CVT Wear Rate

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: Cujet

The real world data from "True Delta dot com" does not back up your statement. In fact, Honda's are stunningly reliable, as reported by actual long term owners.


I wouldn't trust Truedelta to wipe my butt. Been a while since I've been to the site but was not impressed in the least.

The owner spams pretty much all forums related to cars to get people to sign up. And then there is the "trip to the shop" thing that is basically useless. A trip to the shop for a squeak or rattle is a lot different than a trip to the shop for a new engine or transmission!

I'd rather have a car that goes in 10 times to fix a bunch of little things than have a new engine or transmission. Truedelta attempts to assign all repairs an equal rating when they are not!!!

Quote:
The reality is that Honda and Toyota build cars that match each other in long term reliability. All other manufacturers fall short of the Honda/Toyota numbers. A comparison between 1998 thru 2014 Accord's and Passat's is an eye opener! http://www.truedelta.com/Honda-Accord/reliability-108/vs-Passat-282


1st of all - VW's reliability is typically less than the industry average so that's not exactly a good comparison.

2nd - those owners tend to gloss over many issues because they have been told that they are the best. I find it hilarious that an owner of a Honda from 2000-2008 with a bum 5 speed auto prior to 100k will replace it and sing how "reliable" their Honda is? Really? You kidding me? The "junk" CD4E in the wife's Escape is 145k and still original! Or those that have an oil burning Honda V6 say how great it is! How many had Sludgy Toyotas or rusty framed Tundras that still thought they were the best? (I'd bet a lot)

I know someone that loves Hondas. Thing is he leases them - and ever 3/36k or whatever he gets a new one! Heck, even the lowest rated car would be fine in that short period of time.

Quote:
Lets talk facts and not feelings. Real world data is important.

Within every owner reported sampling there will be bias. If you are constantly told something is "the best", you will gloss over any issues. After all, if it's the best and blows trannys, how bad is the worst?

The best "fact" would be warranty repairs or parts sales data. Sadly warranty repairs would never been made public. Since people don't generally buy parts until something is wrong that would be a good indicator of long term reliability.

Sorry, I'm not buying the theory that Honda/Toyota is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else. It's been bunk for a LONG time now.


+1

 

[Xeno]

Originally Posted By: wag123
Originally Posted By: Ram01
Trust in honda CVT they are build for the long haul. Nissan's cvt kinda of drop the ball on there's but is getting better

What?
Nissan has earned a very good reputation on most of their automatics over the years. Their early CVTs had some "teething pains", and they have had a couple of limited production/assembly problems along the way (for which they have given their customers warranty extensions), but it appears that they have worked the problems out.
Honda is the company that has earned a bad reputation on some of their automatics. In particular, the automatics that Honda used on their V/6s prior to 2006 were AWFUL, but they have also had many other problems (on-and-off) over the years going all the way back to the very first Hondamatics that they produced. Based upon this, IMHO Honda's first CVT automatics should NOT be trusted.

But, like them or not, CVT automatics are here to stay.


I agree. I think Honda has made some pretty subpar trans in some of their cars. Just look at massive Odyssey failure rates, not to mention the common transmission grinds in Si's and RSX-S.

I'd trust Nissan, they've been in the CVT game longer.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: Cujet

The real world data from "True Delta dot com" does not back up your statement. In fact, Honda's are stunningly reliable, as reported by actual long term owners.


I wouldn't trust Truedelta to wipe my butt. Been a while since I've been to the site but was not impressed in the least.

The owner spams pretty much all forums related to cars to get people to sign up. And then there is the "trip to the shop" thing that is basically useless. A trip to the shop for a squeak or rattle is a lot different than a trip to the shop for a new engine or transmission!

I'd rather have a car that goes in 10 times to fix a bunch of little things than have a new engine or transmission. Truedelta attempts to assign all repairs an equal rating when they are not!!!

Quote:
The reality is that Honda and Toyota build cars that match each other in long term reliability. All other manufacturers fall short of the Honda/Toyota numbers. A comparison between 1998 thru 2014 Accord's and Passat's is an eye opener! http://www.truedelta.com/Honda-Accord/reliability-108/vs-Passat-282


1st of all - VW's reliability is typically less than the industry average so that's not exactly a good comparison.

