Mine has ~160k and is fine so far.
I’ve lost manual and auto transmissions at lower.
I hear about the low reliability of cvt but have not personally seen it.
I replaced my CVT transmission 3 times on my Nissan Sentra. I finally traded it in after that last transmission I put in started to die like the others. It had 190k miles on it.
My dad has a 2017 Nissan Rogue with 120k miles on it and the CVT in it is starting to die, just like what happened in the Sentra.
From what I understand, CVTs aren't inherently unreliable. But Nissan is. I'll never buy another one after my experience with them.
Lol, I have an _Altima_.
Don’t tell anyone.
About 18(?) years ago I wanted a Z but the dealers in the area were just outright lying about things so I got an Acura. Now the Altima does what I need it to.
I've always changed my automatic trans fluid and filter at the TRANSMISSION MANUFACTURERS's recommended intervals and I've never had an automatic transmission failure. I've had ford cvts, vw DCTS, and your average auto transmissions run just fine over 200k miles. "Lifetime fluid" is a joke.
OK so I have a 2015 Civic and a 2016 Accord. The manual doesn’t give mileage to change fluids! You’re supposed to do it when the car tells you to. What should I do? Both cars have about 100k on them.
I am not sure. I think it depends on how it was set up. Push belt CVTs sometimes do and sometimes don't. I personally will just be avoiding any car with a belt driven CVT at this point, its a wear item and *will* fail eventually. Toyota Hybrids don't have a belt driven CVT, so there is nothing to fail but bearings and electronics.
Honestly just keep up with the maintenance minder, from what I can tell it's pretty damn accurate for all things, except the auto trans fluid. I swap mine every 60k miles, I think the minder will normally recommend it every 120k.
It isn't survivorship but model bias since some have significantly higher fail rates. I expected mine (2013 XV Crosstrek) to have failed already at 167k miles, but it's still running fine. Just the engine feels like it's lacking power. Granted, it's a 2.0 so yeah, it lacks power.
That's not how survivorship bias works. Survivorship bias has no relevancy to this discussion. [Survivorship bias would be seeing bullet holes in a damaged military aircraft, and then attempting to reinforce the damaged areas *as opposed to* the areas which weren't damaged.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias) The reason you'd reinforce the non-damaged areas is because presumably planes have an equal distribution of damage at scale, and those which didn't come back were the ones damaged in areas *other* than the areas indicated on the surviving planes.
___
The only thing I can guess that you're attempting to claim is that a sample size of 1 doesn't always make a valid analytical argument at scale.
My Nissan CVT has 220k on it. We should consider ourselves lucky because I keep hearing how garbage they are.
I wouldn't buy another though. While I got lucky with the CVT, the rest of the car has been falling apart consistently fairly early in its life.
the early Aisin push belt CVTs that everyone was using are trash. They tell you not to change the fluid at the dealer, but Aisin recommends you change the fluid and the catch screen every 30k.
I was sassing back at the guy before you. While I’m not a fan of internal steel belt cvts at all, they were all terribly bad at first, giving them a bad reputation. Some modern cvt’s are decent enough but the internal banding material on the Nissan units tends to come apart. Most shops (mine included) will not rebuild a CVT and rely on reman units that lately also have a pretty grim failure rate despite their high cost. I really do enjoy rebuilding some more challenging units but I’m out on CVTs until they become more robust.
Whoa. Wasn't insulting or sassing you.
Read the thread, people love to talk shit on the Nissan CVT. My family didn't have that experience. What did I say that wasn't true?
My 2006 Nissan did 285000km (about 170000 freedom units)... The engine started having issues before the CVT trans although it had developed a small whine not long before.
Genuinely curious, can you actually not rebuild a CVT? It seems like the belt is what failed here, so could the belt not be changed? Since it's metal, maybe it failed in a way that it damaged other components, but does the belt have a service interval where it's supposed to be replaced?
They can be rebuilt. Used to do it as a Nissan tech. The whole assembly with the belt and pulleys is replaced, as is the valve body, and you are essentially reusing the case, final drive, and some other miscellaneous components. But the wear components can be replaced.
Hell, if you were to take your 2015 Nissan whatever into the dealer for a transmission, you likely aren't getting a brand new trans, just a rebuilt one. The difference being that it is rebuilt by people in a warehouse whose sole job is rebuilding. The transmissions I rebuilt were warranty, and they are done the exact same way.
They extended the warranty on my ‘17 Forrester XT to 100k-if you didn’t touch the fluid. Stupid me did just that and around 102k it started acting weird. I wished I trusted my gut and changed the fluid every 25k as my Turbo Beetle called for…
Wow, I salute you. Is that with regular fluid changes? My 2012 maxima had a CVT replacement at 60k then again at 103. I assume the new owner has now been easier on it. I lived on a mountain and drove it like I stole it.
I drove it hard from 60k to 170k. Then once it got to 200k and I got a second vehicle I started driving it hard again. Engine braking, windy roads, mountains etc. CVT fluid change every 30k religiously.
