NGC - Subaru CVT Transmissions

[GuzziChris]

Hi all, sorry in advance for the NGC post. Mainly for reasons of practicality and versatility, I'm thinking of trading my 2011 WRX for new Forster or Outback. MY WRX is getting up there in miles, and I can still get a very strong trade in price for it, so I feel compelled to do so now. Curious about those who drive recent automatic Subies though, what is your opinion on the CVT transmission? I'm going to go drive one tomorrow night, but I was wondering if any of you fine folks have experience/opinions on the CVT, and on the cars in general. My WRX is for sale privately as well, in case anyone is interested PM me. In Connecticut.

Thanks again.

[calfruit]

We have a 2015 Forester, purchased in June of 2014.  It currently has 18,000 miles and have had no trouble to date with the transmission.  The CVT takes getting used to. The most annoying thing for me is, when you back up and then put it into drive, there is a long( for me)'pause before drive in engaged. If you do. It make a complete stop before doing so, a loud changing noise appears.

It has been back at the dealer and we are told that this is normal. We shall see!

[Kev m]

Not for nothing Cal, but you're not supposed to put any automatic in Drive if you are still moving in reverse.


Can't say anything in particular about the Subaru CVT. I just "sold" a Nissan Juke AWD CVT to my eldest daughter that I was driving for the last 5 years and 30k miles. No issues, not that I'd expect any at that low a mileage.

It IS a little strange and takes some getting used to. A CVT allows a motor to spin up to a point in the powerband and just hold that rpm as the transmission seamlessly varies the ratio and speed increases. As such it almost sounds/feels like a boat coming up on plane at or near WOT and then backing off the throttle once it gets to the desired speed.

I prefer a manual in general but aside from getting used to the difference in operational feel the CVT is just another flavor of automatic.

A number of modern CVT equipped cars also have paddle shifters or the ability to manually "shift" through some set number of ratios which simulate gears. This can be fun when driving in a more sporting manner and can give a little more control in certain driving situations.

[blackcat]

It IS a little strange and takes some getting used to.

I took a few Outbacks out with the CVT and I just didn't like them, and I wanted to tow a bike, so we ended up with a low mileage 2013 3.6 Outback which does not have the CVT. I believe that the new 3.6's now come with the CVT, but I haven't test ridden one. 

[Dilliw]

We have had several of the Nissan CVTs.  Our 2004 Murano was their  first gen CVT and Nissan ended up extending the warranty out to 120k on those transmissions .  The problem wasn't failures so much as the only remedy when one went out was to replace it at about $4500 plus labor.  A few horror stories and sales of the Mo started to drop until Nissan pushed out what I believe was a goodwill campaign.  I don't think there was much of an issue then and the newer CVTs are supposedly doing quite well. 

As far as driving the above comments are spot on.  First couple of times you drive it you think "strange" but then it fades in to the character of the vehicle.  I had no problems towing our utility trailer the either EVT or 3-4 dirt bikes.  The key is to let them warm up before asking too much of them.  That and not letting one of those jiffy lubes change the fluid in them!

[Cool Runnings]

Hi all, sorry in advance for the NGC post. Mainly for reasons of practicality and versatility, I'm thinking of trading my 2011 WRX for new Forster or Outback. MY WRX is getting up there in miles, and I can still get a very strong trade in price for it, so I feel compelled to do so now. Curious about those who drive recent automatic Subies though, what is your opinion on the CVT transmission? I'm going to go drive one tomorrow night, but I was wondering if any of you fine folks have experience/opinions on the CVT, and on the cars in general. My WRX is for sale privately as well, in case anyone is interested PM me. In Connecticut.

Thanks again.

Down right boring, capable but yawn. Going from a WRX to the CVT. 

[pyoungbl]

My wife is now driving her third Outback.  This one has the CVT mated to the 4 cylinder engine.  At about 50,000 miles she has had absolutely no problems.  Fact is, the transmission is something she simply never thinks about...it just works seamlessly.  She's getting a bit more than 30 mpg on the highway, loves the car.

