Kizashi Club

LPSISRL wrote: This picture helped me to understand what was going on. But isn't the diagram rotated 90 degrees?

That would be correct, I was using this perspective:

LPSISRL wrote:Thanks for this. Were any transmissions manufactured with pins instead of balls? If some were, is there any way to know? Also, where did this update come from? Doesn't seem like someone with a lot of time on their hands figured this out and started making their own pins. Was this a rebuild retrofit?
Thanks!

From the research I've made, all of these transmissions and their variants are using balls. It can be found in various other cars and I presume someone who's rebuilding a lot of transmissions came up with the idea to use pins. https://www.buffaloengine.com/catalog/p ... earing-kit

I'm no degreed mechanical engineer by trade either, however as someone who has been taking things apart fixing them, rebuilding them, and modifying them since I was in grade school...I get it and like it. As an automation engineer employed by several machine builders over the years, I've been around a helluva lot of machinery of all different shapes, sizes, designs, and types, utilized for many different purposes. All I can say is that the long pins provide more contact surface area between the components to 'spread' the load and the forces being applied versus the pin-point contact areas of two steel balls. If that makes any sense. Think road surface contact differences between skinny tires vs wide tires and hammering on them in the twisties. The skinny tires are going to get destroyed trying to maintain grip (if you don't kill yourself in the process). This is evidenced by the failure pics of the balls. Are the pins a perfect solution? IDK...time will tell, but given what we have and what it currently is, the pins certainly appear to me they should, at the very least, extend the life of the unit if the balls are replaced early enough as oldtech indicates. It has to.

So would someone find some hardened steel shafts exactly the right diameter and length? Or would someone have to machine these themselves?

Depends on the tolerance of the diameter of the pins and whether or not they're installed in to one of those "'tighter fitting" primary units OT referred to in his original post...min ID unit and max OD pin, may be a problem...may not. If your balls are beginning to flake and deteriorate, well then, I suppose it really doesn't matter. It's either try the pins and they work, or the inevitable catastrophic destruction of the trans.

Seems like it makes so much more engineering sense to have a "roller bearing" than a stack of ball bearings. But I'm not an engineer either, other than title.

I linked the pins above.

https://www.buffaloengine.com/catalog/p ... earing-kit

When I tore into some of these transmissions and noticed that some had been running for miles with them coming apart and the pieces getting destroyed and the friction that they had to overcome to even continue working, the conversion to pin seem to be quite doable and not a concern as to how much more friction I was adding After posting and the concern of friction surfaced again , I had to rethink this again. I visited a site that claimed to have rebuilt thousands of cvt transmissions and I wanted to get their take on the Jf011e and conversion to pin . Their recommendation was not to do the pins because it would slow the reaction time of the pulleys letting belt slippage leading to premature belt failure. I thought for a while and wondered , am I just lucky on the ten trannies I rebuilt using long pin And another ten used units that I converted also. I was using pins that I sourced from eBay that were 6 mm bearing grade and cutting them into links of 1 7/16 inch and sanding them to fit compared to the part supplier pins that are only 12 mm long and are a drop in even on the tightest fit shafts. At some point , I think there becomes a concern of cocking of the pin adding to friction concern. The longer pins shown in the link are for the secondary. I haven’t seen any need for converting it . They originally have three balls per groove and don’t fail too early.
Maybe doing the secondary is the risk.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

old tech wrote:When I tore into some of these transmissions and noticed that some had been running for miles with them coming apart and the pieces getting destroyed and the friction that they had to overcome to even continue working, the conversion to pin seem to be quite doable and not a concern as to how much more friction I was adding After posting and the concern of friction surfaced again , I had to rethink this again. I visited a site that claimed to have rebuilt thousands of cvt transmissions and I wanted to get their take on the Jf011e and conversion to pin . Their recommendation was not to do the pins because it would slow the reaction time of the pulleys letting belt slippage leading to premature belt failure. I thought for a while and wondered , am I just lucky on the ten trannies I rebuilt using long pin And another ten used units that I converted also. I was using pins that I sourced from eBay that were 6 mm bearing grade and cutting them into links of 1 7/16 inch and sanding them to fit compared to the part supplier pins that are only 12 mm long and are a drop in even on the tightest fit shafts. At some point , I think there becomes a concern of cocking of the pin adding to friction concern. The longer pins shown in the link are for the secondary. I haven’t seen any need for converting it . They originally have three balls per groove and don’t fail too early.
Maybe doing the secondary is the risk.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have two questions old tech I appreciated it if you answer me.
1- what was the highest mileage you see before catastrophic transmission failure occurred?
2- Is FWD or AWD type of car affect its the failure rate?

1 Awhile back i posted that a guy had a Kizashi for sale with a bad transmission and mileage listed at 273,000 miles. I contacted him to see if mileage was correct and if it was the original trans . His reply was yes and yes. I ended up buying that car and it was still nice enough that I decided to replace the transmission and give it to my father for a birthday present. I pulled the transmission and there was junkyard writing on the torque converter. How does someone forget a bad day like that? I really need to know. Anyway the highest mileage i can verify is 210,000 that came out of 2010 awd that from day one hadnt seen a hill and was driven by a guy that wast hard on it either. I think this was one of the few that I was able to salvage at least part of the primary. Sooo... 210k is the winner so far. Anybody out there seen any higher? 2010 and 2011 both have an easy to see vin tag on trans case at left axle to help verify. 2012 and 2013 do not.
2 It seems to me that the fwd is failing a little faster but cant say for sure. I know that the early awd trannies got a heavier belt that later got discontinued and all the later ones ended up with the lighter belt. i t does seem like the later ones have a higher failure rate that I would blame tolerances or ball quality for.