could someone explain the difference between cvt and regular six speed transmission.Iknow its a stupid question so please forgive me.iam thinking of trading my santafe for a mitsubshi outlander but it has a smaller engine and a cvt whatever the difference is.
transmissions
- Thread starter ernied
- Start date
- Status
A simple one, but you can get the idea from this.
Last edited:
Easiest way to explain is a 6 speed auto has shift points for example..first gear goes to 2nd at 2300 rpm and so on. CVT = continuosly variable transmission..just means the car will shift at different shift points that it decides to shift. Personally im not a fan of CVT. Test drive it before buying.
The difference is like others said the regular 6 speed transmission has more or less set shift points. The CVT runs according to driver throttle input without dropping rpms. For example if I really get into the gas hard the rpms stay up 3000 and go up ( to say 5500) the more throttle input I add. If I have any advice to give regarding a CVT transmission it would be to get a bigger motor to pair with it. The Nissans 2.5 L motors have not done well with their CVTs. The 3.5 L motors have fared much better than the smaller motors. I believe that this is due to the fact that the CVT performs a bit better with more rpms than lower rpms. My car runs better and seemingly is "geared" to run a bit more aggressively. I would hypothesize that the smaller motor just doesn't have the umph to really keep the CVT in a better operating range. Also... I wouldn't buy a Nissan CVT made after 2012. The 5th gen CVTs have been rather inconsistent and poor quality. Also... No bad questions
Last edited:
I think this will explain it in a way, anyone can understand the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o
Originally Posted By: BigCahuna
I think this will explain it in a way, anyone can understand the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o
LOL that returns here almost once a year!
I think this will explain it in a way, anyone can understand the difference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o
LOL that returns here almost once a year!
One uses proven technology and the other a glorified metal/rubber band and has the durability of a wet noodle with 2 fat people pulling on it.
The CVT is a monstrous POS i would only wish on my worst enemy. I wouldn't want it if someone else paid for it and i know a little something about transmissions.
The CVT is a monstrous POS i would only wish on my worst enemy. I wouldn't want it if someone else paid for it and i know a little something about transmissions.
Originally Posted By: Trav
One uses proven technology and the other a glorified metal/rubber band and has the durability of a wet noodle with 2 fat people pulling on it.
The CVT is a monstrous POS i would only wish on my worst enemy. I wouldn't want it if someone else paid for it and i know a little something about transmissions.
LOL! you got that right, Trav!
Ever since Bombardier managed to come out with a skeeedooo with CVT which seems to works somehow (and then later got spread to golfcarts, etc. which cannot drive 2 fat ladies, more on that part later), I have studied and came to the conclusions that CVT is only good for low load applications. Fast forward to the past 10 yrs, where Nissan has been putting CVT from their little AsssYouVees to minivans, then I thought to myself: ".....yeaah right! technologies not proven to be capable of driving heavy loads and durability/reliability is not proven...." Guess what? lots of CVT troubles.
Don't mind me saying this but I'd either stay with M/T or Aisin-Warner type geared conventional torque converter A/T boxes (which is already "slushy" enough to my likings). At least they are worry free as far a reliability's concerned.
Q.
One uses proven technology and the other a glorified metal/rubber band and has the durability of a wet noodle with 2 fat people pulling on it.
The CVT is a monstrous POS i would only wish on my worst enemy. I wouldn't want it if someone else paid for it and i know a little something about transmissions.
LOL! you got that right, Trav!
Ever since Bombardier managed to come out with a skeeedooo with CVT which seems to works somehow (and then later got spread to golfcarts, etc. which cannot drive 2 fat ladies, more on that part later), I have studied and came to the conclusions that CVT is only good for low load applications. Fast forward to the past 10 yrs, where Nissan has been putting CVT from their little AsssYouVees to minivans, then I thought to myself: ".....yeaah right! technologies not proven to be capable of driving heavy loads and durability/reliability is not proven...." Guess what? lots of CVT troubles.
Don't mind me saying this but I'd either stay with M/T or Aisin-Warner type geared conventional torque converter A/T boxes (which is already "slushy" enough to my likings). At least they are worry free as far a reliability's concerned.
Q.
CVT is essentially a one speed transmission. The transmission just changes its own gear ratio as you speed up. These transmissions are not as strong and have questionable durability even with small engines. They are used because they more efficient and as companies struggle to get the government mandated fuel efficiency requirements they have to use technologies like this that can get you a few extra miles per gallon of gasoline.
A six speed has different pre set gear ratios built in. They do not constantly vary and are self contained within the transmission case. No belts, just clutch disks and friction bands with more hard parts. You can put one of these traditional transmissions behind much more power and bigger engines. This is why you do not see a CVT behind the new GM LS, Ford Coyote, or Chrysler Hemis.