Peter Y.

[Cool Runnings]

My wife is now driving her third Outback.  This one has the CVT mated to the 4 cylinder engine.  At about 50,000 miles she has had absolutely no problems.  Fact is, the transmission is something she simply never thinks about...it just works seamlessly.  She's getting a bit more than 30 mpg on the highway, loves the car.

Peter Y.

Kinda like a Maytag. 

30 mpg is no big deal anymore.

[Kev m]

Kinda like a Maytag. 

30 mpg is no big deal anymore.

It is on an AWD.

[guzzi4me]

We bought our first Subaru last December.

Our 2015 Outback 3.6 has the CVT and I don't notice much difference from any other
auto tranny. We have almost 14k on her and not one problem...it is a Subaru after all!

We do have the paddle shifters. Quite fun up in the mountains. Around town we just leave it in auto mode.

Jeff

[drlapo]

I tried a Subaru
I bought a VW.
my son bought a Subaru.
He sold it and bought a1974 VW van.
Not a fan

[Kev m]

I tried a Subaru
I bought a VW.
my son bought a Subaru.
He sold it and bought a1974 VW van.
Not a fan

I tried a VW... I bought another Subaru....

Not a fan.

But I'm thinking the OP already knows what he likes.

[sib]

Not for nothing Cal, but you're not supposed to put any automatic in Drive if you are still moving in reverse.

Not to quibble, but my 2004 Prius quite gracefully handles shifting into drive while moving in reverse, and vice-versa.  In the old days of manual transmissions, being able to rapidly shift forward and backward was handy for rocking the car out of mud ruts and snow drifts.  I've had to do this a few times in the Prius, so I'm glad the car lets me do it.

[Kev m]

Not to quibble, but my 2004 Prius quite gracefully handles shifting into drive while moving in reverse, and vice-versa.  In the old days of manual transmissions, being able to rapidly shift forward and backward was handy for rocking the car out of mud ruts and snow drifts.  I've had to this a few times in the Prius, so I'm glad the car lets me do it.

Yeah, but just cause you can do something doesn't mean you should. Engaging forward while you're still moving in reverse USUALLY causes some banging/stress in a gearbox. If it doesn't there's another reason, maybe a difference in design specifically to prevent such damage, can't say. But generally speaking it normally wasn't a good idea to make such a thing a habit even if you could use it as a technique to get unstuck.

<shrugs>

I never had to rock the Juke with it's CVT, probably because the AWD system was pretty impressive, but I wouldn't be surprised if I could.

[rboe]

We went through a 6 car list before choosing the Subaru Outback. 48,000 miles (2012) and the wife loves it. She does like the CVT.

I have no issues with the CVT, but the ride is OK, not the best for road trips. Now that we have three dogs the extended cab and the Subby are bit on the cramped side for road tripping so something like a Flex (which is VERY nice on the road) is creeping up the next car list. I almost bought a Flex instead of the F150 but thought we wanted to tow a trailer.

She traded in a VW Jetta Wagon, the biggest POS we've ever had. Turns out it was the worst car VW made in a  long time. Many things we liked about it but the build quality and execution really suffered. Never again. Subaru's are much better.

The Ford Freestyle had a CVT (bigger than the Outback, smaller than the Flex) and Ford seemed to have some issues with it, with no dealers having a clue on how to rebuild them. Nissan seems to have some problems with theirs on their SUV too, but have not heard of any chronic problems with the Subaru version. Maybe the 3.6l with the extra power will expose some weaknesses over time. :shrug:

[TBShorty]

I have 10K mi. on my 16 Forester 2.5 with the CVT.  It does take some getting used to for sure.  My first Subaru and so far I'm liking it.  I test drove the little Jeep SUV with CVT and I swear that thing revs nearly 6K RPM to get moving.  The Forester is around 4K RPM if your in a hurry.  I read their are 2 Japanese manufacturers of the CVT trannies used in all CVTs cars.  In the Forester you can manually downshift flicking the lever into low.  The computer won't let it over-rev the engine so it's like downshifting any gearbox.  I asked the service guy about this he said it's not a problem with the CVT.  He then warned me about shifting from reverse to forward while moving.  The CVT is much less forgiven than a regular auto trans.  The owners manual also warns against this in several places.  Yes the 3 seconds it takes to engage reverse to forward is hard to get used to, I'm not there yet.