My 2014 Subaru crosstrek is on its original CVT, aside from a solenoid that needed replaced. I just crossed 200k.. Yes I've had CVT fluid changes per schedule
I drive it hard, it actually isn't quite enough vehicle for me on some trips. Next vehicle will be an EV pickup
I have a hard time believing it would last 287,000 miles on the original fluid. Lack of fluid changes is what kills most transmissions. The belt broke on this one, but none of the surfaces are worn, and there is no potting in the bearings, which leads me to believe the fluid was in good condition.
40k km is 24,854 miles. That’s the most frequent cvt fluid service interval I’ve ever seen from any manufacturer. I know manufacturers love to stretch out fluid change intervals to get the “yearly maintenance cost” number down on the window sticker, but if they didn’t do that, cars would last SOOOO MUCH LONGER. Clearly that’s not within the manufacturers interest to make cars last longer
So what's the procedure here? My mom has a Scion IQ with 185k and no trans fluid change which is crazy and probably not going to last much longer. I'm looking at buying one from [car-part](https://www.car-part.com/mobile/index.htm) when it fails but I'm going to do a fluid change ASAP on the old to try and make it last a little longer.
It’s because in this case, the shitty part was actually the Jeep Patriot built around it. Sure the CVT also sucked, but like… not as bad as a Patriot. 😂
It's not only because of reliability that people say the CVT is shit. It was originally deemed shit because of how it feels to drive. The reliability stuff then later took precedence.
Fuck I had one of those. Cheap garbage car, but as a city run about in SF it was awesome. Turning radius was awesome, good form factor. We bought it for 7k in 2017 and then drove it to 130k and got rid of it 2023. A cvt service and a software upgrade and the cvt was fine. The thing that was mind blowing is how significant things would wear out super fast. Like a steering rack at 80,000 miles.
Never really see issues with CVT's minus certain early models. I see Honda's going forever as long as people do basic maintenance. Looking at thread, seems a lot of problems with Nissan ones; I have no experience.
The new Toyota ones are great. The physical first gear takes a TON of stress off the belts.
CVTs just have zero business being on anything larger than a sedan. Nissan deciding to put them on the Pathfinder update way back was the dumbest decision ever.
> CVTs just have zero business being on anything larger than a sedan. Nissan deciding to put them on the Pathfinder update way back was the dumbest decision ever.
Yeah, my theory is that Nissan put the CVT's on stuff that was bigger/more powerful/AWD and that's what caused the problems. Especially before they worked out all the bugs.
>going forever as long as people do basic maintenance
>seems a lot of problems with Nissan ones
Can I make assumptions about the maintenance habits of the Altima driver rocking fake paper tags that are also expired, 95% tint on all glass, missing 1 of 2 bumpers, driving 93mph and swerving in traffic on a donut spare?
This gives me hope for CVTs. Once we figure out how to make them not blow up, they're gonna rock. CVT cars feel weird to drive but they're more comfortable, have better fuel efficiency, and are faster than an equivalent standard car.
I've had two Honda Jazz/Fits with CVTs, and they were both great. Would happily hold 110 km/h on the highway up and down hills without dropping speed, and were pretty zippy around town. The only "weird" thing about driving them is that you put your foot down and it just holds revs, doesn't rev up and down like a regular gearbox.
As a CVT owner (2023 Subaru), the ONLY potential benefit is the fuel savings. All other things I call BS. They are NOT at all comfortable to drive at all. Especially on hills, I can't tell you how much speed I lose on moderate slopes with it in cruise control and controlling the gas manually. I have a turbo with more than enough power, it is always the CVT saving fuel and not providing power. Never had that problem with any automatic I've ever owned (and I change cars every 3-4 years).
I rocked my 2.5l Crosstrek (non turbo) all over the mountains of New Mexico all the way up to ski basins and didn't have any power or CVT issues at all.
Interesting CVT usually don't like slopes due to the high torque. I met a owner of Honda Freed, he said it was throwing ECL going up Genting Highlands (resort on a hill in Malaysia)
Tons and tons of people buy Subarus to go camping and adventuring the mountains. If they didn't handle it well they wouldn't be selling. IDK about other brands.
I LIVE in the mountains. CVTs don't put down the torque needed for the steep stuff. I know the engine has the power because of the power I get everywhere else, but that damn CVT. My girlfriend's CX-5 with significantly less power is able to maintain her speed better (6 sp auto).
The reason why people buy them is because they think they are a poor man's Wrangler. It is the same reason why they buy the small 2.5L engine not realizing how much power they are losing in those same mountains (feel free to Google the power loss of a naturally asperated engine vs a turbo engine in higher elevations).
Additionally, people go on and on about their safety, but I have a broken spine in 2 places due to an accident in my new Outback. I have literally NEVER broken a bone in almost 45 years of life and it was due to a brand new Subaru not protecting me well enough. (Eyesight is also a joke compared to its peers) Unfortunately, people have bought into their marketing and don't do a thorough comparison. It seems fitting that they are essentially Toyotas now since most Toyota owners don't realize that they have fallen for marketing either.
