How reliable are the Subaru CVTs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Over 120k on my CVT in my fusion. Drives the same from day of purchase at 2 miles. Just my experience with it though, but it's done great to this point. As for subaru, I would hope they were reliable since pretty much everything is going to CVT now.
 
Originally Posted By: ColdCanuk
Forget about the CVT, worry about the oil eating FB25 engine.

Take 5 minutes and ask to look at the owners manual before you buy it:
1 quart per 1000 mile consumption is normal.

They actually come with a 'low oil light'.

As long as your good with that buy away!

It's like buying a 2 stroke car


My 2013 burned a half-quart before 7,500 miles. It's since stabilized and I'm not seeing any consumption. I'm at 15,800 now.
 
Originally Posted By: Bandito440
Originally Posted By: ColdCanuk
Forget about the CVT, worry about the oil eating FB25 engine.

Take 5 minutes and ask to look at the owners manual before you buy it:
1 quart per 1000 mile consumption is normal.

They actually come with a 'low oil light'.

As long as your good with that buy away!

It's like buying a 2 stroke car

My experience mirrors yours.My wife who's in real estate has gone 24k on her Forester is not having an issue either.

My 2013 burned a half-quart before 7,500 miles. It's since stabilized and I'm not seeing any consumption. I'm at 15,800 now.
 
Originally Posted By: doitmyself
Sad, Cold Canuck. If I remember correct, just about a year ago you were here all excited about your new Forester.

Here is a link to the ongoing 203 page thread regarding the oil use issue: http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/...2/index203.html

It's difficult to judge the current status of the problem: how many engines, the upgrade effectiveness, and how well SOA is assisting owners.


I bash all brands equally, but I find it amusing that Consumer Reports ranks certain vehicles at the very top, and they fail to even mention these serious issues: i.e. - Forester oil consumption and Honda Variable Cylinder Management: http://www.autoblog.com/2013/10/23/honda-settles-class-action-lawsuit-engines/


Yeah I guess I've had it a year, my mistake for buying the oil eating thing, no one else's. I don't think I'd describe myself as 'all excited'. I don't think I've ever posted 'all excited', I like that you think that though, makes me 'very excited'........

Learn from my mistake, don't buy a new Subaru Forester unless you're ok with an oil eating engine. Maybe for some it's no big deal, I don't judge.

I do like some things about Forester, but oil eating, tough for me to forget no matter how many times I hear 'It's normal', 'They all do it now', blah blah. It's the first vehicle I've ever owned that noticeably drinks oil.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: gofast182
Someone said the units Jeep used were good? IIRC they were a train wreck (unless they got a new supplier) and is part of the reason they are transitioning to conventional ZF boxes.


I frequent the Jeep Patriot/Compass forums and I think the JATCO CVT failure rate is overstated. Plus, the media hates these vehicles and the CVT inherits this hate also.

However, it's my opinion that Jeep botched the application of the CVT to these vehicles. The vehicles are not highly refined to start out with. The GEMA engine has a stellar reliability history, but it too is unrefined and a bit "buzzy". Add to this maybe initial bad programming of the mated units and it spells disaster. IMO, the new automatic in these vehicles turns them into a tolerable vehicle (less noise, etc.). Some people need to relearn how to drive a CVT.

Chrysler has an agreement with JATCO not to rebuild. So, every tranny failure turns into a huge expense, double or more than a rebuild. A fluid change will run close to $300 at a dealer due to the need for temperature sensors, etc..

Ironic that Chrysler is abandoning the CVT while other mfg. are coming on board. And, the media loathed the Chrysler CVT's but adore all the new ones.

I personally don't like CVT's, but I am old school about some things. It will be an interesting next ten years.
 
Originally Posted By: ColdCanuk
Yeah I guess I've had it a year, my mistake for buying the oil eating thing, no one else's. I don't think I'd describe myself as 'all excited'. I don't think I've ever posted 'all excited', I like that you think that though, makes me 'very excited'........

Learn from my mistakes, don't buy a new Subaru Forester unless you're ok with an oil eating engine. Maybe for some it's no big deal, I don't judge.


I think you'll find that most vehicles come with potential weaknesses that could bite you. The best you can do prior to purchase is try to find out how often the issue actually happens.
 
