One of the reasons why I gave up on 2016 Honda CRV was the vibration issue with their CVT at low rpms. CVTs also cannot (in any application including with 3.5 lite V6 in Murano) tow much presumably because they are so weak.

It is also my understanding that the shift delay in CVTs between Drive and Reverse is also due to these transmissions being weak so there is a delay to "protect" them.

Thus, considering all of the above I am concerned about how long will a CVT last. I keep my cars for a loooooongg time and had a great track record with Hondas (I maintain them religiously with original fluids, parts etc).

Does the new CVT have a filter that can be changed? What type of fluid does it use, what is suggested change interval? Can it last 150k+ miles?

I really like Subarus (always did) and want a vehicle that is good in snow and that perhaps my older daughter can inherit five years from now.

Thank you all. :nerd:

3.6R is rated for 3,000 lbs towing, with 200 lb tongue weight.

The delay isn't to protect them per se - it's that the pulley's are rotating in one direction, and they have to reverse.

And the CVT's are considered sealed units, with effectively NO maintenance needed for the life of the car. What kills a Subaru is someone else hitting it or someone not maintaining them - 250K miles is expected of ALL our cars.

 

And the CVT's are considered sealed units, with effectively NO maintenance needed for the life of the car. What kills a Subaru is someone else hitting it or someone not maintaining them - 250K miles is expected of ALL our cars.

Thank you for your reply.

The fact that CVTs are sealed units kills the deal for me.

I just generally don't believe in "lifetime" ATF (or any other) fluids. Heat, friction, and other forces will simply damage mechanical parts with time.

Draining and putting fresh fluids (and filter when possible) will significantly increase reliability and lifespan (especially if the vehicle tows frequently etc).

I think Subaru should stick 8-speed ZF transmission into their cars. That would make them bulletproof.

 

I came from years of Hondas (3 Accords and 1 CR-V). Accords were great. CR-V not so much. With the current vibration issue of the CR-V decided it was time for a change and I absolutely love my 3.6R. The CVT takes a little getting used to but personally I think it's one of the better one of the couple different brands I test drove.

Have no regrets purchasing the OB and do expect many good years out of it. Plus the power of the 3.6 is quite a bit of fun on and off road compared to any Honda I ever had.

 

My 2016 Subaru Outback 3.6R may get delivered to the dealer tomorrow. In between time I have downloaded the Factory Service Manual. As far as the CVT filter, yes it does have one, but only cleaned or replaced during a transmission overhaul (case has to be split). And yes, the CVT does have drain and fill plugs. I plan on changing my CVT oil every 30,000 miles. Subaru recommends using there CVT transmission fluid. My wife drives a Honda CR-V and I just did the 30,000 mile transmission change. Three quarts to dilute down the dirty oil with clean!

 

My 2016 Subaru Outback 3.6R may get delivered to the dealer tomorrow. In between time I have downloaded the Factory Service Manual. As far as the CVT filter, yes it does have one, but only cleaned or replaced during a transmission overhaul (case has to be split). And yes, the CVT does have drain and fill plugs. I plan on changing my CVT oil every 50,000 miles. Subaru recommends using there CVT transmission fluid. My wife drives a Honda CR-V and I just did the 30,000 mile transmission change. Three quarts to dilute down the dirty oil with clean!

I don't believe the manual lists lifetime CVT fluid, you always need to change it at some point. I'll be changing mine at the "extreme service" interval, which I thought was 35k miles.

 

My last three cars were Hondas. 07 CR-V, 10 Odyssey, 13 CR-V. I recently sold the 13 CR-V to buy a 13 Outback 2.5. So far I am very happy with the Outback. I do plan to change the CVT fluid on a regular basis.

What other cars are you considering?

One of my concerns with many of the 2016 cars is the addition of direct inject fuel injection. I do not believe the 2016 Subarus have direct inject fuel injection. I would be much more concerned about reliability issues with direct inject fuel injection than a CVT transmission. Do some internet searches on direct injection for cars that burn gasoline. I will not buy a car with direct injection until the car companies have had time to work their way through the reliability issues with system fuel system.

 

Is that not what we're discussing here?

 

CVT's are fine. My wife's 2004 Saturn is still on its original CVT and we've never even changed the fluid.

 

For sure its possible to service the CVT and yes you can do a drain fill of the fluid just like any other transmission infact its recommended! I think the weak spot with the CVT's in the Subarus is the torque converter not the CVT. Which case its a simple fix if it has an issue and the technology is old as dirt. Pretty sure the high Torque CVT with the 3.6 will have a heavier torque converter than the 2.5 and it probably has some minor differences in the CVT but over all the two are very similar units.

Honda has a really poor reputation for bad transmissions today so your probably overly cautious about this coming from the Honda brand. Thats understandable. No really it is. LOL
I think with any modern transmission CVT or more tradditional fixed gear AT its more and more important to operate them correctly, using your parking brake! , not slamming them into gear while the car is moving etc. I think those two things go a very very long way in avoiding transmission issues with any of the modern transmissions.

