Thoughts on 17 3.6 Subaru CVT

[BISCUT]

The nature of the CVT and the complexity (at least to me and my tool/skill set) lead me to a discussion with Subaru service writer. He was very honest and stated that they did have a reluctance to do CVT flushes in the past but now have 2 Tech's they have "specially trained" in CVT matters and these are the only 2 Tech's that they allow to do anything with CVT.

At 75k miles I went with a drain and fill, not a flush. The future of this vehicle is (I hope anyway!!) looong family service. Another 2 years I'll have about 130k on the clock and will pass it along to my son. I would like to stay away from the flush and continue the drain/fill process. What's your thoughts on this and mileage intervails for subsequent drain/fills?

 

[Donald]

You do realize that a flush is really a full exchange of transmission fluid using the pump in the transmission, not some pump in a flush machine?

 

[GMAX]

It can be either. Depends on the equipment being used.

 

[NewtonPulsifer]

I’ve developed the opinion that the most economical “fix” to known unreliable CVTs is that they have a transmission cooler installed/upgraded.

EDIT: Subaru CVTs are unreliable.

 

[GMAX]

No, they are not unreliable. Show me the data that says they are unreliable.

 

[Blagoje]

EDIT: Subaru CVTs are unreliable.

I am curious to know how you have come to this conclusion? I run a major Subaru enthusiast website and CVT reliability is not something I have heard a lot of complaining about. The only application in which a Subaru CVT has higher than expected rates of failure is with the WRX and that is usually due to an owner's performance modifications that the CVT is not engineered to handle.

That being said the Subaru FSM recommends a CVT fluid change interval every 132,500 miles if one feels so inclined.

 

[Donald]

It can be either. Depends on the equipment being used.

I have yet to hear of a pump in a flush machine that can actually push the AFT or CVT fluid through the transmission. The pump in the flush machine merely pushes new ATF into the pan at the exact same rate its being pushed out into a drain bucket.

 

[Pelican]

Also Subaru is the only manufacturer that doesn't subcontract AT manufacturing, but builds it in-house and have decades of experience. It cut its teeth on the Justy of yore.

 

[JTK]

Having owned two different Subarus with them, the CVT would be the least of my worries.

It's been a few years since I've dealt with them, but I don't think I would trust my local Subaru dealer to do any CVT service. I know last I asked their 'opinion' on a CVT fluid change I got passed around and received replies to "Never touch it. It's lifetime fluid" to "change it at 100K miles". More or less, are you buying a new Subaru today? No? Go away.

I know if I were to service one, it would be by me or a shop I know and trust. They're not too horrible to DIY.

 

[JTK]

...... The pump in the flush machine merely pushes new ATF into the pan at the exact same rate its being pushed out into a drain bucket.

I'm not even sure that's the case. Hopefully someone with one can comment.

My understanding with ATF exchange machines is they rely on the fluid force coming from the vehicle's transmission cooler line to fill the old fluid cylinder, which forces the new fluid cylinder to dispense that exact amount of new fluid back into the transmission through the return line.

 

[BISCUT]

You do realize that a flush is really a full exchange of transmission fluid using the pump in the transmission, not some pump in a flush machine?

I am unaware of the equipment Subaru would use to complete a full exchange of fluid in a CVT. Hence my posts. Can you tell me what they use and how the system works?

 

[BISCUT]

I’ve developed the opinion that the most economical “fix” to known unreliable CVTs is that they have a transmission cooler installed/upgraded.

EDIT: Subaru CVTs are unreliable.

This statement requires something more than than this. Maybe you meant Nissan?

 

[slacktide_bitog]

Drain and fill is all you need. Your intervals are fine, but I'd probably do it every 30k. Amazon has Valvoline CVT fluid by the case at a great price.

Also Subaru is the only manufacturer that doesn't subcontract AT manufacturing, but builds it in-house and have decades of experience. It cut its teeth on the Justy of yore.

not true. Jatco is Nissan, and Aisin is Toyota. GM also makes their own automatic transmissions.

Honda also makes their own AT's, and they are of a different design than everybody else. I know they have started using ZF transmissions in some of their cars, but most of their transmissions are still in-house designs (including a DCT with a torque converter)

 

[benjy]

CVT owners are STILL beta testers + right NOW SUBARU wants any newer cvt with the extended warranty UNTOUCHED so they can continue to LEARN. anyone buying one is NOT smart IMO as they cost about as much as an ENGINE REPLACEMENT!!!

