CVT Transmission starting to fail

[KuroNekko]

CVTs do well in small engines with low torque. They are used extensively in Japan for kei cars and they are very common in hybrids.
CVTs are disastrous in large cars like the Pathfinder.
I'd never want a CVT in any car bigger than a 4 door midsize sedan with its current technology.

Can't exactly do first generation CVT's because all the bugs have not been worked out. Subaru has some experience, where you could compare reliability of legacy tranny 05-09 vs 10-14 and see what we come up with.

The Subaru Legacy used their archaic 4EAT (4-speed Electronic Automatic Transmission) until their current generation Legacy ('10-14). The gen before that used the traditional automatic and Subaru was heavily criticized for using such an old automatic with only 4 gears. In fact, the transmission in my 1995 Impreza was largely the same as the one in the 2009 Legacy and Forester. Only with their current generation did Subaru move to CVTs. So basically, Subaru is actually very inexperienced at CVTs. I can't blame them. Their old and simple auto with only 4 gears was a good one. I drove mine to 225,000 miles with no issues whatsoever. Why would Subaru want to change that until they had to in order to catch up with everyone else and their higher MPGs?

The manufacturers with the most experience in CVTs also happen to be the ones with the most problems. That's not a good sign.
A lot of critics fault Toyota for being stagnant on technology, but they are actually very careful. They are not risk takers and will thoroughly test out new tech before implementing it. They were criticized for being slow to offer direct injection, but it is actually a fact that Toyota had it 10 years before everyone else. However, they saw that it caused fouling issues in high mileage which affected reliability. Only when they worked it out did they implement it. You think Hyundai did this when they beat Toyota to offer DI in their engines?
It's no surprise to me that Toyotas (as in made in Japan Lexus) are consistently at the very top as distant kings in reliability. 2nd place has nearly double the reliability problems compared to Lexus' average. Toyota's conservatism and meticulous approach to reliability can be credited. I also want to note that Toyota's Aisin CVTs appear to be far less problematic than others from Nissan's JATCO and whoever VAG used for Audi.

That being said, it's not like ALL CVTs are problematic. It's some and it's usually on bigger cars. Smaller, lighter cars tend to do fine.

Interesting. Same part number? What are the engine/drivetrains on the Mitsubishis? It would be interesting if there is a higher power engine being used with our tranny. That would be a good thing.

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

[KuroNekko]

In fact, according to JATCO, the CVT found in the Kizashi is the same as the one in the Mitsubishi Outlander Sport and Mitsubishi Lancer.

The same, but most likely, different. For example, and this is fact, there are two different Suzuki part numbers for the 'same' Jatco model CVT in our cars, depending on the year. I had mentioned this in another thread/post somewhere after trolling the Suzuki parts databases with the parts manager at my Suzuki dealer.
In industry, the same 'model' number of any given item can have a magnitude of different 'part' numbers associated with it. These various part numbers are not always interchangeable amongst themselves even though they are from the same 'model' group. This is obviously true with the Jatco CVTs in the Kizashis. That same generic model number may be applied to other Suzukis (the SX4) as well as other brands. Typically, the model number is only half the story of the part number.

I'm far more inclined to believe that the parts numbers changed due to redesigns or modifications to the existing CVT to improve reliability and performance. JATCO CVTs are known to have some issues and they are actively working the bugs out. The change in part numbers may reflect this.

The dissatisfaction among consumers with JATCO CVTs have gotten so bad that the CEO of Nissan even publicly addressed the issue with JATCO. They call it "consumer unfamiliarity with CVTs" but that's bullshit. Just talk to a Nissan Pathfinder owner whose CVT cut out spontaneously like I have. It's not "unfamiliarity", it's failure.

http://www.autonews.com/article/2013120 ... -glitches#
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/12/02/niss ... ems-ghosn/

[SamirD]

Exactly I just don't think we have enough hard dat yet to say one way or the other. I mean if VW realised a CVT I would expect it to be unreliable vs if toyota came out with one. Right now there is alot of variables to make, model and generation of car.