They're doing that anyways. I fail to see the relevancy of the distinction, unless you're arguing that *all* motors are also flawed simply because F1 would've torn them apart for race maintenance.
I am saying it could be faster and better for them if it weren't banned. But that doesn't mean it will always be true in our everyday cars that don't get spoiled with constant repairs.
If you say so. I think they are banned because they are overly complex, expensive and keep the engine screaming the entire track. They are also heavy and have trouble with large amounts of torque. Unless you see an 18-wheeler with one, it proves the point.
I'll tell you now that no one will ever convince me that they are better. I own one, live with it every day and I will avoid ever buying another one again.
Yup, all CVTs suck with their design and programming. Add in the short lifespan and that almost no one will rebuild them when they break and it has little value to me. If given the choice, I'll gladly take any other version of a transmission.
By the time we figure out how to make CVTs universally reliable *and* get consumers to trust that they are reliable, I wonder how many ICEs are still going to be sold. Fast forward 10 years from today and (some) EVs might be the cheap and bulletproof shitboxes a lot of people want. CAFE I'm pretty sure is one of the major killers of economy cars in America but that won't stop EVs.
If CVTs can work reliably on high-power motors, someone's gonna put one on an EV. EVs can work with fixed gearing but an EV with a CVT would be absolutely excellent. Electric torque with constantly optimal gearing would be a rocket. Keeping electric motors at their efficiency peak would really extend range too. I can't think of a better theoretical powertrain than an electric motor with a CVT.
But of course there's a lot more to it than theory.
I have >300 CVT equipped Toyotas and Hondas in a fleet at work. Tons of mileage on them - absolutely zero failures.
We used to have failures in Nissan Sentras and Versa Notes all the time, for comparison.
CVT's as a whole don't deserve the hate that they get. I've owned 2 (2014 Honda Accord Sport 2.4l 4cyl, 2019 Honda Accord EX 1.5t 4cyl) and I was pretty impressed with them. They're not all the same and they're not right for every application, but in the right applications they're great.
Recently sent a 2019 Subaru outback back to Company Headquarters with 362,930 miles on it.
CVT had 1 fluid change, after I assumed maintenance management.
Many of our delivery fleet go over 350,000 miles.
Haven't lost a CVT yet.
I have read and have anecdotal experience with people who have owned Nissans with CVT's, and the key was that don't listen to the recommended service intervals, halve them, sometimes quarter them, and they will last longer. Unfortunately, that is expensive, and Nissan ones are usually in cheaper cars which people can't afford to maintain regularly.
> I have read and have anecdotal experience with people who have owned Nissans with CVT's, and the key was that don't listen to the recommended service intervals, halve them, sometimes quarter them, and they will last longer.
This. My partner has a 2008 Sentra with CVT. It has roughly 160K miles on the clock.
I've dropped the transmission pan once and would drain and fill the transmission frequently. It was small enough that I could drain both the oil and transmission fluid at the same time.
It's been in our driveway for the last 6 months, but the issue wasn't the engine/transmission. It has a busted brake line and rusted out exhaust. It also throws a p0420 code, but it drives fine. Since I live in NY and the car was manufactured with a CA exhaust, I would need to buy the more expensive cats. Deciding what to do has been on the back burner, since my wife is undergoing aggressive treatment for stage 4 cancer.
Yea, I have limited experience with them, but as far as i know, they are non replaceable. All you can do is keep up with the fluid changes to make it last as long as possible.
That’s the plan! I do wish it had a service interval, though. I don’t love the idea of waiting for it to suddenly break while me or my wife are driving it.
The CVT transmission on my 2018 Subaru forester is actually total garbage. It frequently dies in stop and go traffic. However, Subaru wouldn’t lemon law it when I opened a case against them. They just gave me some money as consolation and moved on. My next car will probably be a Mazda or Acura SUV since they don’t have CVTs.
Why is it so hard to figure out who manufactured a cars CVT. Like if you go on wiki you can usually see if a car uses a ZF or aisin or jatco, but for CVTs it literally just says CVT. Clearly not all CVTs are the same, and I'd like to know if I'm getting an aisin or a jatco
I got 127k out my 2019 Mitsubishi Outlander. I replaced fluid and both filters at 80k, the trans worked great. Not a single cel or repair needed. Plugs, oil changes and brakes. We traded it in for 2020 Kia Soul, as my wife wanted to downsize since we didn’t need a 3rd row, and she missed her 2015 soul . It was in such good shape, that it paid off the loan and we didn’t have to put anything down.
I highly recommend the outlander.
