs over the last 20 years (snowmobiles) and 6 years for autos.
CVT-slow?
CVT's have one overriding characteristic. They (can) keep the engine at or near peak power while the vehicle accelerates. Those of you who have ridden two-stroke motorcycles know just how slow an engine can be when it's below the power peak. Once a CVT-equipped vehicle reaches peak power RPM, it WILL out-accelerate other transmission types, vehicle weight and HP being equal. CVT's also do not suffer from between-gears slowdowns (which would make riding snowmobiles very impractical).
The SCCA had (has?) a D-sports class that had several very fast CVT equipped race cars. So you curmudgeons can stop with the rhetoric.
There is a downside hidden here. CVT's have a limited range of gear ratios, so your typical Subaru Impreza, for instance (I owned one for 6 years), which has an overall ratio intended to keep the RPM down at higher speeds, has a very tall "first gear" (the lowest ratio). This means you won't be launching a typical CVT auto from a stop. It's as if it starts out in second gear.
Data Point: My 2012 Subaru Impreza Sport Limited with a whopping 148 HP and tons of AWD weight, would accelerate 0-60 in 8.5 seconds (as measured with a GoPro, using the 30 frames-per-second to time, and the tach to determine launch, and a GPS-calibrated speedo to determine 60 MPH). For a car that heavy, that's not at all bad. HOWEVER, that extended to 9.8 seconds if the CVT was NOT in manual shift mode. In 'auto shift' mode, the computer kept revs at peak torque, not peak HP RPM. NO review of that time noted this discrepancy, and quoted the slower time (fake news!).
Driving a CVT on hilly terrain is a pleasure, as the RPM is genty varied to meet power needs. Same thing when strong headwinds came my way.
Economy. My Imp achieved three tanks of 38+ MPG US (hand-calculated). I commuted 40 miles on county roads, with speeds mosty 55 MPH, and stops every 2 to 6 miles. In normal driving, I got 34 MPG summer, and 27 winter. At the time, I thought this was fantastic.
Cold temps and the CVT. My Impreza took about 10 miles of driving to warm up its CVT oil. MPG was not good prior to that. My Current CX-5 can get 28+ MPG with short 2-miles-one-way trips. The Imp would have been around 23.
The CVT sound. Most reviewers say it drones. Well, it certainly attempts to stay at one RPM, which isn't really sporting, and the CVT steel drive chain also whines when the CVT is cold.
Reliability. NASIOC the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, had something like TWO CVT failures while I was a member. The Subie CVT is very reliable. It would have been very expensive to replace out of warranty, as only replacements were available.
Subaru dealers mostly told customers that CVT oil changes were not recommended. This may bite Subaru as time goes on.
I have owned a dozen motorcycles, 4 manual trans autos, and one Honda CUT with manual transmissions. I drove an 18-speed pop truck for a while (and could double clutch its 5 speed tranny with 3 speed transaxle). I almost always enjoyed shifting when *I* wanted the engine to shift. I found using the flappy-paddle shifters on the Imp to be an acceptable substitute. I very much missed being able to launch the car at peak HP RPM, although the several impromptu stoplight drags I ran didn't seem to care. (I don't know if the other drivers knew they were racing...haha)
I talked the wife into a 2012 Outback. It is SLOW. I hate it. I also owned a 2000 Outback with LSD, and a 5-speed manual. That is my most favorite owned car, which includes a 1996 CRX, a modded Mitsu Eclipse (that would spin all four tires in first gear!), an audi turbo awd a4 that I hate, and my current CX-5, by far the best engineered car I have owned.
I hope that this post will educate those of you with open minds. CVT's aren't inherently evil, and don't have to be boring, if you can 'shift' them at will.
There's a big difference between the CVT on a snowmobile (which is tuned to keep the engine at peak power) and a car (likely tuned for fuel economy).
On a snowmobile the CVT gives a feeling of always-there power and responsiveness, in a car the CVT gives a weird throttle-attached-to-a-rubber-band feel (and good fuel economy) though when you floor it you get good acceleration.