A six speed has different pre set gear ratios built in. They do not constantly vary and are self contained within the transmission case. No belts, just clutch disks and friction bands with more hard parts. You can put one of these traditional transmissions behind much more power and bigger engines. This is why you do not see a CVT behind the new GM LS, Ford Coyote, or Chrysler Hemis.
One big part to add to this discussion of CVT problems is too many people have had the wrong transmission fluid put in their cars. Many failures have been related to not using the OEM fluid in drain and refills or flushes performed. In the Nissan I have it uses the NS-2 fluid for the xtronic CVT. If one uses another type of fluid it WILL FAIL. Doesn't matter if Valvoline or any other fluid manufactors say their fluids are valid for use in Nissans or any other type car. Don't trust that for nothing. We can use other oils in our cars. Like not using the Nissan ester oil that's $12 a qt. I can run any API SM or SN ILSAC GF-5 approved oil that's 5w30 to meet the requirements for Nissan. Coolant is really no different either in my opinion. But the transmission fluid is a non negotiable circumstance. Period. End of discussion. That's where many people have gotten jacked up CVTs to happen in my generation of them.
Now the newer ones have had issues because JATCO has had quality control issues. Plus the new redesigned CVTs are not really up to par just yet. Thus why I would tell people to stay away from them until they get sorted out by JATCO and Nissan.
Now the newer ones have had issues because JATCO has had quality control issues. Plus the new redesigned CVTs are not really up to par just yet. Thus why I would tell people to stay away from them until they get sorted out by JATCO and Nissan.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Quest
Originally Posted By: Trav
One uses proven technology and the other a glorified metal/rubber band and has the durability of a wet noodle with 2 fat people pulling on it.
The CVT is a monstrous POS i would only wish on my worst enemy. I wouldn't want it if someone else paid for it and i know a little something about transmissions.
LOL! you got that right, Trav!
Ever since Bombardier managed to come out with a skeeedooo with CVT which seems to works somehow (and then later got spread to golfcarts, etc. which cannot drive 2 fat ladies, more on that part later), I have studied and came to the conclusions that CVT is only good for low load applications. Fast forward to the past 10 yrs, where Nissan has been putting CVT from their little AsssYouVees to minivans, then I thought to myself: ".....yeaah right! technologies not proven to be capable of driving heavy loads and durability/reliability is not proven...." Guess what? lots of CVT troubles.
Don't mind me saying this but I'd either stay with M/T or Aisin-Warner type geared conventional torque converter A/T boxes (which is already "slushy" enough to my likings). At least they are worry free as far a reliability's concerned.
Q.
The CVT was built for a 22 HP engine in the DAF 600 Daffodil it was invented and patented by DAF as the DAF Variomatic.
It is ideally suited for small engines but even in these applications it needs constant maintenance of the internal drive system hard parts.
Its design of 2 spit pulleys and a belt (even a metal mesh reinforced one) the wear of these parts can only be slowed down, unlike a regular automatic fluid changes cannot and will not slow the wear of these parts by much.
Rebuildabilty of these units is poor, replacement cost are obscene, failure is usually sudden and complete. They may get better and improved in the future but for now its a ticking bomb in your wallet waiting to go off.
The smaller and less HP the engine has the better and more reliable it will be but anything with more HP than a garden tractor with a leaf blower is in trouble right out of the box.
An interesting thread..
http://www.subaruoutback.org/forums/104-gen-4-2010-2014/55121-cvt-long-term-problem.html
Originally Posted By: Trav
One uses proven technology and the other a glorified metal/rubber band and has the durability of a wet noodle with 2 fat people pulling on it.
The CVT is a monstrous POS i would only wish on my worst enemy. I wouldn't want it if someone else paid for it and i know a little something about transmissions.
LOL! you got that right, Trav!
Ever since Bombardier managed to come out with a skeeedooo with CVT which seems to works somehow (and then later got spread to golfcarts, etc. which cannot drive 2 fat ladies, more on that part later), I have studied and came to the conclusions that CVT is only good for low load applications. Fast forward to the past 10 yrs, where Nissan has been putting CVT from their little AsssYouVees to minivans, then I thought to myself: ".....yeaah right! technologies not proven to be capable of driving heavy loads and durability/reliability is not proven...." Guess what? lots of CVT troubles.
Don't mind me saying this but I'd either stay with M/T or Aisin-Warner type geared conventional torque converter A/T boxes (which is already "slushy" enough to my likings). At least they are worry free as far a reliability's concerned.
Q.
The CVT was built for a 22 HP engine in the DAF 600 Daffodil it was invented and patented by DAF as the DAF Variomatic.