[MGPilot]

The slow engagement must be a Subi thing. My wife drives a Ford C-Max (Hybrid; 43mpg total average). Moves from reverse to forward with no particular wait. I think the CVT is fine, especially for smaller engines. Can keep the engine at the best power-to-economy rpm for the conditions. I just accept that these are transportation appliances and they do their jobs well.

[Kev m]

I wonder if it's a safety feature on Subis to protect their CVT, since according to the OM it seems to be a concern. ???

[Mark Dasher]

About 3 years ago I bought my wife a '13 Outback with the 2.5 and a CVT.  It has about 63K miles on it now and we've had absolutely no trouble with it at all.  From a pure driving pleasure aspect I don't care for the CVT, but it works well and provides decent around town fuel mileage by keeping the engine in the optimum torque band. It's a great car. 

You're sure gonna miss that WRX!   

[Cool Runnings]

About 3 years ago I bought my wife a '13 Outback with the 2.5 and a CVT.  It has about 63K miles on it now and we've had absolutely no trouble with it at all.  From a pure driving pleasure aspect I don't care for the CVT, but it works well and provides decent around town fuel mileage by keeping the engine in the optimum torque band. It's a great car. 

You're sure gonna miss that WRX!   

No way could I go from a WRX to a CVT, go to the STI instead... 

[pikipiki]

The problem with CVT that relies on internal belts is that unlike the original DAF CVT the gearbox is not usually servicable outside of the manufacturer so your completely dependant on the warantee. Despite it appearing more complicated the Prius hybrid system is much simpler and more reliable. Steel belt cvt is hidiously complicated. The prius has no belts the engine is simply connected to a differential with electric motors either side, this is known as a torque splitter. it works. Don't confuse Prius CVT with other CVT. I would have not wories about Toyota hybrid drive but I would not go near belt cvt after being stung by nissan. regarding Subaru the system seems more reliable than nissan but understand it's still a jatco design.

[Spuddy]

No way could I go from a WRX to a CVT, go to the STI instead...

Kiss any ideas of gas mileage good bye.  While it is inherently marginal you'll have too much fun mashing the accelerator - which you'll pay for at the pump...

Spud

Oh yeah, I'd prefer a stick in anything but have to admit the cvt in this forester jumped our fuel economy 3-5 MPG.

[Zoom Zoom]

Chris, I was much in the same boat as you. 10 year old REX in very nice shape with good trade in value. I traded it for a '13 Impreza premium CVT. I had that for 18 months and traded for a '14 Impreza limited in order to get more goodies. (Heated seats, mirrors, etc.) I have had that for nearly 2 years now. I am quite happy with the CVT for DD duties. No big deal to me on the transmission. I like it.

John Henry

[GuzziChris]

Thanks all for your replies, as always there is always excellent and thoughtful feedback to be had here.
I love (love!) my WRX, it has a new single-plate clutch and I took care of the timing belt on schedule at 105k miles. It now has 127k miles on the clock and I'm being offered $15,000, which I believe to be very fair for a car with that mileage. I bought a winter place in Florida, so I'll be needing something that I can take back and forth in comfort, and can haul all our "stuff" for the winter, so I need to get more practical (getting to be an old man, damnit!!) . I figure I either sell it at a good price now, or resign myself to driving it into the ground. Time to get a bit more practical.