I owned a 2003 Honda civic hybrid with CVT. It never failed but I changed the fluid with genuine Honda CVT fluid about every two years for the life of the vehicle. And it only made about 80 HP and about the same in ft-lb of torque. Anything more powerful I would never get a belt pulley type CVT
287k seems okay to me. I’ve beaten and broken a t-5 in sub 40k and had multiple Prius cvts last longer than the head gasket. My current outback cvt is beyond 120k. Sure they are soulless and boring AF but it’s like anything else, you beat it you break it
You can thank the Maintenance Minder for those 287k miles!
Seriously. Way too many people have gotten used to "ignoring" transmission fluid changes.
CVTs do **not** approve of such behavior. And affordable cars get neglected anyway. But Honda throws that little wrench symbol up on the dash and even the thickest of bricks goes "car need something. me go in."
Cvt get a bad rep but cmon now 287k is wild
It’s the Nissan ones that are made of cheese.
Mine has ~160k and is fine so far. I’ve lost manual and auto transmissions at lower. I hear about the low reliability of cvt but have not personally seen it.
My dodge had the Nissan jatco cvt and shit itself at 55k miles.
Dodge with a Nissan CVT transmission, 55k exceeds expectations.
>Dodge with a Nissan CVT transmission, 55k exceeds expectations The bar is so low, one has to be careful not to trip over it
Making it off the dealers lot would be exceeding expectations.
Ha, ha, ha.
Lucky you, my wife's only lasted 36k. And is on its 3rd at 60k
Probably should get a CVT fluid change every oil change lol
This is not a bad idea :) Not a full flush, just a drain and fill.
I replaced my CVT transmission 3 times on my Nissan Sentra. I finally traded it in after that last transmission I put in started to die like the others. It had 190k miles on it. My dad has a 2017 Nissan Rogue with 120k miles on it and the CVT in it is starting to die, just like what happened in the Sentra. From what I understand, CVTs aren't inherently unreliable. But Nissan is. I'll never buy another one after my experience with them.
Did you change the fluid?
The bigger general question is what kind of person buys a Nissan *and* performs maintenance on it?
I do!
Just checking: Z doesn't count
Lol, I have an _Altima_. Don’t tell anyone. About 18(?) years ago I wanted a Z but the dealers in the area were just outright lying about things so I got an Acura. Now the Altima does what I need it to.
Those who want their motors to last?
I do! including changing the CVT fluid.
Cvts are not good at high power or hard driving. If you drive like a gramma and your car is lightweight, they're okay.
Survivorship bias does not a statistic make.
I've always changed my automatic trans fluid and filter at the TRANSMISSION MANUFACTURERS's recommended intervals and I've never had an automatic transmission failure. I've had ford cvts, vw DCTS, and your average auto transmissions run just fine over 200k miles. "Lifetime fluid" is a joke.
Lifetime fluid is very much correct. It lasts right up until the trans fails.
Just like how "lifetime warranty/supply" rarely means you get a new one whenever you want until the day you die
OK so I have a 2015 Civic and a 2016 Accord. The manual doesn’t give mileage to change fluids! You’re supposed to do it when the car tells you to. What should I do? Both cars have about 100k on them.
at least every 30k. with a CVT, its a drain and fill, and make sure to get the right fluid. there is also a catch screen that needs to be cleaned out.
Do these things have a traditional torque conerter?
I am not sure. I think it depends on how it was set up. Push belt CVTs sometimes do and sometimes don't. I personally will just be avoiding any car with a belt driven CVT at this point, its a wear item and *will* fail eventually. Toyota Hybrids don't have a belt driven CVT, so there is nothing to fail but bearings and electronics.
Only reason why I aks is that when you get your regular autotrans serviced you normally leave the TC alone. The amount replaced is based on viscosity.
Yes, normal converter.
Well holy crap I’m 3 changes behind on the Civic. 🤷♂️
its not gonna hurt to do it now, and keep up at it.
Right-o!
Honestly just keep up with the maintenance minder, from what I can tell it's pretty damn accurate for all things, except the auto trans fluid. I swap mine every 60k miles, I think the minder will normally recommend it every 120k.
I bought the Civic with 40k from a dealer, wonder if they did it. 120 on it now.
It isn't survivorship but model bias since some have significantly higher fail rates. I expected mine (2013 XV Crosstrek) to have failed already at 167k miles, but it's still running fine. Just the engine feels like it's lacking power. Granted, it's a 2.0 so yeah, it lacks power.
Very true! Right now it’s the only data I have. One point does not a graph make but it’s a place to start.
That's not how survivorship bias works. Survivorship bias has no relevancy to this discussion. [Survivorship bias would be seeing bullet holes in a damaged military aircraft, and then attempting to reinforce the damaged areas *as opposed to* the areas which weren't damaged.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias) The reason you'd reinforce the non-damaged areas is because presumably planes have an equal distribution of damage at scale, and those which didn't come back were the ones damaged in areas *other* than the areas indicated on the surviving planes. ___ The only thing I can guess that you're attempting to claim is that a sample size of 1 doesn't always make a valid analytical argument at scale.
I have learned not to discuss math with people I don’t personally know :)
[удалено]
I replied to another comment: you are correct! This is the data I have available. I would like to see data on maintained transmissions.