It is ideally suited for small engines but even in these applications it needs constant maintenance of the internal drive system hard parts.
Its design of 2 spit pulleys and a belt (even a metal mesh reinforced one) the wear of these parts can only be slowed down, unlike a regular automatic fluid changes cannot and will not slow the wear of these parts by much.
Rebuildabilty of these units is poor, replacement cost are obscene, failure is usually sudden and complete. They may get better and improved in the future but for now its a ticking bomb in your wallet waiting to go off.
The smaller and less HP the engine has the better and more reliable it will be but anything with more HP than a garden tractor with a leaf blower is in trouble right out of the box.
An interesting thread..
http://www.subaruoutback.org/forums/104-gen-4-2010-2014/55121-cvt-long-term-problem.html
I see I'm in good company with my opinion of a CVT transmission. After using my father's Subaru with one for about a week this past summer, all I can say is I'd rather not/won't own a car equipped with a CVT.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I see I'm in good company with my opinion of a CVT transmission. After using my father's Subaru with one for about a week this past summer, all I can say is I'd rather not/won't own a car equipped with a CVT.
Wait until you drive a Nissan with a CVT. Honda, Subaru CVTs are nice. Nissan are awful.
I see I'm in good company with my opinion of a CVT transmission. After using my father's Subaru with one for about a week this past summer, all I can say is I'd rather not/won't own a car equipped with a CVT.
Wait until you drive a Nissan with a CVT. Honda, Subaru CVTs are nice. Nissan are awful.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I see I'm in good company with my opinion of a CVT transmission. After using my father's Subaru with one for about a week this past summer, all I can say is I'd rather not/won't own a car equipped with a CVT.
Same here. At this time, CVT's have to be the weakest trannies going. I prefer a design that has withstood the test of time and that is the STEP-SHIFT automatic transmission. Even the old GM PowerGlide was better than the CVT.
CVT's should only be used for 4-cylinder, low power, low, torque engines.
I call them: Granny-Grocery-Getters.
In fact, I wish more automakers would offer MT's
as transmission options.
I see I'm in good company with my opinion of a CVT transmission. After using my father's Subaru with one for about a week this past summer, all I can say is I'd rather not/won't own a car equipped with a CVT.
Same here. At this time, CVT's have to be the weakest trannies going. I prefer a design that has withstood the test of time and that is the STEP-SHIFT automatic transmission. Even the old GM PowerGlide was better than the CVT.
CVT's should only be used for 4-cylinder, low power, low, torque engines.
I call them: Granny-Grocery-Getters.
In fact, I wish more automakers would offer MT's
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: bbhero
One big part to add to this discussion of CVT problems is too many people have had the wrong transmission fluid put in their cars. Many failures have been related to not using the OEM fluid in drain and refills or flushes performed. In the Nissan I have it uses the NS-2 fluid for the xtronic CVT. If one uses another type of fluid it WILL FAIL. Doesn't matter if Valvoline or any other fluid manufactors say their fluids are valid for use in Nissans or any other type car. Don't trust that for nothing. We can use other oils in our cars. Like not using the Nissan ester oil that's $12 a qt. I can run any API SM or SN ILSAC GF-5 approved oil that's 5w30 to meet the requirements for Nissan. Coolant is really no different either in my opinion. But the transmission fluid is a non negotiable circumstance. Period. End of discussion. That's where many people have gotten jacked up CVTs to happen in my generation of them.
Now the newer ones have had issues because JATCO has had quality control issues. Plus the new redesigned CVTs are not really up to par just yet. Thus why I would tell people to stay away from them until they get sorted out by JATCO and Nissan.
Some early transmissions may have grenaded because of the wrong fluid but sorry, most of the problems have to do with insufficient Torque handling and throttle response of the CVT system.
One big part to add to this discussion of CVT problems is too many people have had the wrong transmission fluid put in their cars. Many failures have been related to not using the OEM fluid in drain and refills or flushes performed. In the Nissan I have it uses the NS-2 fluid for the xtronic CVT. If one uses another type of fluid it WILL FAIL. Doesn't matter if Valvoline or any other fluid manufactors say their fluids are valid for use in Nissans or any other type car. Don't trust that for nothing. We can use other oils in our cars. Like not using the Nissan ester oil that's $12 a qt. I can run any API SM or SN ILSAC GF-5 approved oil that's 5w30 to meet the requirements for Nissan. Coolant is really no different either in my opinion. But the transmission fluid is a non negotiable circumstance. Period. End of discussion. That's where many people have gotten jacked up CVTs to happen in my generation of them.
Now the newer ones have had issues because JATCO has had quality control issues. Plus the new redesigned CVTs are not really up to par just yet. Thus why I would tell people to stay away from them until they get sorted out by JATCO and Nissan.
Some early transmissions may have grenaded because of the wrong fluid but sorry, most of the problems have to do with insufficient Torque handling and throttle response of the CVT system.
Originally Posted By: ernied
could someone explain the difference between cvt and regular six speed transmission.Iknow its a stupid question so please forgive me.iam thinking of trading my santafe for a mitsubshi outlander but it has a smaller engine and a cvt whatever the difference is.
Others here have explained the difference and how CVTs work. I have been working with CVTs for many years and the principle is very good however in the majority of cases the implementation is poor to say the least. I would advise you against purchasing such a vehicle at the present time.
could someone explain the difference between cvt and regular six speed transmission.Iknow its a stupid question so please forgive me.iam thinking of trading my santafe for a mitsubshi outlander but it has a smaller engine and a cvt whatever the difference is.
Others here have explained the difference and how CVTs work. I have been working with CVTs for many years and the principle is very good however in the majority of cases the implementation is poor to say the least. I would advise you against purchasing such a vehicle at the present time.
CVTs get bashed more than Donald Trump at a Democratic Party Fund Raiser.....
I happen to like them. Had a 2005 Freestyle with the ZF (similar to the Mini's) unit. Great acceleration, range, MPG.
It had a better 0-60 time than the 6-speed Chrysler Pacifica, even though the Pacifica had 30 more HP. And MPG was better.
The Freestyle CVT was also used in the similar Montego and 500, and Mini used a cousin ZF designed CVT.
Reliability: All automatic transmissions can fail expensively, its only a matter of what percentage % fail !! Don't believe anecdotal stuff on the web. Look at actual failure rates %%%% and judge based on reality, not hunches or whiny people. Last I checked the massive survey at Consumer Reports, those ZF CVTs were failing at about the same rate as all the conventional auto trannies on the market.
I happen to like them. Had a 2005 Freestyle with the ZF (similar to the Mini's) unit. Great acceleration, range, MPG.
It had a better 0-60 time than the 6-speed Chrysler Pacifica, even though the Pacifica had 30 more HP. And MPG was better.
The Freestyle CVT was also used in the similar Montego and 500, and Mini used a cousin ZF designed CVT.
Reliability: All automatic transmissions can fail expensively, its only a matter of what percentage % fail !! Don't believe anecdotal stuff on the web. Look at actual failure rates %%%% and judge based on reality, not hunches or whiny people. Last I checked the massive survey at Consumer Reports, those ZF CVTs were failing at about the same rate as all the conventional auto trannies on the market.
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
I have been working with CVTs for many years and the principle is very good however in the majority of cases the implementation is poor to say the least. I would advise you against purchasing such a vehicle at the present time.
That is right. It does depend on which design/maker you get. There are the ZF designed CVTs I mentioned above, and then there are the various JATCO generations out there. Subaru worked with JATCO for a semi-custom one I think. Anyway, a person would need to check what percentage of them fail. Consumer Reports does big surveys to reveal the truth about each one you might consider.
Another kind of CVT (that I just bought myself) is the e-CVT used in Ford C-Max hybrids and Priuses, etc. Its just a power-sharing device between the engine and 2 electric motors hooked up to a simple sun-planet-ring gear setup, NOT using the cone/belt type stuff at all. Very reliable, much more reliable than a conventional automatic slush-box.
I have been working with CVTs for many years and the principle is very good however in the majority of cases the implementation is poor to say the least. I would advise you against purchasing such a vehicle at the present time.
That is right. It does depend on which design/maker you get. There are the ZF designed CVTs I mentioned above, and then there are the various JATCO generations out there. Subaru worked with JATCO for a semi-custom one I think. Anyway, a person would need to check what percentage of them fail. Consumer Reports does big surveys to reveal the truth about each one you might consider.
Another kind of CVT (that I just bought myself) is the e-CVT used in Ford C-Max hybrids and Priuses, etc. Its just a power-sharing device between the engine and 2 electric motors hooked up to a simple sun-planet-ring gear setup, NOT using the cone/belt type stuff at all. Very reliable, much more reliable than a conventional automatic slush-box.
The point made that putting the wrong fluid in can grenade at CVT is kinda biased. If you put the wrong fluid in a traditional auto you can grenade them easily too.
Put Dex/Merc or Multi use ATF in a Chrysler needing ATF+4 and you will have major problems
In the old days putting Dex in Type F transmissions would do the same in short order.
Put Dex/Merc or Multi use ATF in a Chrysler needing ATF+4 and you will have major problems
In the old days putting Dex in Type F transmissions would do the same in short order.
- Status
Similar threads
