CVT transmissions definitely aren't new, but high gas prices have thrust the once unreliable continuously variable trannies back into the powertrain equation. Chrysler uses the CVT in a few of its products, Mitsubishi added the tranny to the new Lancer, and Nissan has begun using the CVT in the Altima and Sentra, among others. According to a Japanese business rag, Subaru is planning to add the gearless transmission into every model they make by 2010. The first Subie to mate a boxer engine to the CVT is rumored to be the updated 2009 Legacy, and a 2.0L diesel with a CVT may follow shortly there after. While the CVT will be available with every model, we're assuming (and hoping) that manual transmissions will be offered as well.
CVTs are usually a bit quicker off the line than automatics, but in our experience fuel economy savings are a mix bag. While the Sentra's MPG improved with the CVT, in the 2006 Ford Five Hundred, the FWD CVT version got two less MPG on the highway than the auto-equipped SEL model. As far as the driving experience goes, CVTs take a little getting used to since the transmissions keep the engine in the optimal rev range at all times and the transmission feels like it's slipping, but most drivers may never notice the difference.
[Source: Winding Road]
2010 Chevrolet Camaro revealed!
Spy Shots: Honda's hybrid Prius-fighter caught
Best shot yet of the Transformers 2 mystery Vette
Spy Shots: Subaru WRX STI spec C
In The Autoblog Garage: 2008 Mercedes SLK55 AMG
First Drive: 2008 Dodge Challenger SRT-8 w/VIDEO![In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Ford Flex Limited [w/VIDEO]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/07/ford-flex45015_thumbnail.jpg)
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Ford Flex Limited [w/VIDEO]
First Drive: 2009 Mazda6
Should've bought a Garmin? Testing the iPhone 3G's GPS capabilities
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jonathan Webb @ Jul 19th 2007 9:51AM
I've never been so disappointed with a new technology than with CVTs. Give me a 5+ speed automatic and a sports car with a MT any day. Every time I drive my dad's Murano (I'm almost 30, not 15) I want to push it off a cliff. A friend had to get the CVT replaced in his Murano -- try $6500.00.
If you want a CVT, just put your car in second and drive down the highway for two hours. You'll get the same effect. Good luck with that Subaru, I was just starting to consider you for my next car.
NeoteriX @ Jul 19th 2007 12:20PM
Unfortunately, no one posted the actual press release. The CVT change is just limited to auto transmissions. In otherwords, you can still keep coveting that Manual Subaru.
"FHI to Suspend AT Development and Expand CVTs to All Models
Fuji Heavy Industries has decided to suspend further development of automatic transmissions. The company will concentrate its development resources on CVT technology for horizontally opposed engines."
Brooksie @ Jul 19th 2007 9:57AM
NOOOOO!!!
The Other Bob @ Jul 19th 2007 10:17AM
Ask any mechanic and they will tell you there is not a single reliable CVT on the market.
6 Speed autos are the way to go.
psarhjinian @ Jul 19th 2007 12:51PM
Ask any mechanic in the 80s about fuel injection and they'd say the same thing. Mechanics are inherently conservative people, especially about technology they don't understand.
CVTs aren't bad per se, but some implementations have sucked righteously (GM/Saturn; Ford/Five Hundred). Toyota (hybrids) and Nissan (Murano) have had pretty good runs--certainly better than, say, Chrysler has had with conventional automatics.
Import hater @ Jul 19th 2007 1:30PM
I somewhat agree with your comment, psarhjinian with one exception.
The Ford 500 CVT likely did not suck any worse than the Nissan version because it comes from t he same supplier. They are both Jatco I believe.
Frank @ Jul 19th 2007 4:49PM
psarhjinian, you do realize this is 2007 and not 1990? Chrysler trannies are no less reliable than other makers and probably more realiable than Honda's from what I've heard. Now they are building a brand new plant with Gertrag to build DSG transmissions for the new Phoenix engines.