 

[BISCUT]

Drain and fill is all you need. Your intervals are fine, but I'd probably do it every 30k. Amazon has Valvoline CVT fluid by the case at a great price.



not true. Jatco is Nissan, and Aisin is Toyota. GM also makes their own automatic transmissions.

Honda also makes their own AT's, and they are of a different design than everybody else. I know they have started using ZF transmissions in some of their cars, but most of their transmissions are still in-house designs (including a DCT with a torque converter)

From many sources I've been told using anything other than the specific Subaru CVT fluid meant for that exact 2017 CVT is problematic. This was from the dealer of course but also from an Indy who's reputation on Subaru is stellar. He has all the equipment to do Subaru CVT work but states Subaru will only sell him 50 gal drums of the fluid for the 3.6 2017 so its not a service he will do until he has enough work to make that purchase feasible.
What makes you recommend the Valvoline fluid? I had excellent results with Amsoil in a 2008 Maxima CVT but totally different fluids needed with the Subaru.

 

[Blagoje]

CVT owners are STILL beta testers + right NOW SUBARU wants any newer cvt with the extended warranty UNTOUCHED so they can continue to LEARN. anyone buying one is NOT smart IMO as they cost about as much as an ENGINE REPLACEMENT!!!

I clicked on the thread just so I could read hot takes like this one.

Subaru has been using modern CVTs since model year 2010 and they have a pretty good track record especially when compared to what other brand automakers have been putting out.

The OP has a CVT in their car that has arguably the best service record of any CVT introduced within the last decade. People need to stop spewing nonsense and pipe down.

 

[NewtonPulsifer]

No, they are not unreliable. Show me the data that says they are unreliable.

2016 and later resolved all problems (and Subaru did the right thing and extended warranties on 2015 and earlier). I retract my statement.

http://www.subarucomplaints.com/cvt/

 

[slacktide_bitog]

From many sources I've been told using anything other than the specific Subaru CVT fluid meant for that exact 2017 CVT is problematic. This was from the dealer of course but also from an Indy who's reputation on Subaru is stellar. He has all the equipment to do Subaru CVT work but states Subaru will only sell him 50 gal drums of the fluid for the 3.6 2017 so its not a service he will do until he has enough work to make that purchase feasible.
What makes you recommend the Valvoline fluid? I had excellent results with Amsoil in a 2008 Maxima CVT but totally different fluids needed with the Subaru.

Valvoline CVT costs much less and says it can be used in Subaru Lineartronic. Amazon has a case of 6 for $37

If Subaru only sells it by the drum, that's another reason to go aftermarket. That by itself could be an intentional move by Subaru only to discourage anyone not a Subaru dealer to do the service (be it the indy shop you use, DIY customers, etc)

 

[dfarr67]

Drain and fill is all you need. Your intervals are fine, but I'd probably do it every 30k. Amazon has Valvoline CVT fluid by the case at a great price.



not true. Jatco is Nissan, and Aisin is Toyota. GM also makes their own automatic transmissions.

Honda also makes their own AT's, and they are of a different design than everybody else. I know they have started using ZF transmissions in some of their cars, but most of their transmissions are still in-house designs (including a DCT with a torque converter)

I'll second Honda there-----> I'm part of the Accord 2% that ticked the MT6 box Too many issues in Canadian cold climate with cvt as I wanted to stay with 2.4L.

 

[NewtonPulsifer]

The nature of the CVT and the complexity (at least to me and my tool/skill set) lead me to a discussion with Subaru service writer. He was very honest and stated that they did have a reluctance to do CVT flushes in the past but now have 2 Tech's they have "specially trained" in CVT matters and these are the only 2 Tech's that they allow to do anything with CVT.

At 75k miles I went with a drain and fill, not a flush. The future of this vehicle is (I hope anyway!!) looong family service. Another 2 years I'll have about 130k on the clock and will pass it along to my son. I would like to stay away from the flush and continue the drain/fill process. What's your thoughts on this and mileage intervails for subsequent drain/fills?

If you're putting 26k miles a year on it then that car is in "light" service. IME and IMO drain and fill every 75k is perfectly fine. It is exactly what I run on my automatic transmissions.