are cvts really that bad? most of them now are reliable but i think its more about the feel but idk
>>28874850The problem is that they need to be taken care of more than traditional autos but because they're typically fitted to the least expensive cars the owners don't read the manual (or at all).If dealers harped on the importance of preventative maintenance they'd reduce their sales so they just don't mention it and lay it on the consumer to self-educate.They're a good idea mechanically but they tend to be underbuilt and overstressed.
>>28874866I mean i’ve tried cvts they feel clunky, almost like turbo lag but less noticeable. I only tride Toyota’s cvt and i was thinking maybe other manufacturers got it right
>>28874866you can't lay that at the owners feet when so many CVTs say they are lifetime units and do not have a maintenance schedule from the manufacturer.
They are bad but hybrid ecvts are not belts generally and not to be confused. They are probably more reliable than a regular transmission
>>28874909they’re only lifetime under normal use. stressing the transmission constantly, not letting the car idle on cold days, using wrong oil viscosity, just overall treating the cvt like a torque converter is what makes it fail. its not the factory’s fault its your fault for not being able to adjust your driving habits to this new and sensitive transmission.
>>28874850Absolutely. They are so fucking awful to drive it's insane.
Good luck getting one rebuilt
>>28874896Toyota's CVTs are some of the better ones.
>>28874916Depends on the make and model dumbass, some CVTs feel sporty while others feel sluggish and it all depends on what the car is supposed to be. You don’t compare an Altima’s CVT to a Civic Si.
>>28874919They are reliable but thats about it.
>>28874922No it doesn't you fucking retarded cunt. They are terrible to drive, every single one. You've obviously never driven one.
>>28874928Says the guy who drove a Corolla for 5 minutes. CVT hate is just these lame excuse for human beings trying to prove their car is better just because its a manual.
Why are people still debating this?
>>28874945Ignorant people like you are what car makers and dealers dream of.
Bump
>>28874922Civic SI's only come in manual though
>>28875007and unfortunately a 1.5L turbo 4 cylinder
>>28874850CVTs are fundamentally boring, hearing the engine stuck droning on at a set rpm forever is the lamest thing imaginable, better off getting an EV. Yes there are CVTs that simulate traditional gear changes but then what's the point of even having a CVT if you negate its one advantage?
>>28874866>preventative maintenanceit doesnt really matter how often you change the transmission fluid, the belt is a wear item and it mostly comes down to your driving. If you drive like a grandma you could maybe get to 150k miles on one of the better ones, you'd be lucky to hit 100k with a nisshit one
>>28874911>They are bad but hybrid ecvts are not belts generally and not to be confused. They are probably more reliable than a regular transmissionI watched this YouTube video from Engineering Explained where he talked about this and made a strong case that eCVT transmissions really aren't bad. Basically the crux of his argument was the the Ford Maverick Hybrid with eCVT and a 2.5L non-turbo 4-cylider engine pumping out 180hp was barely 1 second slower than the 250hp Ecoboost turbo 4 cylinder maverick with the 8 speed dual clutch automatic transmission
Kinda related but my 6 speed Aisin torque converter sometimes feels like a CVT. I accelerated really hard the other day and the revs climbed to 3k (it's a diesel) and then kind of stayed there while the speed increased.Never had an auto box before, is this normal behaviour or is it worn out (car is pretty old)?
>>28875218Autotragics shift like slush so you don't notice the shifts sometimes. Its disgusting but these freaks think it's normal.
>>28874922Retard
>>28874850CVTs only exist because they're cheaper to manufacture than an automatic transmission.
>>28874850CVTs have been used as parts for other machinery for ages before they came to be used as car transmissions. The problem as others have stated is the PR language, the "lifetime" transmissions that even at best really mean the "lifetime" of the part, not that they last a lifetime. They need maintenance just like any other part.The real question is did they need to be adopted so widely and so fast, cause it went from almost no one using them to almost everyone using them withing like 5 years, unless you were Mazda who made the choice to stick with traditional transmissions for their vehicles. Automatic transmissions took decades to replace manuals from the 90s till now, and that meant that they could iron out the kinks, and if they couldn't and the tranmission ended up being shit, at least you had the option of going for a manual (See: Ford and their glass atomatics vs their manuals) compared to now where Nissan pretty much became a garbage manufacturer cause they laid all their eggs on CVTs that literally die the moment they're out of warranty.
>>28875331>I don't understand why replacing one automatic with a different automatic took longer than replacing manual with automatic damn dude you're actually autistic huh? when automatics were in development it took time to figure out how pedal behavior should be linked to transmission behavior, and they were originally working with fluid computers rather than digital ecus that could be reprogrammed almost at will with no additional development time. Of course the 90s saw faster development pace
>>28874866>They're a good idea mechanically but they tend to be underbuilt and overstressed.Theyre designed by a committee of bean counters to work just well enough to get their product past the warranty.We could build them strong enough for mine equipment but it would be cost prohibitive.
>>28875333The one who's autistic is you because the entire point is exactly what you posted. Like you said, they took time to figure out automatic transmissions, they didn't for CTVs. It's not like they couldn't have just tossed an automatic in there just based on the idea of how they could function and figuring it out the hard way in the 90s, just like they did the CVTs in this day and age.
>>28875333it also took several decades to work out how to make a torque converter that didn't rob power at high speed. boom stator vane and now TC's havent needed to change much since the '50s.