The Subaru CVT is one of the best on the market right now. It's really good. Surprisingly good in some instances, such as the Forester XT and even the new WRX. Reliability has been rock solid so far.
 
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I believe a lot of CVT's are outsourced from an Asian company I can't recall the name of. Nissan uses them, as did Jeep for a while. I believe those are quite good, CVT's are their specialty. I don't know if Subie's CVT's are theirs or not though.


Chrysler, Nissan, and a bunch of others use JATCO (Japan Automatic Transmission Co.) CVTs. They had some early glitches, but most of the "problems" are that people just DO NOT adapt to the way a CVT works and satisfaction is generally pretty low. The people that do adapt seem to like them a lot.
 
Originally Posted By: buster
The Subaru CVT is one of the best on the market right now. It's really good. Surprisingly good in some instances, such as the Forester XT and even the new WRX. Reliability has been rock solid so far.


I'm really looking forward to test driving a WRX with a CVT. I still wouldn't buy it, but after being warmed up to the idea the CVTs don't have to be awful I'm curious to see how it feels in a performance focused vehicle.
 
The CVT is something to get used to, but I'm liking it. The Outback does have a transmission dipstick, so it's strange that the other models don't.

I haven't had a problem with mine burning oil. I only have 8,500 miles on it, but I went 7,500 on the FF and the dipstick didn't show any use. I have QSUD in it now and I'm not seeing consumption so far.

As far as Toyota saying 1 qt every 600 miles is normal, my '09 Corolla has 119K miles on it and it'll use 1/2 qt during a 7,500 mile OCI. So I guess I just get lucky and don't end up with all these oil burners I keep hearing about.
 
Why are new cars even having issues with burning oil? The gasoline engine has been around for 100 years and it's always been the same deal, a piston goes in a cylinder with piston rings around it. Why there is so much variation in the amount of oil they burn is beyond me.
 
Originally Posted By: wag123
Originally Posted By: Rand
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I believe a lot of CVT's are outsourced from an Asian company I can't recall the name of. Nissan uses them, as did Jeep for a while. I believe those are quite good, CVT's are their specialty. I don't know if Subie's CVT's are theirs or not though.


subaru makes their own CVT's they do not buy them from JATCO etc.

They are also much better than the cvt in nissan, dodge IMO.

obviously a subaru marketing piece but info on their cvt

http://www.subaru.com/engineering/transmission.html

Subaru only manufactures their own manual transmissions.
The manufacture of Subaru's automatic transmissions has always been outsourced, and always from JATCO, from what I understand. JATCO is a spin-off subsidiary of Nissan (with Mitsubishi owning a minority interest). This relationship is understandable as Nissan once owned controlling interest in Subaru. The CVT is a Subaru engineered JATCO manufactured transmission and is a design that is unique to Subaru.
You guys had better get used to CVTs. In 10 years ALL the "automatics" will either be CVTs or automated manuals. Personally, I would rather have a CVT than an automated manual.


That is what you believe. I don't and believe that Subaru produces their own CVT. I am willing to be convinced other wise, though. Any links to back up your assertion that the Subaru designed it and JATCO produces it?
 
Last edited:
I'm not claiming this is the definitive answer, but this recent Car and Driver article seems to claim that Subaru makes their own CVT.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-cvt-transmissions-are-getting-their-groove-back-feature
Quote:
Audi, Honda, Hyundai, Subaru, and Toyota all make their own CVTs. Nissan owns a controlling interest in JATCO, the firm that supplies 49 percent of the world’s gear-free transmissions to Chrysler, GM, Mitsubishi, and Suzuki. In addition, nearly half of Nissan’s current U.S. models offer a JATCO-supplied CVT.
 
Originally Posted By: 7055
Why are new cars even having issues with burning oil? The gasoline engine has been around for 100 years and it's always been the same deal, a piston goes in a cylinder with piston rings around it. Why there is so much variation in the amount of oil they burn is beyond me.


Low tension piston rings that were designed and implemented to reduce parasitic drag and increase fuel economy.

Oil burning is just the unintended consequence of this improvement.
 
