Subaru Outback Forums banner

Why you are WRONG about the CVT

65K views 179 replies 86 participants last post by  PilotXT 
#1 ·


I just had to go and make this one.

I just got one too many "Subaru is great but the CVT isn't" comments and have a bone to pick with these folk.

Most of the comments and posts here boil down to 3 things:

1. Bad Off Road
2. Unreliable
3. Doesn't feel good

1. "Bad Off Road" Is easy to disprove.

Go anywhere on the internet (or even my corner of it) and watch a CVT Subaru go off road.

Then compare it to the older 4/5EAT's.

The CVT in my experience is more capable because of the VDC systems that they get. I haven't seen a lot of people pushing the older VDC cars except maybe @scalman


2. "Unreliable." This one is a little harder to disprove but still pretty easy.

Go anywhere on the internet and look at the failure rate of the CVTs (Subaru has used 2, the 580 and the 690) and compare them to the failure rate of the older 4/5EATs.

I used the NHTSA website and found on average more reported issues with the older transmissions than with the CVTs. This isn't completely fair as there are more Gen 5's made than there are 1, 2, and 3's combined. But it is a good starting point.

I even had my reservations about the CVT in my XV that I owned for a short time. But after owning 3 of them and having no issues I don't think it's fair to call them unreliable.

Yes, the CVT has had issues. Yes, you can find reports of them needing replacement at 50k miles. But you can do that with 5EAT's too.

The 4EAT is only bulletproof if you choose to ignore the center diff binding, the parking pawl, slipping, hard shifting, duty solenoids failing, and the entirety of the SVX.

None of the transmissions Subaru use (4EAT, 5EAT, TR580, TR690) are bulletproof and it shouldn't be described as such. They're all good systems though.




3. "Feels bad, man" This one is going to be nearly impossible to disprove.

I can't offer much data here beyond my own thoughts:

All the automotive journalists tend to hate them and as such the CVT gets a bad rap.

Some people don't like the droning/motorboat feeling so Subaru added fake shifts in so now some people don't like the fake shifts. They can't win.

They get blamed for the car being slow and in my experience the CVT is slower than the 5EAT off the line (0-30) but 30-90 it can match a 5EAT.

So in my mind if it's speed you're after you shouldn't buy a CVT... Or an Automatic... Or an Outback... Or a Subaru if I'm honest. The fast ones aren't fast.

Not unless you think matching a stock minivan or stock Honda Accord is fast.


Final thoughts:

Do your own research. Think for yourself. Question authority. I'm just a guy wearing a raccoon for a hat.

But based on my own research it seems the CVT is unfairly hated on this forum and many other corners of the internet and hopefully this post helps change that.
 
See less See more
#159 ·
I was leery of CVT at first. My mothers 2007 Nissan Maxima had one and it was going fine at 155k when sold. 3 Drain and fills since bought new.

I want to say that IMHO if your stating CVT's aren't reliable due to a failure at 150k miles or so then you really need to change your tune because a 150k failure rate is not anything uncommon for a $25K Chevy traditional trans to a $60k BMW trans. I have a 17 OB Limited 3.6 with the CVT. I'm at 56k and have not a negative to say about it. For me I believe in the modern era, whether a CVT or the 6 speed trans on my F150, it's the major component I worry about most. I will feel I broke even if my CVT makes it to 150k. That is just my personal expectations.

I also will service mine every 60k miles with the correct Subaru fluid.

Before blasting any vehicle lets also remember 2 caveats. I use F series as I know there are roughly 900,000 sold a year. What is the actual percentage of failures? Pretty **** low, statistically at least. If it's your that does not matter!!! And second, whenever it happens that person is all over the place screaming it from the hills and rightfully so. Tends to bias the pool.
 
#160 ·
I was leery of CVT at first. My mothers 2007 Nissan Maxima had one and it was going fine at 155k when sold. 3 Drain and fills since bought new.

I want to say that IMHO if your stating CVT's aren't reliable due to a failure at 150k miles or so then you really need to change your tune because a 150k failure rate is not anything uncommon for a $25K Chevy traditional trans to a $60k BMW trans. I have a 17 OB Limited 3.6 with the CVT. I'm at 56k and have not a negative to say about it. For me I believe in the modern era, whether a CVT or the 6 speed trans on my F150, it's the major component I worry about most. I will feel I broke even if my CVT makes it to 150k. That is just my personal expectations.
Amen! I used to be a lifelong Honda fan. Had transmission go out on Accord and Odyssey. Bought the 2nd Odyssey and had no confidence it will be any different. At 90K miles, with all the services coming up, I bailed and bought my 1st Subaru.
 
