Topic: CVT Transmissions

[Bullet Blue]

I would avoid buying a car if it was an automatic of any sort.

That said, I drive a Civic Hybrid as a company vehicle and I gotta say it was quite easy to get used to. Not a very involving transmission, but it's not like the Civic Hybrid is a driver oriented car to begin, so it suits it just fine. I would imagine for most people it's adequate for every day driving.

[5 Wheel Drive]

I voted yes.  If a car was only available with a cvt, it would be off my list.  I've driven a few, including a Versa from the carpool at work.  It worked, but, for me, something just wasn't right about not hearing/feeling the transmission shift.  I've been in my friend's Compass with a cvt as well, the drone just gets to after a few minutes. 

Then again, I'm not interested in an automatic either.  Give me a proper manual with a clutch pedal that I have to push all by myself. 

[Shnak]

The economy is great too.  Driving at 120km/h at 2100rpm is nice.

See, that's the thing. Everyone talks about CVT=economy. Is there a vehicle where it had a 4 or 5 speed traditional automatic transmission one year and then replaced by a CVT the next? I'd be curious to see the change in fuel economy. I could see the city rating improving a bit, but highway rating should remain the same I would think...

As a consideration, a CVT being 'more economic' wasn't in my equation (then again, that's why I got the SE-R!). That being said, the difference in L/100 and it's relative competitors with 2.0l+ I4s was not night and day compared to a Mazda 3 5sp Auto tranny.  If FE is whatdrives your purchase is more a Fit or Civic.

I know that... but I'd be curious to see just how much more economic a CVT is compared to a regular automatic transmission. It's hard to view a straight comparison because cars are usually completely overhauled/redesigned when a car switches to a CVT... maybe the SX4 when it had the 4-speed auto and now the CVT. I'll look for numbers after lunch.

Alright, here are the numbers for the SX4 with the 4-speed auto and CVT.

2009 w/ 4-speed auto: 9.0 / 6.5
2010 w/ CVT:             8.0  / 6.1

Quite a difference. I wonder how different the numbers would be if Suzuki had gone with a 5-speed auto instead of CVT... somewhere in the middle of those two sets of numbers, I suppose.

[Sival]

The economy is great too.  Driving at 120km/h at 2100rpm is nice.

See, that's the thing. Everyone talks about CVT=economy. Is there a vehicle where it had a 4 or 5 speed traditional automatic transmission one year and then replaced by a CVT the next? I'd be curious to see the change in fuel economy. I could see the city rating improving a bit, but highway rating should remain the same I would think...

As a consideration, a CVT being 'more economic' wasn't in my equation (then again, that's why I got the SE-R!). That being said, the difference in L/100 and it's relative competitors with 2.0l+ I4s was not night and day compared to a Mazda 3 5sp Auto tranny.  If FE is whatdrives your purchase is more a Fit or Civic.

I know that... but I'd be curious to see just how much more economic a CVT is compared to a regular automatic transmission. It's hard to view a straight comparison because cars are usually completely overhauled/redesigned when a car switches to a CVT... maybe the SX4 when it had the 4-speed auto and now the CVT. I'll look for numbers after lunch.

Alright, here are the numbers for the SX4 with the 4-speed auto and CVT.

2009 w/ 4-speed auto: 9.0 / 6.5
2010 w/ CVT:             8.0  / 6.1

Quite a difference. I wonder how different the numbers would be if Suzuki had gone with a 5-speed auto instead of CVT... somewhere in the middle of those two sets of numbers, I suppose.

Actually, the SX4 also had a new engine in 2010, so that's not a very good direct comparison.

The best way, I think, is to compare the difference between manual and automatic versions of those two years:

2009
Manual:     9,2 / 6,5
4-speed:    9,0 / 6,5

2010
Manual:     9,1 / 6,3
CVT:         8,2 / 6,4

These are the data for the hatchback, the Sedan gets better. Note also that the 4-speed automatic was known for being geared for fuel economy only, it was one of the slowest cars on the road, with a 0-60 mph time of about 11 seconds. The CVT is supposedly much better, not really fast, but decent enough.