[Arizona Wayne]

The problem with CVT that relies on internal belts is that unlike the original DAF CVT the gearbox is not usually servicable outside of the manufacturer so your completely dependant on the warantee. Despite it appearing more complicated the Prius hybrid system is much simpler and more reliable. Steel belt cvt is hidiously complicated. The prius has no belts the engine is simply connected to a differential with electric motors either side, this is known as a torque splitter. it works. Don't confuse Prius CVT with other CVT. I would have not wories about Toyota hybrid drive but I would not go near belt cvt after being stung by nissan. regarding Subaru the system seems more reliable than nissan but understand it's still a jatco design.

So now you say not all CVTs are designed the same and some do have belts like I feared similar to my scooters.  And you say they are not easily serviced by local auto. outfits.  In these cases before I buy any new vehicle w/a CVT I am going to want to know exactly  how the tranny is designed and serviced including costs.  I saw a pic of a CVT that has like a HD wide metal timing belt that looks like it would last forever, but apparently it isn't an example of all the CVT designs. 

As far as motor rpms w/CVT it's the same way w/a scooter CVT, high rpms vs. a stick shift when accelerating.  More of a constant rpm speed most the time.  Welcome to the CVT world. 

[drlapo]

In the late 60s early 70s I worked at a dealer who sold Suzuki moto guzzi and Bultaco.
I've owned a couple of Moto Guzzi. A couple of Suzukis and many Bultacos but no Subarus,
The cars we sold were rear engined 2 stroke twins with a top speed of 60,  0 to 60 in 37 seconds and had suicide doors.
I think they sold for $1200.
We didn't see Subaru in the USA for awhile then they came back with a 4 stroke front drive car.
It had crankshaft and rod bearing oil problems.
There are quite a few in the northeast now but I can't get over the early models problems.
We used to pronounce it; Soo bar oo

[sib]

In 1969 Consumer Reports did a review of the Subaru 360 that is the mother of all negative reviews.  It's worth reading at http://www.mysubaru360.com/manuals_and_documents/Subaru_360_Consumer_Reports_April_69.pdf

I especially like the summary sentence:  "It was a pleasure to squirm out of the Subaru, slam the door and walk away."

[Howard R]

Once upon a time I had a 2002 WRX 5 speed, now have a 2014 Impreza CVT.  The intervening vehicle was a 2006 Mustang.  I wanted a stick shift, but due to exigent shopping circumstances (Mustang totaled by a drunk in a Civic ) had to settle for the CVT as all that was available used in my price range at the time.  So far so good with the CVT, but it is a different experience.  It almost feels peppy from a stop or passing on the highway.  It's kind of interesting pulling away: tach (Why? on an auto, just there for coincidental information, not like you could do anything about it) goes up to about 3500 and then stays there while the speedo works its way up to 40 MPH, then the speedo stays steady while the tach goes down, all the while I haven't changed anything on the Foot Position Sensor (formerly known as gas pedal, the throttle is now computer simulated.)  The '14 is still the same basic, if slightly updated, 2 liter 4 cylinder, just without the turbo.  Average gas mileage in the mid 30's and 87 octane to boot so a lot better from $$$ perspective.  Just don't ask it for any kind of "real" acceleration 'cause it ain't gonna be there.

Side note regarding the WRX and the Mustang.  Getting on the WRX, you were driving a 2-liter engine up to about 3500 RPM when the turbo spooled up.  Then the boost gauge shot up to 95 kilopascals (about 13 psi, so almost a times-2 change in power) and it felt like your eyeballs were going to squirt back out through your ears.  The Mustang was a 4 liter V6 with boatloads of torque just off idle.  Completely different character, but both a ton of fun to drive.  (The 'stang did have the GT brake & suspension package so that probably helped with the overall impression.)

Howard

[drlapo]

Yup, that's the car I remember
And can't forget

[Kev m]

Yup, that's the car I remember
And can't forget

And it's about as applicable to the models of the last few decades as BMW Isetta is to any 3-series.