#162 ·
Well, this was fun reading. I have been on the Forester owners forum since 2014, and just recently joined this one. The CVT was a long standing topic over there, and I had some fairly heated exchanges with a few folks that took their CVT love very seriously.

I grew to hate my 2014 2.5i Forester, not only because of the CVT, but the host of dumb drivetrain elements that made it maddening to operate. Excessive throttle tip in, surging, rubber banding out the wazoo, and that lovely hit the throttle when ya need it but go nowhere character. And the droning. Lord.

So, still liking Subaru I ditched the 2014 and bought a 2015 FXTT, with the HT CVT and SI drive. Well, the engine and response was super, after some turbo lag, but it still was a pretty rough customer. To smooth it out you needed to give it some pedal, and it still had some surging, and that DIT had a severe carbon fouling issue.

Along the way I continued to roast the CVT in general, while praising somewhat the 2015 XT version, but only compared to the 2.5, which I loathed. Actually, it was the drivetrain and lackluster programming, coupled with the CVT, that gave it that overall unpleasant nature.

I agree with many of the posters that much of the annoyance I experienced is personal preference, and the fact that I’m an old guy with habits honed over a lifetime of driving sticks or step transmissions. But that’s what it is, and I like what pleases me for my $.

So now. I’ve had my 2019 OBT 3.6r for 700 miles. And I must say, my previous complaints are long gone. The drivetrain, including the CVT, is just wonderful. The nice, smooth torque makes me drive it so it hardly ever hits the shift points, and I don’t notice them anyway.
All I can say is with the right engine, and a bunch of years to work on improvements, Subaru got it right, at least for me. I couldn’t be more pleased, and happy to change my attitude.

I notice no rubber banding, the ratio changes are swift and sure, and it all goes as smooth as a bobsled on ice. Like my FXT in “S” mode, when passing I give it some gun and it goes, without screaming to redline and making me wonder if I will make it back into my lane without a head on.

A lot of that is because the vehicle is not grossly, stupidly underpowered, as the Forester 2.5 was, and is, as well as the other, well, you know models with similar power. And, I fully admit that’s personal preference, too, but it is what it is. I can’t see how driving a vehicle that takes nearly 11 seconds to hit 0-60 is fun or safe, unless it’s in a parking lot.

So, I don’t dislike all CVTs anymore, I’m so glad to admit.

Cheers,

EJ


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
#165 ·
So now. I’ve had my 2019 OBT 3.6r for 700 miles. And I must say, my previous complaints are long gone. The drivetrain, including the CVT, is just wonderful. The nice, smooth torque makes me drive it so it hardly ever hits the shift points, and I don’t notice them anyway.
All I can say is with the right engine, and a bunch of years to work on improvements, Subaru got it right, at least for me. I couldn’t be more pleased, and happy to change my attitude.
I also have a 2019 Outback 3.6r, now for 6,900 miles AND LOVE THE CVT. This is my first automatic car EVER, always having stick-shifts for the past 40 years. Well, tough to find what I needed in a stick in 2019, so the 3.6r! Also, my left hip no longer hurts!
 
#164 ·
The problem isn't the CVT, the problem is the engine.

It's all about torque. Shift points are required when the demand for acceleration is greater than the torque required for the RPMs at the point of demand. A shift is required to get the higher RPMs that provide the needed torque. Shift points are basically saying the driver has a heavy foot. If you don't want to feel a shift point, lift your foot off the gas pedal.

Rubberbanding is more complicated, but I believe it occurs where the demand for power is low enough to not require a CVT shift point to higher RPMs, but at the max torque for the demand. As the car speeds up, the RPMs increase to a higher torque, which pulls the car harder. Thus the feeling of a rubberband. I felt the same thing in cars with small 4 cylinder turbo diesels and standard transmissions. As the RPMs increased with the car speed, the turbo increased the power curve at the higher RPMs making the engine pull the car harder. For the small diesel, I could either do a lot of shifting like the Subaru 4 cylinder CVT, or be patient and wait for the car to a accelerate to a speed where the engine higher RPMs gain the power advantage of the turbo. Huge rubber band effect if I don't manually shift the standard transmission to a lower gear for instant higher RPMs.

Like the turbo diesel, the Subaru engine doesn't have enough torque at the lower RPMs to provide constant acceleration. Since the better torque is at the higher RPMs, the car accelerates or pulls harder as it speeds up.

I test drove two Foresters: the one without the turbo didn't have much acceleration and I had to patiently wait to get to the speed I wanted. The one with the turbo had much better torque for better accelleration, but was constantly shifting to seek the higher RPMs for the higher torque. It was annoying on small gradual hills.