That being said, there is a direct comparison that can be made, the Versa is available with a 4-speed automatic and with a CVT.

The 4-speed automatic gets:       8,5 / 6,2
The CVT gets:                           7,3 / 5,8

Anyway, a constant in most CVT-equipped cars is much better city fuel economy, but highway fuel economy is not that much better. I'd suppose that the fact of keeping the engine in the sweet spot helps a lot in accelerations and to keep it really low in city driving, but that there may be higher energy loss in the transmission because of how the CVT works, and this manifests in the advantage on the highway being a bit lost.

Also, it's quite easy for someone with an heavy foot to get awful fuel economy with a CVT, you just have to look at feedback from owners to notice that.

[Thinking Out Loud]

To me the fact that Nissan increased the warranty retroactively on all CVTs it's an indication of real problems even if you chose to ignore the Internet chat on the topic.Kudos to Nissan for standing by its products; no intention to bash Nissan or other manufacturer.
It is strange to me why many Japanese manufacturers decided to go with the CVTs when they all have good A/Ts or DCT and fuel savings can be attained using those too.

I agree with you though that the new transmissions, even the 6-speeds may not be that easy and cheap to fix, but the CVTs seem to be non-repairable from the start.

I don't choose to ignore 'chat' on the internet - I simply view it within the context from which is it derrived - which is a minority of people with an axe to grind in a public forum. 

If your view of the world and your choices are based on 'going with the LOUD and therefore obviously CORRECT majority', good for you.  I'm not so easily swayed.

We're copacitic on everything else tho.

[saint_satan]

I’ve driven the Outback 2.5i, Jeep Patriot and Nissan Sentra.  Sentra was passable, the Patriot and Outback seemed to completely overwhelm the CVT with their weight.

All sounded like diesels at idle and take off, even the Sentra.  I have no idea what that was all about…

[ArticSteve]

To me the fact that Nissan increased the warranty retroactively on all CVTs it's an indication of real problems even if you chose to ignore the Internet chat on the topic.

Nissan has withdrawn the extended warranty on all new 2011 CVTs.

Nissan had a problem with their CVTs attached to their V6s.  The issue was not with the actual transmission, but with a cooling line that was integrated into the cases.  So the cooling line would start to leak and the only way to fix it was order a new tranny.  This has now been changed.  Hence they dropped the extended warranty.

From my experience driving every Nissan there is,  CVTs are the best option for small displacement motors or if you happen to live in a very hilly local because CVTs handle steep grades very well.

As for high displacement/hp motors like the Nissan V6 I'd prefer to see a traditional unit for spirited drivers.  For drivers like my wife it makes no difference.  

Like mentioned by TOL, any current auto tranny is virtually unrepairable by the dealer or tranny shop.  They are simply to complicated.  Hence they are all reman units and the cost is extreme.

All the Nissan CVTs work really well and it was a brilliant decision many years ago.

[Dante]

To me the fact that Nissan increased the warranty retroactively on all CVTs it's an indication of real problems even if you chose to ignore the Internet chat on the topic.Kudos to Nissan for standing by its products; no intention to bash Nissan or other manufacturer.
It is strange to me why many Japanese manufacturers decided to go with the CVTs when they all have good A/Ts or DCT and fuel savings can be attained using those too.

I agree with you though that the new transmissions, even the 6-speeds may not be that easy and cheap to fix, but the CVTs seem to be non-repairable from the start.

I don't choose to ignore 'chat' on the internet - I simply view it within the context from which is it derrived - which is a minority of people with an axe to grind in a public forum. 

If your view of the world and your choices are based on 'going with the LOUD and therefore obviously CORRECT majority', good for you.  I'm not so easily swayed.