>>28874850They're garbage. Thirty years and they're still not sorted out. A CVT that makes it 120K miles is considered amazing. IF you're doing OK and you buy a brand-new car, that you're gonna trade in before the warranty expires - go right ahead, but if you're looking for a used car with no warranty you better stay right the fuck away from CVTs
>>28874850The ones that aren't from Jatco (Nissan) or from really early BMW-MINIs are all generally reliable. >>28876946Priuses regularly go 300-500k miles on the original CVT lmao, drivability might be absolute garbage but they're not unreliable in the slightest.I can think of more torque-converted transmissions known for blowing up than I can CVTs, especially if you cut out the two examples I first mentioned.
>>28874850Subarus exist.
>>28874909My dad had a cvt in his gas-only cr-v that was working fine until he sent it to a honda romania dealer to get the fluid changed at 80000 km and they fucked it up. He had to spend 1k usd on a new cvt tranny. I'm inclined to not dick around with the tranny fluid on the e-cvt in my hybrid camry and risk breaking it. One of my friends has an early 2000s chevy truck with a normal cvt tranny and he doesn't dick around with it's fluid either.
>>28879889*4-speed auto tranny, fullsized truggs made for towing don't have cvt nor should they
My parents owned a 2008 Murano. They kept it for 5 or 6 years and never had an issue with the CVT. I drove it on many occasions and never even noticed it wasn't a regular AT. I suspect many of the people bitching about CVTs are retards who drive like wild apes and never do maintenance. I rarely hear of anyone having trouble with Subaru CVTs - except for the Ascent, which is way too heavy for that type of transmission, Same for Honda - they've been using it in the civic and accord for years, and it hardly every comes up.Even for Nissan, most of the troubles are from models that are a decade old or older. The newest version of the jatco cvt (from about 2020 onward) has very few complaints. Even the notorious Altima has been pretty good over the last 6 or 7 years.
>>28874850Yes, it is bad. However, if you are one of the people, who don't give a fuck about a car. CVT is for you.
>>28875360Imagine having a gay fluid turbine touching your engine instead of a gearbox with a clutch.
>>28874916you are a retard that cant adapt i have a 2019 corolla with a cvtand im not bitching about it
Driving dynamics wise they are the worst setup, yes. Reliability has been solved and they get good mileage.There is no perfect setup. DCTs are best for driving but are expensive to fix once they go bust, slushboxes tank your mileage and drive worse than DCTs, CVTs are even more so and robogears just suck.
>>28880995>My parents owned a 2008 MuranoAnd it shows, judging from how you post
I own a Ford C-Max which has a last gen CVT. Not a belt driven CVT, closer to Toyota's hybrid synergy drive.>It's consistent, predictable, and reliable. In other words, really boring.Yes it disconnects the engine RPM from the speed of the vehicle. This doesn't mean a lot since the car is designed around keeping the driver from telling what the engine is doing. Boring.It accelerates smoothly enough to think it's not accelerating. It can get up and move, but doesn't feel like it at all. Boring.All it's electronic system are centered around MPG. Don't push the throttle too hard, don't brake too hard, use momentum. Blah blah blah. Boring.It definitely turns a car into an appliance.
So we can all agree that hating CVTs is just peak midwit, right?
>>28881330They had a deserved reputation based on the early gen nissan disaster. Now it's all feels and fud lore without any particular questionable data about longevity. I agree they feel less than satisfying to drive but performance and reliability wise the data isn't there to conclude they are terrible, brittle, etc.
>>28879889Sounds like your issue started and ended at "Romania"
>>28874850My parents have a Maxima with a CVT its at 150k without any real issues. I did advise them to swap out the fluid twice (every 40k) and they've done so. I just think you have to change the fluid more often than regular automatics and you shouldn't be very hard on them. They're not performance transmissions.
>>28874922>some CVTs feel sportyit's SPORTY! it even simulates shifting! see I can bump the little paddle here, bump the little paddle here, BUMP the little paddle SEE it just shifted! zoom! like a race car but for smart people
>>28882200Obsessed lmao
>>28882435who makes that sporty CVT then? dying to try one
>>28883453Sporty isn't real. /o/ insists on this
>>28874850>cunt-variety transmission
>>28883453The Nissan Maxima's CVT is allegedly more robust since it's 300hp stock
>>28874899my 2012 outlander sport has it. can confirm it feels real clunky sometimes. 50k miles on it, did the service about 15k ago and besides the occasional jitter it drives perfect. i still intend on getting a manual tranny car sometime soon because i dont like the feel of the cvt. electric throttle doesnt help it either, just adds to the lag in acceleration.
>>28876962youll generally get better reliability from jatcos in mitsubishis because mitsu tunes the transmissions differently to nissan to prevent overheating issues, but theyve had their issues too. obviously, traditional autos of the era will still long outlast cvts (and manuals outlasting both) but just keep the maintenance up and you're golden for pretty much any cvts unless it had a flaw from the factory.
>>28874911>>28875161That's because they use physical gears, not a flimsy belt. Only downside of this system is that it doesn't work in non hybrids
>>28876962I've heard audi multitronic nicknamed "multitrauma" so make of that what you will>>28879889>e-cvt in my hybrid camryThat's fine though, that's not got a fucking chain/belt
>>28874866>me looking at the CVT in our Five Hundred that just hit 200k miles>haven't touched it in our 10 years of owning it
>>28874850I drive the worst CVT ever, and it's been fine for 15 years. Feels great even.