The perfect solution is a 8 cylinder engine. There is no replacement for displacement.

Beary
 
#166 ·
Well my FXT had a load of torque but it wasn’t linear. Take off was always rubber bandy unless I gave it a lot of throttle in “S” or “S#”. Passing at 60 mph or so, popping the paddle down one gear and in S it took off like a rocket, no hesitation or RB.

The 3.6 is a six, not an eight, of course, but it does just fine. BTW, I tried out an OB 2.5 and the CVT was pretty darn good, although the engine was not enough for the vehicle.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
#173 ·
You don’t read your own posts. You said the problem was the engines and mentioned the 2.0 DIT, the 2,5 and even the 3.6. not a poorly matched CVT or lousy engine programming.

Decent engine plus decent tranny plus decent tuning equals good results in my book.

Sure, a decent GM 505 hp LS7 engine would be a great fit. AND FUN.


The fuel efficient Subaru engine is the reason for programmed shift points. For a CVT to satisfy you, the engine needs more power. If Subarus had that kind of power, CVTs wouldn't even need programmed shift points because the engine would have the torque to accelerate quickly to whatever the driver demands. But because Subaru wants to market a fuel efficient car, they have to build the CVT with shift points for those of us who want to get up and go faster. Subaru is giving us the best of both worlds, economy and power. It's just comes at the cost of those annoying shift points. Those same shift points that other car manufacturers provide with automatic transmissions.


I do agree with you though, the problem isn't the engine, its your heavy foot. Ease back a bit and you won't feel those annoying shift points. Rubberbanding maybe, but not the shift points.


Beary
 
#178 ·


I just had to go and make this one.

I just got one too many "Subaru is great but the CVT isn't" comments and have a bone to pick with these folk.

Most of the comments and posts here boil down to 3 things:

1. Bad Off Road
2. Unreliable
3. Doesn't feel good

1. "Bad Off Road" Is easy to disprove.

Go anywhere on the internet (or even my corner of it) and watch a CVT Subaru go off road.

Then compare it to the older 4/5EAT's.

The CVT in my experience is more capable because of the VDC systems that they get. I haven't seen a lot of people pushing the older VDC cars except maybe @scalman


2. "Unreliable." This one is a little harder to disprove but still pretty easy.

Go anywhere on the internet and look at the failure rate of the CVTs (Subaru has used 2, the 580 and the 690) and compare them to the failure rate of the older 4/5EATs.

I used the NHTSA website and found on average more reported issues with the older transmissions than with the CVTs. This isn't completely fair as there are more Gen 5's made than there are 1, 2, and 3's combined. But it is a good starting point.

I even had my reservations about the CVT in my XV that I owned for a short time. But after owning 3 of them and having no issues I don't think it's fair to call them unreliable.

Yes, the CVT has had issues. Yes, you can find reports of them needing replacement at 50k miles. But you can do that with 5EAT's too.

The 4EAT is only bulletproof if you choose to ignore the center diff binding, the parking pawl, slipping, hard shifting, duty solenoids failing, and the entirety of the SVX.

None of the transmissions Subaru use (4EAT, 5EAT, TR580, TR690) are bulletproof and it shouldn't be described as such. They're all good systems though.




3. "Feels bad, man" This one is going to be nearly impossible to disprove.

I can't offer much data here beyond my own thoughts:

All the automotive journalists tend to hate them and as such the CVT gets a bad rap.

Some people don't like the droning/motorboat feeling so Subaru added fake shifts in so now some people don't like the fake shifts. They can't win.

They get blamed for the car being slow and in my experience the CVT is slower than the 5EAT off the line (0-30) but 30-90 it can match a 5EAT.

So in my mind if it's speed you're after you shouldn't buy a CVT... Or an Automatic... Or an Outback... Or a Subaru if I'm honest. The fast ones aren't fast.

Not unless you think matching a stock minivan or stock Honda Accord is fast.


Final thoughts:

Do your own research. Think for yourself. Question authority. I'm just a guy wearing a raccoon for a hat.

But based on my own research it seems the CVT is unfairly hated on this forum and many other corners of the internet and hopefully this post helps change that.
 
#179 ·
That’s all very encouraging!

One question: The thing I dislike most about the other CVTs I’ve driven (I’m lookin’ at you, Nissan) is the very brief but noticeable lag between when I depress the accelerator and the engine/tranny actually begins pulling the vehicle. It was almost impossible for a smooth launch from a standing start.

Is that just the nature of the beast and I’d need to just get used to it?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top