Why the dislike for CVTs?

[350Rocket]

I notice lots of people who are not knowledgeable about cars drive regular automatics badly as well, so it's not new or specific to CVT transmissions. Changing your throttle position drastically right before it's about to shift is hard on a regular automatic. I worked with a guy who did this regularly plus pumped the throttle as he drove. It was constantly shifting gears as he got on and off the throttle.
A CVT is basically changing gear ratios constantly so I don't see how changing throttle position like that can be harder on them than on a regular automatic. I'm sure it's worse to drive them erratically but I don't buy that they need to be driven a specific way.

A DCT definitely has to be driven a specific way. You can't creep in traffic, or let the engine hold you in place on a hill....you need to treat it like a manual transmission where you don't want to burn out the clutch.

 

[ondarvr]

Basing your opinion on CVTs built years ago by JACTO and others that are know for building bad transmissions in general, is like judging all internal combustion engine by those built by Fiat in the past. Or old electronics from England.

I'm sure people complained about early normal automatics too.

Some people have very difficult time adjusting to change, it makes no difference if it for the better or not. Change the color of their Garbage can and their world is upended.

Like any other new technology, it takes time to sort out the bugs.

 

[doitmyself]

Yes, JATCO certainly tainted the image of CVT's!

 

[Boomer]

My DIL just got rid of a 9 year old Dodge Caliber with about 135,000 miles on it. Bought it almost new. It had a CVT and never gave her a lick of problems. I think she had the fluid changed out about five years ago. I do not know what type of CVT it had. I did hate to drive it, however.

 

[JustN89]

My DIL just got rid of a 9 year old Dodge Caliber with about 135,000 miles on it. Bought it almost new. It had a CVT and never gave her a lick of problems. I think she had the fluid changed out about five years ago. I do not know what type of CVT it had. I did hate to drive it, however.

Would've been a JATCO CVT.

 

[GenesisGuy70]

My DIL just got rid of a 9 year old Dodge Caliber with about 135,000 miles on it. Bought it almost new. It had a CVT and never gave her a lick of problems. I think she had the fluid changed out about five years ago. I do not know what type of CVT it had. I did hate to drive it, however.

My mom had a 2010 or 2011 Caliber too that ran to 180,000ish before she sold it. It had a CVT. Never once gave her a problem and it was never serviced in all those miles.

 

[PimTac]

The vast majority of owners with a CVT have no idea what it is. Most think it’s a automatic transmission.

Just like with automatics, driving in two speeds tends to wear transmissions out. Full throttle or stop.

 

[Nick1994]

JustN89 said it well.

Reliability still doesn’t seem to be as good.

They aren’t really repairable.

They drive pretty bad, rubber band feeling and slower throttle response.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Yes, reliability was a concern at the beginning but that's largely been resolved. Modern CVTs are no less reliable than slush boxes.

That's not the word I keep hearing.

Let me address this from an engineering perspective developing and using "variator" and "variable speed gearboxes" in power transmission my entire career. ( just not in anything automotive)

Its the exact same device and brings no new "magic" to the table just because its now in a car. Makes no difference if its a metal or standard belt- same device, same principle and same restrictions and the design requirements are the same.

The overwhelming problem I see is an application of a drive that it simply was never designed for and to make it work it not cost effective.

Variators ( regardless of manufacturer) are normally attached to a gear box on the drive side of the load- there's reasons for that. They don't do shocks (loading) well and don't like varying because they lose efficiency and wear during the transfer.

They like steady state operation and are used in industry to achieve extremely slow RPM's under soft load conditions. (more of a process or metering application)

Yes, its simple with few parts but the normal loading that a car gives a transmission is not conducive to the design and construction of a variator.

 

[Danh]

Theory aside, spend some time on Honda forums. You’ll be hard-pressed to find any examples of a CVT failure, and Honda CVTs have been around long enough to rack up significant miles. On the other hand, look a bit further back in Honda history and see how it did with its 5-speed conventional automatics.

So it seems to depend on the product, not the breed: good CVTs/bad CVTs, good conventionals/bad conventionals.

Same with DCTs: e.g. Ford = class action awful, Acura = great.

 

[PimTac]

Based on comments from other threads on this same subject my theory is that a CVT needs a engine mated to it with sufficient power. A CVT will a engines lack of power much more than a automatic.

A CVT mated to a 1.5 liter engine will exhibit the rubber band effect a lot more than one mated to say a 3.5 liter motor.