Originally Posted By: 7055
Why are new cars even having issues with burning oil? The gasoline engine has been around for 100 years and it's always been the same deal, a piston goes in a cylinder with piston rings around it. Why there is so much variation in the amount of oil they burn is beyond me.


Because even if the piston engine is around for 500 years, it will ALWAYS burn some quantity of oil (unless we find a way to make oil-less lubrication practical for engines). The variation comes from variations in engine design, ring design, piston design, sufrace finish, the way the engine was broken in by the individual owner, and (often forgotten) PCV system design- which can account for way more oil consumption than the rings. Then there's consumption past the valve guides, too.
 
Originally Posted By: TTK

That is what you believe. I don't and believe that Subaru produces their own CVT. I am willing to be convinced other wise, though. Any links to back up your assertion that the Subaru designed it and JATCO produces it?

I don't have a link, but notice in everything you read that Subaru does not claim that they actually manufacture the transmission.
I have a long time friend that is a powertrain technician at one of the local Subaru dealers. He regularly attends service schools to get hands-on training. He told me that, like ALL other Subaru automatic transmissions, the CVT IS manufactured by JATCO. He also told me that Subaru's engineering of the transmission has made it VERY different than JATCO's other CVTs. This could be either a good or bad thing regarding it's reliability and long term durability as compared to JATCO's other CVTs. Only time will tell.
 
Originally Posted By: wag123
Subaru only manufactures their own manual transmissions.
The manufacture of Subaru's automatic transmissions has always been outsourced, and always from JATCO, from what I understand. JATCO is a spin-off subsidiary of Nissan (with Mitsubishi owning a minority interest). This relationship is understandable as Nissan once owned controlling interest in Subaru. The CVT is a Subaru engineered JATCO manufactured transmission and is a design that is unique to Subaru.
You guys had better get used to CVTs. In 10 years ALL the "automatics" will either be CVTs or automated manuals. Personally, I would rather have a CVT than an automated manual.


Post a credible source for this claim and you will be the MAN.

I hear you that it's extremely odd Fuji Heavy is in the CVT making business, but I've never seen info to support it's a JATCO unit, and I've been following this very topic for ~3yrs.

Yes, I know the conventional Subaru automatics like the 4EAT were Jatco sourced. The CVTs is anyone's guess.

**EDIT Oops! Sorry wag! didn't see your above post.
 
Last edited:
Actually, this whole CVT transmission thing involves a complicated web of different companies.
Subaru HAS manufactured their own CVTs, but only for mini-micro cars, beginning with the Justy in 1984. In the early 2000's FHI (Subaru) formed a 50/50 partnership in a CVT transmission joint venture with, you guessed it, JATCO. JATCO is jointly owned by Nissan (and Renault, because Renault owns controlling interest in Nissan), Mitsubishi, and Suzuki. So, FHI is actually partnered with ALL of these other companies. This joint venture was specifically set up to share technology, engineer, develop, manufacture, and market CVT automatic transmissions. So, looking at it this way, one can say that Subaru does actually manufacture their own CVTs. But, the jointly owned Japanese manufacturing facility only supplies CVTs for the mini-micro cars sold in that part of the world. The larger CVTs used here are manufactured in a JATCO plant in Mexico, but it is a CVT design that is unique to Subaru. So, in a round about way, I guess one could say that Subaru manufactures their own CVT by virtue of the fact that they are partnered with JATCO.
To top it all off, Toyota owns 19% of Subaru (which, by Japanese standards, gives Toyota controlling interest). Aisin Seiki (Toyotas transmission supplier) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Toyota. And, Toyota is occupying half of Subaru's Indiana assembly plant, building Camrys.
All of these Japanese companies form tangled webs of partnerships, joint ventures, part ownerships, and cooperative agreements that would be considered illegal in the USA. It is all VERY confusing.
 
Interesting read! I wonder if any of this is visible on the car itself? I may make a trip to a Subaru dealer tomorrow to take a look to see if I can see any stamping.

If it is manufactured by JATCO, I can believe that it's a Subaru specific model. The ones that JATCO sells to Chevrolet, Jeep that are the same as in Nissan models are just as unreliable as the ones found in Nissans; if Subaru used the Nissan spec CVT, it would be pretty evident on the Subaru boards. I would be able to find a lot of reports of failed CVTs between 50K and 100K miles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top