But I think the point that KuroNekko is trying to make is that the reliability compared to regular automatics is far less with the current stream of CVTs, and that it isn't really improving yet.

[SamirD]

In industry, the same 'model' number of any given item can have a magnitude of different 'part' numbers associated with it. These various part numbers are not always interchangeable amongst themselves even though they are from the same 'model' group. This is obviously true with the Jatco CVTs in the Kizashis. That same generic model number may be applied to other Suzukis (the SX4) as well as other brands. Typically, the model number is only half the story of the part number.

That's what I'm curious about--the part number. Even with different part numbers, you can have a compatible part as long as it is in the same group.

If the part numbers are the same, there's no question about it--same part. It's how I figured out how to put a Baer big brake upgrade on my Galant for less than $1000 using an Eclipse kit--more than 90% of the suspension parts between the Galant and Eclipse (for that generation) are the same. Too bad all my research and data was lost when the galant center forum db got wiped.

[SamirD]

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

Uh oh--"CVT for medium FWD vehicles JF011E". No mention of awd drive here.
"●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'.

[SamirD]

The dissatisfaction among consumers with JATCO CVTs have gotten so bad that the CEO of Nissan even publicly addressed the issue with JATCO. They call it "consumer unfamiliarity with CVTs" but that's bullshit. Just talk to a Nissan Pathfinder owner whose CVT cut out spontaneously like I have. It's not "unfamiliarity", it's failure.

I think this is a bit of Ford/Firestone finger-pointing going on.

Nissan tells Jatco the spec to which to build the transmissions. They'll do that regardless of if they can handle the overall drivetrain design--that's Nissan's job to make sure it will. Something tells me Nissan missed on their design and are trying to scapegoat Jatco. They saw this same technique work with the Ford/Firestone debacle (and the birth of the illegitamate nightmare child of tpms), so there's legal precedence that Nissan can use to its advantage.

The car making game has become so political. Just build something good and solid like back in the day. Give me a 2014 with 1994 reliability.

[Knightstruth]

Exactly I just don't think we have enough hard dat yet to say one way or the other. I mean if VW realised a CVT I would expect it to be unreliable vs if toyota came out with one. Right now there is alot of variables to make, model and generation of car.

But I think the point that KuroNekko is trying to make is that the reliability compared to regular automatics is far less with the current stream of CVTs, and that it isn't really improving yet.

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. What about Altima's and Maxima's? They have had CVT's for awhile now not hearing large complaints about owners from them, at least the prior generation.
FYI subaru had cvt back in 1987 I believe. So they have prior experience. We will have to wait years before we can properly debate traditional auto's vs cvt.
As I said before my wife and I both have cvt cars, so I personally will get an idea as well.

[Knightstruth]

Actually Subaru across the board has gone from auto to CVT. Since they have a reputation of reliability, they are a good measurement. I'm not hearing of alot of issues vs the auto's.

[KuroNekko]

FYI subaru had cvt back in 1987 I believe. So they have prior experience. We will have to wait years before we can properly debate traditional auto's vs cvt.
As I said before my wife and I both have cvt cars, so I personally will get an idea as well.

Subaru put that CVT in one car, a tiny subcompact called the Justy. I'd hardly call that experience. They are actually late comers in the CVT scene for wide-scale implementation with their Lineartronic CVTs.

Actually Subaru across the board has gone from auto to CVT. Since they have a reputation of reliability, they are a good measurement. I'm not hearing of alot of issues vs the auto's.

The problem is that their new line of CVTs have not been around for long. In fact, CVTs in Suzukis have more service time under their belt (literally) than Subaru's Lineartronic line of CVTs. Only in the last gen Legacy ('10 to '14) did Subaru start using CVTs. I believe their Imprezas got them later and the Foresters just got them with the current gen. Suzuki switched over to CVTs for their SX4 and Kizashi a bit earlier.