2nd - those owners tend to gloss over many issues because they have been told that they are the best. I find it hilarious that an owner of a Honda from 2000-2008 with a bum 5 speed auto prior to 100k will replace it and sing how "reliable" their Honda is? Really? You kidding me? The "junk" CD4E in the wife's Escape is 145k and still original! Or those that have an oil burning Honda V6 say how great it is! How many had Sludgy Toyotas or rusty framed Tundras that still thought they were the best? (I'd bet a lot)

I know someone that loves Hondas. Thing is he leases them - and ever 3/36k or whatever he gets a new one! Heck, even the lowest rated car would be fine in that short period of time.

Quote:
Lets talk facts and not feelings. Real world data is important.

Within every owner reported sampling there will be bias. If you are constantly told something is "the best", you will gloss over any issues. After all, if it's the best and blows trannys, how bad is the worst?

The best "fact" would be warranty repairs or parts sales data. Sadly warranty repairs would never been made public. Since people don't generally buy parts until something is wrong that would be a good indicator of long term reliability.

Sorry, I'm not buying the theory that Honda/Toyota is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else. It's been bunk for a LONG time now.


You're right about that! One thing I have noticed with a lot of Honda / Toyota buyers is that anything can happen, and they are still the best!

"My accord is on it's 3rd transmission - but it's just such a reliable car!"
"My Pilot ate it's camshaft due to VCM, but that is okay because it's a Honda and reliable!"
"I don't have the mental capacity to operate a touch screen radio - I'll never buy another garbage Ford again!!!"

 

[bigt61]

The Honda/Toyota Kood-Aid is strong. There was a time when they were a better product than most, not so much anymore. I personally know of an 2003 Acura TL that had it's transmission fail as it was coming off the new car carrier during delivery to the dealer....great cars.

 

[firemachine69]

Nissan just went back to a four-speed slushbox, instead of a CVT (that they've been messing aroung with for a decade now), in the new Micra... Take that for what it's worth.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: itguy08


1) I wouldn't trust Truedelta to wipe my butt. Been a while since I've been to the site but was not impressed in the least.
And then there is the "trip to the shop" thing that is basically useless. A trip to the shop for a squeak or rattle is a lot different than a trip to the shop for a new engine or transmission!

I'd rather have a car that goes in 10 times to fix a bunch of little things than have a new engine or transmission. Truedelta attempts to assign all repairs an equal rating when they are not!!!


2nd) - those owners tend to gloss over many issues because they have been told that they are the best.


1) The data at TrueDelta is statistically provided in multiple ways. A trip to the shop is generally considered an inconvenience. Regardless of what was repaired. However, since this thread is about transmissions, that data is clearly available at TrueDelta also. AND, TrueDelta's data mirrors other statistical reliability sources. Honda and Toyota come out on top. Period, end of story. Not to say others are bad, just that H+T are statistically better.

2) Are you saying that Honda and Toyota owners, as a group, are not likely to report a failure? While Chevy and Ford owners are likely to be honest. That's insane! In fact, it's likely that any owner with significant failures will, as a participant in such reliability programs, report major failures.

These failures are tracked by mile. Again, Toyota and Honda come out on top, with fewer significant problems.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: firemachine69
Nissan just went back to a four-speed slushbox, instead of a CVT (that they've been messing aroung with for a decade now), in the new Micra... Take that for what it's worth.

I imagine it means they can make a 4 spd auto for much less than a CVT. Also maybe the 4spd needs less hydraulic flow to operate? On a little car, an extra hp of hydraulic pump losses could be significant.

 

[wag123]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: firemachine69
Nissan just went back to a four-speed slushbox, instead of a CVT (that they've been messing aroung with for a decade now), in the new Micra... Take that for what it's worth.

I imagine it means they can make a 4 spd auto for much less than a CVT. Also maybe the 4spd needs less hydraulic flow to operate? On a little car, an extra hp of hydraulic pump losses could be significant.

CVTs are more efficient, so my suspicion is that the 4spd automatics are cheaper to manufacture (and maybe lighter). Nissan is still using them on cheaper versions of the Versa, and Toyota is still using them on it's cheapest cars, the Yaris and cheaper versions of the Corolla. The Versas and Corollas that have CVTs get significantly better gas mileage.