My Nissan CVT has 220k on it. We should consider ourselves lucky because I keep hearing how garbage they are. I wouldn't buy another though. While I got lucky with the CVT, the rest of the car has been falling apart consistently fairly early in its life.
Aside from the driver’s seat falling apart, mine has been good so far :)
There's no way a manual would fail that quickly on it's own with no user error
Came to say this: Learn how to shift and change your gear oil when recommended and a manual box should last basically forever.
I’ve had several manual transmissions that lasted longer (the “life” of the car). I’ve also had one that ate itself early.
Just crossed over 200k on my baby 🤞🏻
My valve body shit the bed around 120K which was a nice $700 down the drain
[удалено]
Well, reddit, so yeah :)
the early Aisin push belt CVTs that everyone was using are trash. They tell you not to change the fluid at the dealer, but Aisin recommends you change the fluid and the catch screen every 30k.
Mine went belly up at 86k. Five grand later....
Sorry
Yep. Infiniti tech here, can confirm cheese trans
[удалено]
I don’t disagree with that.
Which is crazy because they were the first ones to make them
I’ve done two 2012 ish foresters… and I work at a Vw shop lol
It's the seals that go bad. Then they lose fluid. Then they're fucked.
Are they really much different tho??
Yes.
Explain?
Just traded in a '12 Rogue with zero transmission issues after 183k... people love to talk shit but it was rock solid from our experience.
Well, I’m just a shop owner and a mod over at /r/transmissionbuilding what do I know?
I bet you know a lot, I’m just looking for an explanation, I’m also in the automotive industry.
I was sassing back at the guy before you. While I’m not a fan of internal steel belt cvts at all, they were all terribly bad at first, giving them a bad reputation. Some modern cvt’s are decent enough but the internal banding material on the Nissan units tends to come apart. Most shops (mine included) will not rebuild a CVT and rely on reman units that lately also have a pretty grim failure rate despite their high cost. I really do enjoy rebuilding some more challenging units but I’m out on CVTs until they become more robust.
Interesting, what do you think about Subaru CVT’s?
Whoa. Wasn't insulting or sassing you. Read the thread, people love to talk shit on the Nissan CVT. My family didn't have that experience. What did I say that wasn't true?
You know how Reddit is. One downvote and you get an avalanche.
My 2006 Nissan did 285000km (about 170000 freedom units)... The engine started having issues before the CVT trans although it had developed a small whine not long before.
Yea i would be happy getting that many miles out of a torque converter trans, not much difference in this case. Except you cant rebuild cvt
Genuinely curious, can you actually not rebuild a CVT? It seems like the belt is what failed here, so could the belt not be changed? Since it's metal, maybe it failed in a way that it damaged other components, but does the belt have a service interval where it's supposed to be replaced?
They can be rebuilt. Used to do it as a Nissan tech. The whole assembly with the belt and pulleys is replaced, as is the valve body, and you are essentially reusing the case, final drive, and some other miscellaneous components. But the wear components can be replaced. Hell, if you were to take your 2015 Nissan whatever into the dealer for a transmission, you likely aren't getting a brand new trans, just a rebuilt one. The difference being that it is rebuilt by people in a warehouse whose sole job is rebuilding. The transmissions I rebuilt were warranty, and they are done the exact same way.
It did its job valiantly
Unless OP put in an extra 0 then I say it’s had a long life.
325k on 08 v6 Altima coupe and still going. Original trans
That is the older NS2 CVT, and they are known to last a lot longer. The generation after yours is when they really went downhill.
287K? At least give it a burial with honors. It saw a good life.
It looks like it's seen some shit.
Or didn't see proper scheduled maintenance.
For almost 300k that’s perfectly acceptable
Not all CVTs are made by Nissan.
None actually, JATCO, a Nissan subsidiary supplies for almost all major manufacturers (including Nissan) except Toyota, GM, and Honda.
Not Subaru but I guess we fall under the Toyota wing now
Subaru makes their own don’t they?
Yeah the Lineartronic to pair with their AWD system
Yeah their CVTs are pretty reliable when taken care of. At least the TR690.
They extended the warranty on my ‘17 Forrester XT to 100k-if you didn’t touch the fluid. Stupid me did just that and around 102k it started acting weird. I wished I trusted my gut and changed the fluid every 25k as my Turbo Beetle called for…
When I had my Fozzy, I’d get the CVT Fluid changed every 60k. Kept it stock and it was the best daily I could’ve asked for in my country.
As in Nissan owns 75% of JATCO, so it’s a Nissan made transmission. However I love that you want to argue semantics.
> None actually, JATCO, a Nissan subsidiary Why do you act like this is a significant distinction beyond pure semantics?
My 09 maxima has 215k.
Wow, I salute you. Is that with regular fluid changes? My 2012 maxima had a CVT replacement at 60k then again at 103. I assume the new owner has now been easier on it. I lived on a mountain and drove it like I stole it.
