Why People Dislike a CVT

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
Especially when a band type CVT failure occurs like in a Nissan. It causes it to spew the metal teeth from the band all over and essentially grenades the transmission with lots of internal damage. With a regular transmission it's typically component failure that does cause massive amounts of damage to casings and other parts and it can usually be rebuilt for minimal cost.

Around 21 minutes in the first video you can see the teeth.






Good luck finding someone who knows how to rebuild one, properly.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: earthbound
I hate the rubber band feel. I just can't get over the engine racing up the rpm's and then holding and adjusting. I will say that Honda's cvt is very good it seems, but give me a traditional auto any day.

I think you are dating yourself. There is none of that on in my subaru and that is 250HP!

What year and model did you drive?

 

[emg]

Originally Posted By: newbe46
Re-building a traditional automatic transmission costs less.


Traditional automatic, yes. But a modern 8/10/12-speed automatic isn't a simple device, either.

I looked at the cost of a used CVT before I bought my Forester, and they were selling for about $1500 at the time. That's less than I paid for my last reconditioned manual transmission.

But I am glad that Subaru use chains, which are less likely to explode into a million pieces.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: earthbound
I hate the rubber band feel. I just can't get over the engine racing up the rpm's and then holding and adjusting. I will say that Honda's cvt is very good it seems, but give me a traditional auto any day.

I think you are dating yourself. There is none of that on in my subaru and that is 250HP!

What year and model did you drive?

Hp is not an issue, torque is.
Audi was playing with it, but had huge issues with diesels due to torque.

 

[WhyMe]

only real experience i have is with moms 2017 crv . the way they have it set up t feels like a reg trans. for a big vehicle it gets 30 plug mpg even with my lead foot on it, which is amazing. i like to floor it a lot and there is plenty of pep and the trans keeps the power in the band unlike my 2011 crv that revs the heck when floored and only get about 22 mpg with my same lead foot.

 

[earthbound]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: earthbound
I hate the rubber band feel. I just can't get over the engine racing up the rpm's and then holding and adjusting. I will say that Honda's cvt is very good it seems, but give me a traditional auto any day.

I think you are dating yourself. There is none of that on in my subaru and that is 250HP!

What year and model did you drive?


2012 outback-horrible rubber band feel

2016 outback-better, but then they add fake shift points. Really!...oh because the mass public wanted the "feel" of a conv. tranny.

2017 civic- best yet, but still....

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: earthbound


2012 outback-horrible rubber band feel

2016 outback-better, but then they add fake shift points. Really!...oh because the mass public wanted the "feel" of a conv. tranny.
2017 civic- best yet, but still....

2012..like I said.
The shift points are not fake..they are real. Watch the rpms. But you don't need to use the "manual shift mode"

 

[SeaJay]

I drive a Subaru OB with CVT. The RPM only goes over 3K when you go to pass while moving. Cruises below 3K at 80-85MPH on flat roads. My understanding is that the same vehicle with a manual will spend quite a bit of time at 4K and above RPM to get similar performance.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: emg

But I am glad that Subaru use chains, which are less likely to explode into a million pieces.


They all use a metal belt. It cannot be called a chain because it is not pulled and is not made out of links.

I keep saying this in every thread, but few seem to understand. A CVT is inherently a weaker design than a traditional transmission that uses a clutch or clutch packs to manage the ratio change. The weakness is in force distribution and surface area.

The reason most CVTs feel slow off the line is because manufacturers have to limit the torque in order to prevent slip. The moment that metal belt slipps, the tranny is on borrowed time.

 

[DaRider34]

yeah its funny when people bring up that f1 video with a cvt then i looked and up until recently f1 cars didnt have more than 180lb of torque which most basic cars easily have minus the 700+hp. Plus they also weigh around 1500 including the driver.

I wonder if they start making 350hp civics in the future with 100lb of torque.

 

[earthbound]

Originally Posted By: DaRider34
yeah its funny when people bring up that f1 video with a cvt then i looked and up until recently f1 cars didnt have more than 180lb of torque which most basic cars easily have minus the 700+hp. Plus they also weigh around 1500 including the driver.

I wonder if they start making 350hp civics in the future with 100lb of torque.


ctr...is pretty close already...

 

[JTK]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: emg

But I am glad that Subaru use chains, which are less likely to explode into a million pieces.


They all use a metal belt. It cannot be called a chain because it is not pulled and is not made out of links.

I keep saying this in every thread, but few seem to understand. A CVT is inherently a weaker design than a traditional transmission that uses a clutch or clutch packs to manage the ratio change. The weakness is in force distribution and surface area.

The reason most CVTs feel slow off the line is because manufacturers have to limit the torque in order to prevent slip. The moment that metal belt slipps, the tranny is on borrowed time.