I'm not claiming all CVTs are junk nor that all are prone to failure. I'm saying that some have had disastrous results and these are usually the CVTs in larger cars. CVT technology has been around for decades, but they were only suited for low torque applications therefore put in tiny cars that made little power, e.g. Subaru Justy or in vehicles like snowmobiles. Nearly all the kei cars in Japan have CVTs too, but they are limited to make a max of 63 HP.

While you may not think there is evidence that CVTs are any worse that traditional automatics, I'd say there is. Audi faced an arbitration related to their faulty CVTs. Nissan may see the same in the future since they have some serious problems with the CVT in new Nissan Pathfinder. Like I already wrote, I personally know a woman with one and her 2nd CVT is failing. Her car has 4000 miles on it. That's less than one oil change and she's on her second CVT! That is unacceptable and she's hired an attorney. Sadly, this is a known issue with the new Pathfinder.

There are also members here who have had catastrophic failures with their CVTs. In fact, that's how this very thread got started. Some of these cars have relatively low miles that would not justify such failures.
This is more evidence than I need to claim that CVTs have yet to earn the reputation for reliability and durability of traditional geared automatics. Like I already wrote, my last automatic drove up to 225,000 miles in my '95 Subaru Impreza. I sold it to a buddy who then drove it in DC city traffic for a year and a half before driving it cross country. Original transmission and never had a problem. Just maintenance. That was with Subaru's 4EAT, a 4 speed auto they kept using until they went to CVTs. This is how Subaru got their reputation for reliability. Their CVTs have yet to earn it.

[Knightstruth]

FYI subaru had cvt back in 1987 I believe. So they have prior experience. We will have to wait years before we can properly debate traditional auto's vs cvt.
As I said before my wife and I both have cvt cars, so I personally will get an idea as well.

Subaru put that CVT in one car, a tiny subcompact called the Justy. I'd hardly call that experience. They are actually late comers in the CVT scene for wide-scale implementation with their Lineartronic CVTs.

Actually Subaru across the board has gone from auto to CVT. Since they have a reputation of reliability, they are a good measurement. I'm not hearing of alot of issues vs the auto's.

The problem is that their new line of CVTs have not been around for long. In fact, CVTs in Suzukis have more service time under their belt (literally) than Subaru's Lineartronic line of CVTs. Only in the last gen Legacy ('10 to '14) did Subaru start using CVTs. I believe their Imprezas got them later and the Foresters just got them with the current gen. Suzuki switched over to CVTs for their SX4 and Kizashi a bit earlier.

I'm not claiming all CVTs are junk nor that all are prone to failure. I'm saying that some have had disastrous results and these are usually the CVTs in larger cars. CVT technology has been around for decades, but they were only suited for low torque applications therefore put in tiny cars that made little power, e.g. Subaru Justy or in vehicles like snowmobiles. Nearly all the kei cars in Japan have CVTs too, but they are limited to make a max of 63 HP.

While you may not think there is evidence that CVTs are any worse that traditional automatics, I'd say there is. Audi faced an arbitration related to their faulty CVTs. Nissan may see the same in the future since they have some serious problems with the CVT in new Nissan Pathfinder. Like I already wrote, I personally know a woman with one and her 2nd CVT is failing. Her car has 4000 miles on it. That's less than one oil change and she's on her second CVT! That is unacceptable and she's hired an attorney. Sadly, this is a known issue with the new Pathfinder.

There are also members here who have had catastrophic failures with their CVTs. In fact, that's how this very thread got started. Some of these cars have relatively low miles that would not justify such failures.
This is more evidence than I need to claim that CVTs have yet to earn the reputation for reliability and durability of traditional geared automatics. Like I already wrote, my last automatic drove up to 225,000 miles in my '95 Subaru Impreza. I sold it to a buddy who then drove it in DC city traffic for a year and a half before driving it cross country. Original transmission and never had a problem. Just maintenance. That was with Subaru's 4EAT, a 4 speed auto they kept using until they went to CVTs. This is how Subaru got their reputation for reliability. Their CVTs have yet to earn it.

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.