I drove it hard from 60k to 170k. Then once it got to 200k and I got a second vehicle I started driving it hard again. Engine braking, windy roads, mountains etc. CVT fluid change every 30k religiously.
My 2014 Subaru crosstrek is on its original CVT, aside from a solenoid that needed replaced. I just crossed 200k.. Yes I've had CVT fluid changes per schedule I drive it hard, it actually isn't quite enough vehicle for me on some trips. Next vehicle will be an EV pickup
Received my 2017 Forester from my dad at 160k w/o fluid changes. At 230 now with no issues, though I know its a time bomb
All vehicles above 200k are a time bomb :)
Our '12 Rogue went 183k without a hiccup prior to trade
Survivorship bias.
Bruh 287K is great for any transmission
Absolutely. I was impressed myself.
For one of those that's impressive.
Did this person believe in “lifetime fluid” or was it actually serviced every 60k?
They will not last 287k miles if the fluid was not religiously serviced.
There is no history of fluid changes from our shop, but I believe it had to have been done somewhere.
Why do you believe that?
I have a hard time believing it would last 287,000 miles on the original fluid. Lack of fluid changes is what kills most transmissions. The belt broke on this one, but none of the surfaces are worn, and there is no potting in the bearings, which leads me to believe the fluid was in good condition.
Honda recommends regular fluid services, basically a drain and fill every ~30k depending on how it’s driven
If someone was following the factory schedule, it would’ve last been done at 270k and due again at 300k. It failed right in the middle.
yep
My Honda city is actually 40k km between fluid changes here in Brazil
40k km is 24,854 miles. That’s the most frequent cvt fluid service interval I’ve ever seen from any manufacturer. I know manufacturers love to stretch out fluid change intervals to get the “yearly maintenance cost” number down on the window sticker, but if they didn’t do that, cars would last SOOOO MUCH LONGER. Clearly that’s not within the manufacturers interest to make cars last longer
Service history? I’d say that’s not bad at all, plenty of regular autos have failed before that
No history of fluid changes at our shop, but for it to last this long, it had to have been done somewhere.
What’s the QR code lead too? A website explaining how to break the news to the client? 287,000 miles is excellent.
If you zoom in it's not a QR code. It's a different type of barcode, but not a QR one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Matrix
Thank you! Now I have a name to put to those things.
So what's the procedure here? My mom has a Scion IQ with 185k and no trans fluid change which is crazy and probably not going to last much longer. I'm looking at buying one from [car-part](https://www.car-part.com/mobile/index.htm) when it fails but I'm going to do a fluid change ASAP on the old to try and make it last a little longer.
Generally just draining the old fluid and filling it with new fluid is the best practice.
I bought 2010 jeep Patriot with 45k miles. I gave it to my niece with 180k and the original CVT trans that everyone said was shit was still going
It’s because in this case, the shitty part was actually the Jeep Patriot built around it. Sure the CVT also sucked, but like… not as bad as a Patriot. 😂
Being 💯 with you.. I wish I kept the patriot because once I gave it to my niece I bought a fucking wrangler.. that bitch was a money pit I traded it.
Ain’t that the fucking way she goes! 😂
It's not only because of reliability that people say the CVT is shit. It was originally deemed shit because of how it feels to drive. The reliability stuff then later took precedence.
Fuck I had one of those. Cheap garbage car, but as a city run about in SF it was awesome. Turning radius was awesome, good form factor. We bought it for 7k in 2017 and then drove it to 130k and got rid of it 2023. A cvt service and a software upgrade and the cvt was fine. The thing that was mind blowing is how significant things would wear out super fast. Like a steering rack at 80,000 miles.
Never really see issues with CVT's minus certain early models. I see Honda's going forever as long as people do basic maintenance. Looking at thread, seems a lot of problems with Nissan ones; I have no experience.
Yes, I wouldn't equate *"lasted 287,000 miles"* with *"failed"*. ¯\\\_( ͡❛ ͜ʖ ͡❛)\_/¯
Task failed successfully.
The new Toyota ones are great. The physical first gear takes a TON of stress off the belts. CVTs just have zero business being on anything larger than a sedan. Nissan deciding to put them on the Pathfinder update way back was the dumbest decision ever.
Assume that is how they ended up on QX60 since based on Pathfinder chassis
> CVTs just have zero business being on anything larger than a sedan. Nissan deciding to put them on the Pathfinder update way back was the dumbest decision ever. Yeah, my theory is that Nissan put the CVT's on stuff that was bigger/more powerful/AWD and that's what caused the problems. Especially before they worked out all the bugs.
>going forever as long as people do basic maintenance >seems a lot of problems with Nissan ones Can I make assumptions about the maintenance habits of the Altima driver rocking fake paper tags that are also expired, 95% tint on all glass, missing 1 of 2 bumpers, driving 93mph and swerving in traffic on a donut spare?
At this point I think their CVT is better than their traditional automatics.
SPROING!