Now as to the CVT itself - we all complain about weight in cars, but then we turn around and say we want things like 6 spd autos and 360 degrees of airbags. This where a lot of the weight is coming from. A CVT is lighter and a perfect application in a small car which is supposed to be economical.
htn @ Jul 19th 2007 10:31AM
Am getting AWD high clearance vehicle for next car. Looked at all of them appropriate for road trips for 2. CRV appealed but learned it is on Civic platform and clearance less the 7". Looked at almost everything out there and choice has come down to Outback or Murano. Grave doubts about CVT longenvity and repair cost (based on anecdotal evidence) has me leaning towards the Outback. Now I feel forced to purchase Subaru before 2010 model year or buy used. Between proprietary computer modules and unproven hardware such as CVT cars are becoming more or less 5-7 year disposable items. Cars I've enjoyed included 50's VW, 70's MBZ and BMW, 240 volvo and 5.0 Mustang. All enjoyable and easily maintainable cars. Most cars designed and produced the last 5-7 years are a joy to drive, safe and low on maintainance but when a new engine, transmission or electronic component requires replacement (likely in the 10-20 year scenario) repair, if possible, may well be more expensive than replacement.
Tyo @ Jul 19th 2007 10:41AM
I had the Pleasure of Driving a 2007 Nissan Maxima with the CVT over 500 mile on a road trip last week, I definalty felt that slipping feeling but ive never been in an automatic car that accelerates like that from a crusing speed. Example, that thing went 60 to 100 faster than anything ive driven with an auto. Im not saying anything towards reliability, but i thought that thing was FAST. It felt like it chugged a little if you just barely gave it throttle, and is a little jerky at low speeds.
John R @ Jul 19th 2007 11:46AM
I also got a 2007 Maxima from Enterprise a couple of times. I was pretty surprised by it acceleration from cruising. I was on an empty stretch of interstate and I decided to goose it to see what it could do. 65 to 90 only took a couple of seconds.
Evotec @ Jul 19th 2007 10:57AM
2010? hurry up slowbaru!
AZMike @ Jul 19th 2007 11:02AM
this isn't Subaru's 'first time at the rodeo' with a CVT. it was available in the Justy in the late 80s-early 90s.
I drove one then, and didn't like it. I've driven several newer vehicles with the CVT (Murano, Caliber,500), and they don't seem any different. it reminds me of a badly slipping automatic transmission.
AZMike
alex @ Jul 19th 2007 11:06AM
didn't subaru have an old video running around the interwebs that showed a CVT based AWD Murano stalling out while climbing a dirt hill?
subaru might have the power of all wheel drive, but if they can't get that power to the wheels, they might be in for bigger problems.
rv @ Jul 19th 2007 1:06PM
YouTube "Subaru AWD Versus Everyone Else" Murano, C-RV among others have front-wheel-drive "AWD". They barely seemed capable of negotiating a speed bump. Needless to say, the Forester kicked butt.
Mulad @ Jul 19th 2007 11:19AM
Unfortunately, it's rarely easy to get a direct comparison between CVT, auto, and manual transmissions. The Ford Five Hundred with the CVT was AWD, while the auto was FWD. The Honda Insight CVT had a lower mileage rating than the manual Insight, but the manual version was tuned to have lean-burn operation more often, which put it into a significantly worse emissions class (Tier II Bin 9, no longer legal for new cars in 2007).
Mulad @ Jul 19th 2007 11:21AM
Bah. Nevermind the Five Hundred reference, I guess. It was offered with FWD CVT in 2006 only? I accidentally was looking at 2007 listings...
Dinger @ Jul 19th 2007 11:41AM
There's a reason the new Mini ditched the CVT for an automatic, and it's not because the folks at BMW are stupid.
Stoneman @ Jul 19th 2007 11:59AM
CVT sucks. I drove a Nissan Versa and it took 12+ seconds to go from 0-60. The Dodge Caliber I drover had a CVT and it was even SLOWER than that. I had the distinct feeling of belts slipping when I drove it. If you enjoy a high-revving car that goes nowhere, then buy a CVT.
psarhjinian @ Jul 19th 2007 12:58PM
Ok, again. Those cars would be just as slow--if not slower--with a conventional automatic, and they'd get worse fuel economy.
The problem people have with CVTs is the "no gears" thing. It sounds odd if you're used to the rev/drop-rev/drop-rev/drop of a conventional transmission while shifting, but it doesn't actually affect performance. In fact, it's likely faster with a CVT as you're not losing shift time or waiting for a brain-dead transmission to shift.
The other nice part about CVTs is that, unlike an automatic, they're actually pretty simple. No mess of gears, sensors and electronics, just two simple belts.
A nice touch on Subaru's part would be to allow the driver to adjust the CVT's ratio directly, either with paddles, or with a "slider" shift gate. Move the lever down to increase the drive ratio, move it up to lower it.
Stoneman @ Jul 19th 2007 1:00PM
Subaru should be developing a DSG transmission, not a stupid CVT. That's my 2c.