I don't mind a CVT in a car, it's better than a slushbox, but I prefer a manual.
Originally Posted by gathermewool
Originally Posted by bobdoo
I won't post until I'm off the meds that make my posts nonsense.
Oh, great. Get well soon. It's always good to go easy on the body and interwebs after major surgeries.
Originally Posted by bobdoo
Just wanted to say thanks for the fine welcome, except for the post from the guy who is the punchline to the joke where a guy is pushing peanuts around with his [****].
What happened - you were doing so well..for 12 minutes!!!
^^^^^
That's doggone funny right there
Originally Posted by bobdoo
I won't post until I'm off the meds that make my posts nonsense.
Oh, great. Get well soon. It's always good to go easy on the body and interwebs after major surgeries.
Originally Posted by bobdoo
Just wanted to say thanks for the fine welcome, except for the post from the guy who is the punchline to the joke where a guy is pushing peanuts around with his [****].
What happened - you were doing so well..for 12 minutes!!!
^^^^^
That's doggone funny right there
Originally Posted by bobdoo
There is a downside hidden here. CVT's have a limited range of gear ratios
A typical CVT has a wider range of gear ratios than a traditional transmission, unless you add a lot of gears to it. That's one of the reasons manufacturers are using CVTs so much these days.
Even five years ago it took an 8-speed auto box to beat a Nissan CVT:
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-cvt-transmissions-are-getting-their-groove-back-feature
There is a downside hidden here. CVT's have a limited range of gear ratios
A typical CVT has a wider range of gear ratios than a traditional transmission, unless you add a lot of gears to it. That's one of the reasons manufacturers are using CVTs so much these days.
Even five years ago it took an 8-speed auto box to beat a Nissan CVT:
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-cvt-transmissions-are-getting-their-groove-back-feature
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by gathermewool
Originally Posted by bobdoo
I won't post until I'm off the meds that make my posts nonsense.
Oh, great. Get well soon. It's always good to go easy on the body and interwebs after major surgeries.
Originally Posted by bobdoo
Just wanted to say thanks for the fine welcome, except for the post from the guy who is the punchline to the joke where a guy is pushing peanuts around with his [****].
What happened - you were doing so well..for 12 minutes!!!
^^^^^
That's doggone funny right there
Indeed. Don't let him offer you any peanuts though..
Originally Posted by gathermewool
Originally Posted by bobdoo
I won't post until I'm off the meds that make my posts nonsense.
Oh, great. Get well soon. It's always good to go easy on the body and interwebs after major surgeries.
Originally Posted by bobdoo
Just wanted to say thanks for the fine welcome, except for the post from the guy who is the punchline to the joke where a guy is pushing peanuts around with his [****].
What happened - you were doing so well..for 12 minutes!!!
^^^^^
That's doggone funny right there
Indeed. Don't let him offer you any peanuts though..
I would have no problem buying a CVT car (if a manual wasn't an option). I like the concept of analog/variable gearing to meet current demands rather than being locked into the digital stair steps of autos. They have come a long ways in recent years.
I have a 2016 Nissan Rogue SV with the Jatco CVT. I was surprised how smooth and quiet it was. When getting on the highway, I just floored it and the rpm's jumped to 4000 rpm and the car accelerated up to highway speed just like any other auto I ever drove. Fuel mileage was great, 33-34 on the highway and 24-25 in local driving. Then at around 26,000 miles, I started hearing a noise that sounded like a bad bearing coming from underneath the car when driving. I thought it might be a wheel bearing going bad or something with the drivebelt tensioner. At no time did I have any issue with drive ability. I made an appointment with Nissan at 30,000 miles for service and to have the noise checked out. After approximately two hours in the service dept, the service advisor called me in and said the noise was from the transmission and Nissan approved replacing it. They said they would have to order a new CVT which would take about a week to get in. They gave me a loaner car and held onto my Rogue saying even though it was driving well, it could fail at any time. After two weeks I got my Rogue back with a new CVT and it drives perfect and quiet again.The paperwork I received from the dealer said it was a failed planetary gear. The warranty is still good until 60,000 miles but in my 47 years of owning cars, I have never experienced a transmission failure before so my confidence in the durability of the CVT is not good at all. I will be trading it in next year for something else. May be a 2019 Toyota RAV4
Failed CVT, 2400 miles. Subaru Crosstrek. Failed on the interstate, while climbing a long hill at speed. The car was using the adaptive cruise control and maintaining a distance from the car in front. He pulled into the right lane, and adaptive cruise tried to get the car back up to speed. RPM was about 4200 following the car and 5200 when the car moved over. It only took a minute at 5200 RPM for the trans to fail.
