I've run several automatics well over 200K, my current ride's original trans lasted over 300K miles.
Why the dislike for CVTs?
- Thread starter OppositeLocK
- Start date
I've run several automatics well over 200K, my current ride's original trans lasted over 300K miles.
That is exactly what I'm talking about.
Had a few cars, usually from the 90s I would say, used forever, drove everywhere, and not a single problem and a good strong trans. Probably regular maintenance schedule but there it is and now you have it.
Makes me recall my Buick. I would get another of those in a heartbeat, slightly thirsty on gas but, oh man. Saggy headliner was an issue, though. So I cut it off..
$5,000.00 to replace a 2015 Nissan CVT.
My point of view as a mechanic that's seen the failures of these firsthand - most of them use a steel belt wrapped around pulleys....what happens if you bend a strip of metal enough times? It just snaps, and thats usually what happens to these. They are set up to fail in my opinion.
If you see how these things work and how little surface area these belts ride on to transfer all that power, it is a miracle these things work at all. That being said, I would think about getting one in my new car if they were cheap and easy to rebuild, but they are not. When the CVTs go they usually throw metal all over the innards and the whole transmission is toast and not rebuildable. $5k for a new transmission is a lot of money!
If you look at the surface area in a set of gear teeth in a transmission the actual contact points are pretty small too. All the engine power goes through that area as well.
No, not even close. That gear tooth is more than adequate for at least 200% load and its spread over 3 teeth ( normal) at any time.
The CVT relies more on stiction.
2 totally different things.
Indeed they are, but being gears, there's no potential to slip so to speak.
Clutch packs on conventional ATs are designed for some slippage and do the tiny bit of slipping as necessary between gear changes, etc.
On a CVT, the belt/chain and sheaves really can't do any slipping or metal fragment madness ensues.
My reply was clearly referring specifically to Parimento1's comment on the small surface area he perceived the power to be transmitted through on a CVT belt, not the mechanism of that power transfer or the number of teeth involved. I was pointing out that the actual surface area where the gear teeth that are transmitting power are in contact is quite small.
Obviously the gear teeth are more than adequate given that gearboxes are, on the whole, quite reliable. The same, for the most part, could be said for CVTs.
However, thank you for your input. I guess I should be thankful you're not resorting to the caps lock key this time.
Yea, I was referring to the way that the CVT works, strictly on friction between the belt and the rollers, which seems pretty precarious. With a conventional manual gearbox, the gears are in constant mesh with the teeth. If that type of gearbox starts to slip, you have done something very very wrong to it haha. Even with a conventional automatic gearbox, the clutches are made out of high friction clutch material and there is good amount of surface area to grip onto.
I don't view them as reliable. Right or wrong. Also, they just feel so disconnected.
I didn't deem it necessary to get the point across this time
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
At the end of the day … we have to like the “feel” of a vehicle … after renting several Nissan CUV’s with this transmission - I just plain don’t … in fact I like to feel a smooth but subtle shift and better yet, I now get to see D1 through D8 on the dash
Yea its up to individual tastes. I love the seamless power delivery of the CVT, but what I don't like is the reliability problems and the NVH of it. There is no shift shock but there is noise and rumbling from the CVT that you don't get from a conventional auto
It doesn’t take long to get used to it. I actually dislike the fake shifting in my Rouge. You can avoid that by not pushing the pedal too hard. It acts more like a snowmobile then. I’m a fan of the CVT for sure, but it took some time.
I believe so many people hate CVTs because an initial bad reputation is difficult to overcome. CVTs today are much better than they were were just a few years ago, and I would even say they're as reliable as automatics. I'm not sold on the notion that today's 6, 8 and 10 speed automatics are as reliable as the old 3 and 4 speed trannies, and those saying CVTs are expensive to repair, I doubt they're more expensive than a 10 speed auto would be. Also, anyone who claims cars with CVTs are boring to drive have not driven the Corolla. Yes, the Corolla is a boring econobox, but if you've driven any of the previous models, the new one feels like a sports car by comparison, and it's all because of the CVT. The CVT puts the engine right at the sweet spot for RPMs which makes the car very responsive. CVTs have come a long ways, but there will always be people who don't like them...
It never is.
It's bad netiquette and makes you look hopelessly old and/or crazy or both (it's basically yelling). Underlined, italics, or bold don't are far better choices.
Of course, actually reading what people write and presenting reasoned arguments backed up by facts helps too.
I am 100% certain that the 4L60E and whatever junk they put in early 90's crown-vic that I kept killing was way way worse than the 6 speeds in my CX5's, which perform flawlessly even past 100K miles.