KrisZ, I'm with you on this, but best I can tell, Subaru CVT "belts" are segments with 2 pins per "segment".

I am no transmission expert, but in regards to the slippage thing, I get that too. All ATs rely on hydraulic pressure with specific fluids and friction surfaces. Take one of those out of the equation and they don't work. Any slippage must take place within the torque converter or bad things are going to happen, regardless of being a conventional step-shift AT or a CVT. All belt CVTs I know of have a TC just like conventional ATs. Could conventional ATs allow for more of this type of friction surface abuse? Maybe.

 

[DaRider34]

Originally Posted By: earthbound
Originally Posted By: DaRider34
yeah its funny when people bring up that f1 video with a cvt then i looked and up until recently f1 cars didnt have more than 180lb of torque which most basic cars easily have minus the 700+hp. Plus they also weigh around 1500 including the driver.

I wonder if they start making 350hp civics in the future with 100lb of torque.


ctr...is pretty close already...

No cvt though

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: JTK
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: emg

But I am glad that Subaru use chains, which are less likely to explode into a million pieces.


They all use a metal belt. It cannot be called a chain because it is not pulled and is not made out of links.

I keep saying this in every thread, but few seem to understand. A CVT is inherently a weaker design than a traditional transmission that uses a clutch or clutch packs to manage the ratio change. The weakness is in force distribution and surface area.

The reason most CVTs feel slow off the line is because manufacturers have to limit the torque in order to prevent slip. The moment that metal belt slipps, the tranny is on borrowed time.


KrisZ, I'm with you on this, but best I can tell, Subaru CVT "belts" are segments with 2 pins per "segment".

I am no transmission expert, but in regards to the slippage thing, I get that too. All ATs rely on hydraulic pressure with specific fluids and friction surfaces. Take one of those out of the equation and they don't work. Any slippage must take place within the torque converter or bad things are going to happen, regardless of being a conventional step-shift AT or a CVT. All belt CVTs I know of have a TC just like conventional ATs. Could conventional ATs allow for more of this type of friction surface abuse? Maybe.


Looks like I stand corrected about the chain on subie CVTs, although there is not a whole lot available with them being torn apart. Mostly car show displays.

Regarding slipping, that's what the clutch material is for. The belt/chain and the pulleys are all steel with no clutch material to them. They cannot take any slip at all.
Big difference between components that are designed to slip on engagement and components that are not.

 

[Voleak]

Only complaint I have with a CVT is the amount of time it takes to engage into drive after backing up. There seems to be a two second delay, where most automatics are instantaneous.

Otherwise, the CVT in my car is just fine for me in all other conditions. I actually like the way it pulls as I am accelerating up a grade.

 

[emg]

Originally Posted By: DaRider34
yeah its funny when people bring up that f1 video with a cvt then i looked and up until recently f1 cars didnt have more than 180lb of torque which most basic cars easily have minus the 700+hp. Plus they also weigh around 1500 including the driver.


I can't find any torque figures for the FW15C's engine, but the version of that engine used in the Renault Espace was apparently 520lb/ft (giving them a minivan which could go 0-60 in 2.8 seconds).

 

[555]

There are drivers that fear revs approaching 4,000 or so especially for more than 5 seconds. I see this behaviour with drivers of non CVT equipped vehicles too. This type of driver has been around for many generations. I know many that when a downshift occurs they back off the throttle like they've committed a sin, unsettling when merging in front of tractor trailer. We're all different I suppose.
With respect to the F1 engines didn't have more than 180 lb-ft until recently, what's the timeline? Having a tough time in regards to 180 lb-ft spinning those beefy rear tires. Not saying the figure is incorrect, but how could that work?

 

[Al]

I make it a point to get all of my vehicles a few hundred rpms short of redline. I don't use full throttle..a lower gear and then immediately coast back to normal speed. I thought it was especially important with my new subaru with CVT bc it spends almost all of its time between 1500 and 2000 rpm. I realize the rings have been seated before I got it.

I do this for the life of the vehicle.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by 555
There are drivers that fear revs approaching 4,000 or so especially for more than 5 seconds. I see this behaviour with drivers of non CVT equipped vehicles too. This type of driver has been around for many generations. I know many that when a downshift occurs they back off the throttle like they've committed a sin, unsettling when merging in front of tractor trailer. We're all different I suppose.
With respect to the F1 engines didn't have more than 180 lb-ft until recently, what's the timeline? Having a tough time in regards to 180 lb-ft spinning those beefy rear tires. Not saying the figure is incorrect, but how could that work?

I would say generally most cars with CVT are precisely made for those drivers.

 

[fdcg27]

You might say that and you would be wrong.
I've come to like the CVT Forester and it is capable of getting the job done when required.
Redline is there for a reason. Use it as needed with any kind of tranny.