Because I was not using the accelerator, I don't know if the throttle was wide open. I'd guess it was pretty close to wide open. The 150HP is not enough to climb long hills at highway speeds when loaded up with family and luggage. I believe the belt overheated and failed.
Because I was not using the accelerator, I don't know if the throttle was wide open. I'd guess it was pretty close to wide open. The 150HP is not enough to climb long hills at highway speeds when loaded up with family and luggage. I believe the belt overheated and failed.
Last edited:
Just bought our first CVT yesterday after the wife's 2014 CR V got totaled last week. Insurance gave us an Infinity QX60 with a CVT. I'll say this, it's pretty dang smooth and that heavy thing would MOVE. Seems like Honda is full bore with CVT's, so we're going to try one and get an extended warranty and see how that goes.
Just an FYI... Automotive CVTs don't use 'belts', they use multi-link chains (think Hyvo).
Subaru did have issues with a valve body in the trans. I believe it's unlikely that the chain failed. It's somewhat likely that the chain was slipping on the sheave/pulley. That would require the tensioning pump to fail. The pump makes sure there's enough gripping force on the sheaves. A little-known fact is that the chain never makes contact with the sheaves in normal operation. There's a thin film of oil, whose properties make it grip the sheave and chain, and transfer torque. Using the wrong oil (ATF) will definitely cause slipping, and destroy the CVT.
Subaru did have issues with a valve body in the trans. I believe it's unlikely that the chain failed. It's somewhat likely that the chain was slipping on the sheave/pulley. That would require the tensioning pump to fail. The pump makes sure there's enough gripping force on the sheaves. A little-known fact is that the chain never makes contact with the sheaves in normal operation. There's a thin film of oil, whose properties make it grip the sheave and chain, and transfer torque. Using the wrong oil (ATF) will definitely cause slipping, and destroy the CVT.
Originally Posted by bobdoo
Just an FYI... Automotive CVTs don't use 'belts', they use multi-link chains (think Hyvo).
Subaru did have issues with a valve body in the trans. I believe it's unlikely that the chain failed.
Apologies for using the term "belt" as that implies a rubber CVT belt, like that found on snowmobiles. I understand that the CVT uses a linked steel chain like device that operates on friction and is under tension like a belt.
I don't have any way to actually know what failed or why, as Avis won't provide feedback.
However, as a mechanic, I do have a little mechanical understanding, and the failure sure "seemed" like the metal chain failure others have experienced. From the initial ticking sound, to the slipping and the the eventual horrific slapping noise.
Just an FYI... Automotive CVTs don't use 'belts', they use multi-link chains (think Hyvo).
Subaru did have issues with a valve body in the trans. I believe it's unlikely that the chain failed.
Apologies for using the term "belt" as that implies a rubber CVT belt, like that found on snowmobiles. I understand that the CVT uses a linked steel chain like device that operates on friction and is under tension like a belt.
I don't have any way to actually know what failed or why, as Avis won't provide feedback.
However, as a mechanic, I do have a little mechanical understanding, and the failure sure "seemed" like the metal chain failure others have experienced. From the initial ticking sound, to the slipping and the the eventual horrific slapping noise.
Last edited:
