Driving with a CVT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
I think I'm set with a transmission choice. I tend to keep cars and I'm worried that the CVT solution is not there to promote a long life. The idea of a rebuild is not comforting. I looked at one torn down in the shop and it's quite


Next, that small Ford I drove with the twin clutch is not ready for prime time. I actually felt like I was abusing the car by driving it and ended the test drive.

So far my choice is the Crosstrek with a manual. It's a small station wagon that can get around out in the desert where I spend a lot of time. The Subaru brand shows the reliability and build quality that is needed for a long life.

The Honda salesman told me they don't give discounts on the HR-V AWD and some have an addendum sticker. He stated that the Honda all wheel drive is so good that I'll never get stuck. He also educated me on what a bad engine the Subaru's have. He said they blow head gaskets and that the pistons wear unevenly because of the horizontal layout. My wife decided that she had to step in and tell him that the better the all wheel or 4-wheel drive system might be means that you'll just get stuck worse and have to winch or dig more, every AWD or 4-wheel drive vehicle will get stuck at one time or another or you're just not having enough fun. You'd think that if my wife knows this that the salesman should, also.






I would run away very fast from that salesman and any dealer ship that puts an extra sticker on the window. Those small CUVs haven't been getting great reviews BTW. I'm in AWD country and I can count on one hand the number of HRV's I have seen in the last 12 to 18 months.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bbhero
I do understand why you and others are concerned with CVTs. I will say my car has 187k miles and the CVT has been quite good. I do believe that the motor being a 3.5 has helped the CVT perform better as well. I think a smaller motor is not a great match with a CVT. I also believe that a larger motor than mine wouldn't be a good match for a CVT either. I also think the changing of fluid in these cars has caused some people some big problems as well.


Good point. Small buzzy engines don't appear to be a good match for a CVT and you're right that about 3 to 3.5 liters appears to be the sweet spot at least in cars I've driven over the past couple of years.

When I travel I go out of my way to rent specific cars and not just whatever is next. The best CVT's are not those little engines.
 
Yeah Oneyejack I think that a 3 to 3.5L motor is probably the best fit with a CVT. Enough power to keep the transmission in the proverbial sweet spot and yet not too much power to kill it either. My CVT doesn't really have much of a delay in it at all. It will haul rear end quite all right when requested to do so. I am always glad to see you on here. I hope you have a good day today. And... Take care of yourself too. Don't try to be a Superhero
smile.gif
 
My 2014 Subaru OB with the 4 cylinder motor and CVT has surprisingly quick acceleration considering the small engine with a vehicle that weighs 3,500 pounds before I get in and load it up with the stuff I usually carry around.

I like it. 4 speed automatic trannies are very old school, worked for me back in the late 1960's (when they were 2 or 3 speed ATs) until recently. CVTs and 8 or 9 speed auto trannies are what will be in most cars made today. Yes, there are a few manual dinosaurs still sold, but not many and are on the way out.
 
Originally Posted By: L_Sludger
Originally Posted By: 555
I may not like the sound of the engine staying at a continuous high rpm(Crosstrek) but I know that it's technically most efficient. It's not exciting, but it does give the best acceleration and mileage for the provided gearing, right?
The few skirmishes I've had driving it were interesting. I could see the other car lose that tiny bit of time in between gears.
Some drivers, notice I say some, not all, get uneasy when the revs get close to 4,000 r.p.m. so to them there is something wrong with the drivetrain and commonly blame the CVT. An engine in certain circumstances is working less hard at higher revolutions.
I had a friend who bought a new Civic with a 5 speed in the early nineties and he was worried about wearing out his pistons with high revs. Merging onto a highway at 45 mph short shifting with a tractor trailer bearing down on him at 75 mph and he was worried about piston wear!
Back to my point, floor your throttle once in a while, it may cure what ails you, or your car.
In the early nineties the national speed limit was still 55 so a tractor trailer bearing down on you on an onramp going 75mph would probably not be the norm.


Some drivers go faster than the limit.
 
Last time I looked at the Jatco website they have a whole range of CVTs depending on engine size, fwd or awd, and gear ratio. They make a lot of standard automatics as well. From what I can gather, the more recent CVTs have a torque converter which was not in the previous models.

Between CVTs trying to mimic automatics and automatics constantly hunting for gears, I could drive anyone back to a stick.

I have read somewhere that Subaru CVTs use a chain versus a belt. Anyone else know anything about that?
 
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Last time I looked at the Jatco website they have a whole range of CVTs depending on engine size, fwd or awd, and gear ratio. They make a lot of standard automatics as well. From what I can gather, the more recent CVTs have a torque converter which was not in the previous models.

Between CVTs trying to mimic automatics and automatics constantly hunting for gears, I could drive anyone back to a stick.

I have read somewhere that Subaru CVTs use a chain versus a belt. Anyone else know anything about that?


I have read the same thing on subaruforester.org, but I don't know anything their construction beyond that.
Also read in a long thread about CVTs on that site that the units are rarely, if ever, repaired at dealerships...believe the whole thing is swapped out when there is trouble and the old units are sent back to the manufacturer.
 
I don't follow the logic that you need power/3.5 to 'fit' with a CVT... A more powerful engine with a broader torque curve doesn't need as many gears to be in the power and efficiency bands. My 148hp 4cyl Impreza needs all the gearing help it can get.. not sure the programming is fully optimal but the CVT I feel help make the most of the modest power output. Now if you prefer to near hearing your transmission (of any type) working a lot, having a bigger motor power will help achieve that, whether CVT or conventional trans.
 
I'm pretty sure all auto CVTs, at least in NA use the steel belt. Rubber belts are probably used in scooters and ATVs or some other low speed/low power applications.

cvt-belt.jpg


But the problem with CVTs aren't the belts, but the forces involved with keeping the belt from slipping on the pulleys and actuating them to change the gearing.
 
"Also read in a long thread about CVTs on that site that the units are rarely, if ever, repaired at dealerships...believe the whole thing is swapped out when there is trouble and the old units are sent back to the manufacturer."


I've heard that as well. I think they rebuild or refurbish them and resell them.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I'd like to test out a new CRV with the CVT to see how it is.

My grandmother's 2011 CRV is dead slow in the mountains, only sits at 4,000 RPMs with your foot to the floor, won't go any faster/rev any higher. A CVT would be great and let it keep the RPMs high when needed.

Why not manually downshift it?
 
Originally Posted By: KrisZ


But the problem with CVTs aren't the belts, but the forces involved with keeping the belt from slipping on the pulleys and actuating them to change the gearing.


Kris- I hear you and I can't disagree with that, but I have yet to see evidence of a fried CVT belt, chain or pulley on one. The only tear-down videos I've seen were valve body swap outs, where the pulleys and belt looked OK. On that same topic, I've never seen one fail into a pile of metal debris like I have some conventional ATs.

In regards to the torque converter question above, I've never seen an automotive CVT without one.

Lastly, yes shops tend to just swap out the whole transmission as opposed to opening them up for repair, but that's the case for most ALL ATs these days. Has been for years. This is nothing specific to CVTs alone.
 
Originally Posted By: JTK
Kris- I hear you and I can't disagree with that, but I have yet to see evidence of a fried CVT belt, chain or pulley on one. The only tear-down videos I've seen were valve body swap outs, where the pulleys and belt looked OK. On that same topic, I've never seen one fail into a pile of metal debris like I have some conventional ATs.


It is not the belt nor the pulley that wear out (although they certainly can), but in most cases that I read about it is the hydraulic pump and the fluid. Hydraulic pressure is used to keep the belt engaged and the pulleys actuated, but since the clamping force is not perpendicular to the plane of rotation, it requires greater pressures, hence the system is less tolerant to fluid shear, changes in pressure and fluid type.
I guess that manufacturers programmed their transmission to go into limp mode the moment the fluid pressure is too low to save the belt and the pulleys, that would explain small failure numbers for these components.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I'd like to test out a new CRV with the CVT to see how it is.

My grandmother's 2011 CRV is dead slow in the mountains, only sits at 4,000 RPMs with your foot to the floor, won't go any faster/rev any higher. A CVT would be great and let it keep the RPMs high when needed.

Why not manually downshift it?
It's a 5 speed automatic transmission. At 65 mph in the mountains it was in 3rd gear. In 2nd gear it would have been red-lined and I would have been going slower. Pretty sad that the K24 couldn't push it anymore. The 2.4L in my Sonata doesn't even sweat it.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
I'd like to test out a new CRV with the CVT to see how it is.

My grandmother's 2011 CRV is dead slow in the mountains, only sits at 4,000 RPMs with your foot to the floor, won't go any faster/rev any higher. A CVT would be great and let it keep the RPMs high when needed.

Why not manually downshift it?
It's a 5 speed automatic transmission. At 65 mph in the mountains it was in 3rd gear. In 2nd gear it would have been red-lined and I would have been going slower. Pretty sad that the K24 couldn't push it anymore. The 2.4L in my Sonata doesn't even sweat it.


Nick, I'm not sure if this particular Honda has it, but was the "Econ" button on at the time? That can hold'em back a bit for the sake of MPGs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top