The CVT tries to keep the engine in a fuel efficient rpm range. That’s hard for it to do if the 1.5 liter motor is having trouble going up hills or accelerating on a freeway on-ramp.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

I think they are great for daily driving. Especially in cities where a traditional torque converter auto or a dual clutch unit would kill itself shifting constantly. Better on the engine and for fuel economy to be able to acellerate at a nice constant, low RPM.

 

[Huie83]

I just can't stand the way they operate. I've had a Nissan Altima rental with a CVT and also ridden in 3 new Subaru's with them. One Outback with the 2.5 and CVT, one Crosstrek with the 2.0 and CVT and one WRX.

The Nissan was just annoying to drive. Putting around was ok but the CVT had a buzz/rattle at low RPM. Get up into the higher RPM's to get going and the engine was buzzy and annoying.

The Subaru's were better but it felt like we were riding in a car with a slipping trans. Subaru programs fake shift points into their CVT's which are slow and pointless. It just felt like the car revved to heck and never really went anywhere.

The WRX was decent, probably because it has more power and the high torque CVT. Can't say I enjoyed it though.

I drive a VW with a DSG and would take it any day over a CVT. People complain they are jerky, however I only find that true if you don't know how to drive them.

I've been looking at a Subaru Outback XT or the Ascent because Subaru's AWD is class leading. I just don't think I can pull the trigger as I think i'd be miserable with the CVT and regret spending that much on a car I don't 100% like.

 

[Skippy722]

My DIL just got rid of a 9 year old Dodge Caliber with about 135,000 miles on it. Bought it almost new. It had a CVT and never gave her a lick of problems. I think she had the fluid changed out about five years ago. I do not know what type of CVT it had. I did hate to drive it, however.

Both my parents 2007 and my 2012 had over 150k and 120k before being traded in, neither had any issues either. Boring as all get out? Absolutely, just like every other CVT vehicle I’ve driven, but it’s no worse than a 4 or 5 speed slush box.

 

[Pew]

I've been looking at a Subaru Outback XT or the Ascent because Subaru's AWD is class leading. I just don't think I can pull the trigger as I think i'd be miserable with the CVT and regret spending that much on a car I don't 100% like.

The CVT on my mom's Ascent is actually really pleasant driving around the flat lands or rolling hills of Oklahoma. For the short time I've driven it I didn't have anything bad to say about the transmission at all.

Now maintenance wise I don't know how Subie's CVTs are doing now, I just know they were pretty bad years ago.

 

[pezzy84]

While my experience with CVT has only been with Nissan products (Sentra, Altima (2.5 and 3.5), Maxima and Murano) as rental cars, I will say I would shy away from owning them. They naturally were best (and were very quick) in V6 form but even in the 2.5 and 1.8 4 bangers they were not objectionable - but also I know how they operate so I was not expecting a typical auto.

Now the only issue I can say I had with them is there seemed to be a lot of variability in how they performed even in same powertrain and same car but that was just the 4 bangers. Some 2.5 Altimas would jump off the line with a little tire squeal and immediately plow to redline, others would lag like crazy and were prob pushing 10+ second 0-60 times. Same with the multiple Sentra 1.8's I have rented. The only common denominator I could figure was heat as the "slow" versions were always in hot areas (Texas, Florida, South Georgia) during summer. The Altima 2.5 (prob a 2008 or so) I had in Dallas I was barely able to beat an old 90's Chevy cargo van to a freeway onramp.

 

[Dinoburner]

My first car was a 51 Chevy with a powerglide and that was truly a slush box.The 6 speed in the wifes Equinox is certainly not a slush box IMHO. The closest to a CVT I`ve driven is a snowmobile so based on the experiences here I`ll wait, maybe an EV first.

 

[Saabist]

Hard to compare the pinnacle of AT that we are experiencing now (ZF 8HP) to a CVT.

The pinnacle of automatic transmissions was the Chrysler 3-speed Torqueflite. Those things can last for decades and hundreds of thousands of miles with just occasional fluid changes - and no exotic fluids needed.

 

[RooflessVW]

The pinnacle of automatic transmissions was the Chrysler 3-speed Torqueflite. Those things can last for decades and hundreds of thousands of miles with just occasional fluid changes - and no exotic fluids needed.

And my horse only needs water and oats.

I'd reliability is your only measure of greatness then we have nothing in common.

 

[97prizm]

The big problem is the service price at repair shops and dealerships. A Nissan dealership near me quoted manual transmission service $98 automatic service $129, cvt service $169.