CVTs tend to be rated by their ability handle torque, not HP. The JF011E is also referred to by JATCO as the 'CVT2', and they consider it a 250Nm (approx 185 ft lb) class CVT. The bigger JF010E 'CVT3' is marketed as 350 Nm (approx 260 ft lb), and is used with the Nissan V6 vehicles. Both applications are moving to the new 'CVT8' designs with higher efficiency and a larger range of gear ratios.SamirD wrote:Uh oh--"CVT for medium FWD vehicles JF011E". No mention of awd drive here.KuroNekko wrote:Here's JATCO's site on the very CVT in the Kizashi and the other cars that use the same CVT:
http://www.jatco.co.jp/ENGLISH/products/cvt/jf011e.html
"●Light and compact design
●High efficiency and fuel economy at the top of its class
●Wider gear ratio range for both acceleration performance and fuel consumption"
I wonder if this transmission wasn't the best fit for the Kizashi, but met the power handling spec? For example, a 220-240hp engine will probably strain the tranny as much as the added drag of awd, hence it works for durability. But the gears may have been set up for 220-240hp fwd, hence our poor acceleration and mileage, and that lugging that happens once in 'second'.
CVT Transmission starting to fail
again pushed back to thursday than they called because they do not have any suzuki cvt tranny fluid and two bosses up the chain halted them from using after market fluid claimed they were shipping some from cali to indiana...the wait continues while im stuck in this xl7....
We have differences in opinion and I can respect that. However, just read this thread from page one. Go read the other threads on CVT issues experienced by members. It doesn't end there. There are many disgruntled owners with failed or problematic CVTs across many makes and models. While you may be correct that data for a valid statistical comparison is not yet available to properly compare the reliability of a CVT vs. a geared automatic, there is already a good amount of empirical data and it doesn't look good for CVTs. Heck, there have been lawsuits related to them.Knightstruth wrote: I have not claimed anyone has experience that is my whole point. Not enough info which yourself just alluded to. I feel like we are at an impasse, so I am going to discontinue this discussion as I have said enough on this topic.
Here are some articles and they are even from the same website.
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/10/07/audi ... 4000-cars/
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/05/29/2013 ... r-shudder/
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/12/02/niss ... ems-ghosn/
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/13/mini ... res-again/
2011 Suzuki Kizashi Sport GTS 6MT (Black)
Grin and bear it. You've got a loaner and they appear to be trying to get things right (even if it's a bit disorganisedtejus wrote:again pushed back to thursday than they called because they do not have any suzuki cvt tranny fluid and two bosses up the chain halted them from using after market fluid claimed they were shipping some from cali to indiana...the wait continues while im stuck in this xl7....
) Keep it all documented for future reference.What year XL7 have you got- I assume one of the later shape USA-only models?
David
Actually there is quite a bit of implied data. Automatic transmissions and recalls related to them have been nearly non-existent for decades until introduction of the CVT. Suddenly cars that never had tranmission problems in their model history are having them. This is data that has shifted from the norm.Knightstruth wrote:I understand exactly what he is saying my point is that there is not enough data to say either or. You can't just take one make/model of a brand then say because they are not successful than CVT's are not.
Seriously! Even us that do our own maintenance know this!~tc~ wrote:Wait, they're not even competent enough to realize they're gonna need fluid for a new tranny?