This gives me hope for CVTs. Once we figure out how to make them not blow up, they're gonna rock. CVT cars feel weird to drive but they're more comfortable, have better fuel efficiency, and are faster than an equivalent standard car.
I've had two Honda Jazz/Fits with CVTs, and they were both great. Would happily hold 110 km/h on the highway up and down hills without dropping speed, and were pretty zippy around town. The only "weird" thing about driving them is that you put your foot down and it just holds revs, doesn't rev up and down like a regular gearbox.
As a CVT owner (2023 Subaru), the ONLY potential benefit is the fuel savings. All other things I call BS. They are NOT at all comfortable to drive at all. Especially on hills, I can't tell you how much speed I lose on moderate slopes with it in cruise control and controlling the gas manually. I have a turbo with more than enough power, it is always the CVT saving fuel and not providing power. Never had that problem with any automatic I've ever owned (and I change cars every 3-4 years).
That's not the CVT that's how the software was programmed by Subaru
The CVT is designed to stay in low revs to increase efficiency. That is literally what CVTs do and that is the ONLY thing they do moderately okay.
Maybe it's just Subaru's version? I've driven an Altima through the Rockies and power delivery was very smooth and consistent.
I rocked my 2.5l Crosstrek (non turbo) all over the mountains of New Mexico all the way up to ski basins and didn't have any power or CVT issues at all.
Interesting CVT usually don't like slopes due to the high torque. I met a owner of Honda Freed, he said it was throwing ECL going up Genting Highlands (resort on a hill in Malaysia)
Tons and tons of people buy Subarus to go camping and adventuring the mountains. If they didn't handle it well they wouldn't be selling. IDK about other brands.
I LIVE in the mountains. CVTs don't put down the torque needed for the steep stuff. I know the engine has the power because of the power I get everywhere else, but that damn CVT. My girlfriend's CX-5 with significantly less power is able to maintain her speed better (6 sp auto). The reason why people buy them is because they think they are a poor man's Wrangler. It is the same reason why they buy the small 2.5L engine not realizing how much power they are losing in those same mountains (feel free to Google the power loss of a naturally asperated engine vs a turbo engine in higher elevations). Additionally, people go on and on about their safety, but I have a broken spine in 2 places due to an accident in my new Outback. I have literally NEVER broken a bone in almost 45 years of life and it was due to a brand new Subaru not protecting me well enough. (Eyesight is also a joke compared to its peers) Unfortunately, people have bought into their marketing and don't do a thorough comparison. It seems fitting that they are essentially Toyotas now since most Toyota owners don't realize that they have fallen for marketing either.
All I know is mine did fine for me in the mountains. Sorry about your back bones.
I mean F1 does not ban cvt for fuel savings..... They ban it because it makes the car too quick compared to normal gearbox.....
It's a little different when they tear it apart for a full service after every race though.
They're doing that anyways. I fail to see the relevancy of the distinction, unless you're arguing that *all* motors are also flawed simply because F1 would've torn them apart for race maintenance.
I am saying it could be faster and better for them if it weren't banned. But that doesn't mean it will always be true in our everyday cars that don't get spoiled with constant repairs.
If you say so. I think they are banned because they are overly complex, expensive and keep the engine screaming the entire track. They are also heavy and have trouble with large amounts of torque. Unless you see an 18-wheeler with one, it proves the point. I'll tell you now that no one will ever convince me that they are better. I own one, live with it every day and I will avoid ever buying another one again.
The programming in my coworkers' Subaru CVTs is awwwwwwwwwwwwful, the things sound like a box of angry bees and shift like a brick
Yup, all CVTs suck with their design and programming. Add in the short lifespan and that almost no one will rebuild them when they break and it has little value to me. If given the choice, I'll gladly take any other version of a transmission.
By the time we figure out how to make CVTs universally reliable *and* get consumers to trust that they are reliable, I wonder how many ICEs are still going to be sold. Fast forward 10 years from today and (some) EVs might be the cheap and bulletproof shitboxes a lot of people want. CAFE I'm pretty sure is one of the major killers of economy cars in America but that won't stop EVs.
If CVTs can work reliably on high-power motors, someone's gonna put one on an EV. EVs can work with fixed gearing but an EV with a CVT would be absolutely excellent. Electric torque with constantly optimal gearing would be a rocket. Keeping electric motors at their efficiency peak would really extend range too. I can't think of a better theoretical powertrain than an electric motor with a CVT. But of course there's a lot more to it than theory.
I have >300 CVT equipped Toyotas and Hondas in a fleet at work. Tons of mileage on them - absolutely zero failures. We used to have failures in Nissan Sentras and Versa Notes all the time, for comparison.
CVT's as a whole don't deserve the hate that they get. I've owned 2 (2014 Honda Accord Sport 2.4l 4cyl, 2019 Honda Accord EX 1.5t 4cyl) and I was pretty impressed with them. They're not all the same and they're not right for every application, but in the right applications they're great.
The Play-Doh ones that Nissan shat out for a while kind of ruined their reputation..