We're copacitic on everything else tho.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have said "one" I guess instead of "you". I did not mean to argue your perception of the info on the Internet. I too read the forums/blogs, but don't take what I read as facts.

However, it becomes relevant when the manufacturer significantly extends one the warranty on the subject component, even for the sold vehicles not only the new ones. This is a fact I believe.

[Dante]

Nissan has withdrawn the extended warranty on all new 2011 CVTs.

Thanks for the update Steve. I was hopping you'll join in since you have first hand experience with Nissans.

I wouldn't get one still. 

[ArticSteve]

Send me a large face photo of yourself and I'll put it up on our "BANNED FOR LIFE" wall. 

[Frontier1]

This is my 3rd experience with a CVT and love it.  When I take off at lights I always ask myself, am I driving fast? or are they all that slow? my car does not feel fast, so that explains it.  They don't feel fast, but are as fast or faster, one also learns to modulate these things and it quickly become second nature.  What is way worse than the feel of a CVT for me is a traditional tranny that is undecisive, flaring etc. man I hate that.  My service manager that I believe is honest with me says they have replaced 4 of them and that the incidence of a tranny job has gone down compared to before.  A CVT in manual mode is fun, because it shifts right there and then, many traditionals have this delay that to me defeats the whole purpose of shiftronic.

[Thinking Out Loud]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have said "one" I guess instead of "you". I did not mean to argue your perception of the info on the Internet. I too read the forums/blogs, but don't take what I read as facts.

However, it becomes relevant when the manufacturer significantly extends one the warranty on the subject component, even for the sold vehicles not only the new ones. This is a fact I believe.

 

And thanks AC on the update on 2011's...THAT I'll take to the bank! 

[dr_spock]

I've driven a BMW New Mini with a CVT.  It didn't feel bad.  I am not sure I would get one in a new car.  I think I'd rather go with a manual and save $1500 or so for something else like nice rims. 

[footlong58]

They are great for engine braking too... Especially on snow and ice covered streets.

[gta_driver]

I have a CVT in the B class and love it.

Up and down shifting in "automatic" mode is super smooth. The fuel economy is excellent.

[CatsEye68]

I happened to get an Altima 2.5S with CVT as a business rental this week. I had no issues with how the tranny worked and from a dead stop it seemed to move out quite well. If you put your foot into it while already at speed the engine got really loud and thrashy without a whole lot of forward push, but I dunno if that would have been much different in that car with that engine and a conventional tranny.

It was funny in that the rental agent cautioned me when I picked the car up that Nissans were "different" and that I might not like it. It had brakes that were either very effective or very touchy, depending on your point of view, and he commented on those as well.

[2JDM]

The rental 2.5S Altima we had in Hawaii this summer was great. The CVT handled the hilly terrain nicely, with a full load of people. The engine did sound rough (ticking sounds?), but fuel economy and acceleration was decent..I wouldn't hesitate recommending the car to a person shopping for a midsized sedan. Heck, even the dash is soft touch and nicely textured!

[CatsEye68]

The rental 2.5S Altima we had in Hawaii this summer was great. The CVT handled the hilly terrain nicely, with a full load of people. The engine did sound rough (ticking sounds?), but fuel economy and acceleration was decent..I wouldn't hesitate recommending the car to a person shopping for a midsized sedan. Heck, even the dash is soft touch and nicely textured!

I wasn't nearly as enamored with it as you were. I found the interior somewhat bland (mine was all-black inside, perhaps that had something to do with it) and I did not care for the pushbutton start/keyfob in pocket system. The controls seemed strangely designed too, like some Fords i have driven -- somewhat non-intuitive in layout and function. It wasn't a bad car, but I doubt I would buy one in that trim at least.

[ArticSteve]

, 

[mmret]

From a theoretical perspective its a good idea I guess. I have only ever driven an Altima 2.5 CVT very briefly so can't comment much.

But for beefier motored cars, with 7+ speed autoboxes soon to be trickling down, is it really necessary when I can just have a super tall top gear?