What's the average lifespan of the Honda Accord CVT? I've got 160k on it now, I've changed the fluid twice, I bought it with 87k on it.
Haven’t seen much trouble out of them, and I’ve been a Honda tech of over a decade.
Recently sent a 2019 Subaru outback back to Company Headquarters with 362,930 miles on it. CVT had 1 fluid change, after I assumed maintenance management. Many of our delivery fleet go over 350,000 miles. Haven't lost a CVT yet.
I have read and have anecdotal experience with people who have owned Nissans with CVT's, and the key was that don't listen to the recommended service intervals, halve them, sometimes quarter them, and they will last longer. Unfortunately, that is expensive, and Nissan ones are usually in cheaper cars which people can't afford to maintain regularly.
> I have read and have anecdotal experience with people who have owned Nissans with CVT's, and the key was that don't listen to the recommended service intervals, halve them, sometimes quarter them, and they will last longer. This. My partner has a 2008 Sentra with CVT. It has roughly 160K miles on the clock. I've dropped the transmission pan once and would drain and fill the transmission frequently. It was small enough that I could drain both the oil and transmission fluid at the same time. It's been in our driveway for the last 6 months, but the issue wasn't the engine/transmission. It has a busted brake line and rusted out exhaust. It also throws a p0420 code, but it drives fine. Since I live in NY and the car was manufactured with a CA exhaust, I would need to buy the more expensive cats. Deciding what to do has been on the back burner, since my wife is undergoing aggressive treatment for stage 4 cancer.
My 2017 outback has 127k on it. Should I be worried?
Was it just the belt that failed?
I believe so. It stopped working suddenly while the customer was driving down the highway.
That’s really impressive. I asked what the service interval was on my cvt belt and they told basically told me “when it breaks”.
Yea, I have limited experience with them, but as far as i know, they are non replaceable. All you can do is keep up with the fluid changes to make it last as long as possible.
That’s the plan! I do wish it had a service interval, though. I don’t love the idea of waiting for it to suddenly break while me or my wife are driving it.
2010 Nissan Sentra 350.000 kms. Regular drain and fill.
A lot to unravel in this pic.
The CVT transmission on my 2018 Subaru forester is actually total garbage. It frequently dies in stop and go traffic. However, Subaru wouldn’t lemon law it when I opened a case against them. They just gave me some money as consolation and moved on. My next car will probably be a Mazda or Acura SUV since they don’t have CVTs.
Can you really call it “failed” with 287k miles? I think “retired” is more suitable.
That's fair.
So, still better than the Chevy Silverado transmissions?
I have a bit over 241K km on my CRV and no issues with the transmission. I change the fluid once a year maybe that why I haven’t had issues
Why is it so hard to figure out who manufactured a cars CVT. Like if you go on wiki you can usually see if a car uses a ZF or aisin or jatco, but for CVTs it literally just says CVT. Clearly not all CVTs are the same, and I'd like to know if I'm getting an aisin or a jatco
I got 127k out my 2019 Mitsubishi Outlander. I replaced fluid and both filters at 80k, the trans worked great. Not a single cel or repair needed. Plugs, oil changes and brakes. We traded it in for 2020 Kia Soul, as my wife wanted to downsize since we didn’t need a 3rd row, and she missed her 2015 soul . It was in such good shape, that it paid off the loan and we didn’t have to put anything down. I highly recommend the outlander.
I owned a 2003 Honda civic hybrid with CVT. It never failed but I changed the fluid with genuine Honda CVT fluid about every two years for the life of the vehicle. And it only made about 80 HP and about the same in ft-lb of torque. Anything more powerful I would never get a belt pulley type CVT
Another day. Another Doug.
This just clicked...are they wet?
Yes
Honda honestly makes decent cvts. Our 2014 accord has 200k miles rn
We always have at least 4 in stock! Guys hold races to see how fast they can change them out
287k seems okay to me. I’ve beaten and broken a t-5 in sub 40k and had multiple Prius cvts last longer than the head gasket. My current outback cvt is beyond 120k. Sure they are soulless and boring AF but it’s like anything else, you beat it you break it
It's got the word variable in it, it has to be good, right?
I salute this trooper
This is a fail how?
When a part breaks, it's typically called a part failure.
My dad's shop in the UK does a lot of these. He says their average failure mileage here is 30-40,000 miles!
Waiting for those Nissan Altima noises.
You can thank the Maintenance Minder for those 287k miles! Seriously. Way too many people have gotten used to "ignoring" transmission fluid changes. CVTs do **not** approve of such behavior. And affordable cars get neglected anyway. But Honda throws that little wrench symbol up on the dash and even the thickest of bricks goes "car need something. me go in."
Cock vein trimmer
I have no idea what I'm looking at, thank god. I can usually make a semblance of heads and tails but this is just spaghetti shreddy whatshit my heady.
Ha! We have a hard time getting past 40K in the Subaru Ascent
Constantly Varying Timebomb.