 

Hi everyone. I am typically a Honda guy (had accords, odysseys, CRVs) but I am considering getting 2016 Outback 3.6. I am mainly concerned about longevity of CV transmission.

One of the reasons why I gave up on 2016 Honda CRV was the vibration issue with their CVT at low rpms. CVTs also cannot (in any application including with 3.5 lite V6 in Murano) tow much presumably because they are so weak.

...

I'm a Honda guy as well, had three civics ('87 CRX, '95 SI Hatchback, '93 Del Sol). Love Honda, and they're simplistic approach to building bullet-proof cars. They certainly aren't that stylish or showy, but just simplistic beauty. I also had a 2005 Murano SL AWD, which I bought brand new and am now trying to sell since I've replaced it with a 2016 3.6 Outback. (The Murano is currently crying out on the street since the Outback kicked it out of it's long-standing garage space...) :crying:

I love the CVT. In fact, it's one of the reasons that the Outback was on the top of my short list of possible replacements. In fact, I would have probably gotten another Murano, but they lowered the towing capacity recently from 3500 to 1500 (WHY I have no idea).

It is true that they are expensive to replace if something goes wrong, and they're not as "rebuildable" as a standard automatic tranny, however they have proven to be quite reliable overall. And I don't consider them "weak".

With my Murano, I towed a pop-up tent trailer quite a bit, as well as a utility trailer sometimes loaded up to 3000 lbs or more. The pop-up weighs in around 2000-2500 lbs fully loaded, and we've towed that sucker from Seattle to Yellowstone and back, and all around the Pacific Northwest. It handled it great, although I wouldn't consider it as great of a tow vehicle as, say, a pickup.

There are, of course, pros and cons when comparing a CVT to a traditional Automatic Tranny. But in my opinion, the pros far outweigh the cons. However, every driver is obviously different, and it depends on what you're really wanting in a vehicle. It's certainly not going to have the "throw you back in your seat" torque of a good manual tranny or a direct-drive of an electric like a Tesla, and it does take some getting used to the "feel" of it, but the smoothness and the fact that it never has to hunt for the proper gear is an amazing thing.

 

I love the CVT. In fact, it's one of the reasons that the Outback was on the top of my short list of possible replacements. In fact, I would have probably gotten another Murano, but they lowered the towing capacity recently from 3500 to 1500 (WHY I have no idea).

It is true that they are expensive to replace if something goes wrong, and they're not as "rebuildable" as a standard automatic tranny, however they have proven to be quite reliable overall. And I don't consider them "weak".

Thank you all for your replies. As for why the new Murano cannot tow more than 1500 pounds - it is exactly due to CVT. CVTs cannot "tow" much weight and that is why you will (for most part) not see them in V6 applications (Nissan is the only one I believe who does it and they had massive failures with CVTs from what I know and are or soon will be subject to class action law suiite).

I still think CVT is not the way to go for V6 motors. It helps that you can drain and fill your own fluid. With my Honda's (accord and odyseey, both 2008) which I purchased new in 2008, I did first ATF fill an drain at only 2,000 miles to allow metal shavings which occur when a new transmission is settling to be drained out. Since then I have changed ATF every 9-10k miles. Most of the time I do it myself. Both ATFs take a bit more then 3 quarts fill and drain. In 7 years both cars have been absolutely bullet proof.

Honda did have issues with 1998-2004 transmissions due to poor design (mostly second gear which was not lubricated properly). 2005 and onward trannies have been very good.

I like Outback (generally I like Subarus) but I have a feeling that due to EPA regs and cost-cutting they too are not as good as they used to be. One of the reasons I am not considering any new Honda model is the fact that under Ito (ousted Honda president) their quality went down. It will take 2-3 years for the quality to get back to Honda level (I feel). For example, new Pilots leak water after going thru car wash. Sure, Honda will fix it (and quickly) but I don't want to be Guinea pig 1st gen tester (although my 2008 Accord was 1st year remodel and never a single issue).

Had Subaru used "standard" AT (6 speed would be more than fine) I would not hesitate, but I must admit I do hesitate w/ CVTs. Reliability is soooooo important to me, and I am spoiled by my experience with my two Honda cars (again, never a single issue).

Someone asked what other cars I am considering: I need full time all wheel drive, an that narrows the options down significantly; Audi is too expensive (Quatro wagon) and I don't like German cars (not reliable, electrical problems abound), Toyota has 4Runner by only Limited trim comes with full time AWD via center torsion differential (much more capable than Subaru's system but also - it is a truck, rides like one, and more expensive). Nothing else really to consider as AWD that would be acceptable to me.

Way back used to own Ford, GM cars and no way I am going back to that trauma again.

I like Subarus (both cars and the company) and I am still strongly inclined to go for Outback. If the Forester had a better manual transmission (more precise and not so rubbery AND if my better half/wife knew how to drive stick) i'd go for Forester manual (2.5l with a good manual is more than enough). However, wife does not know how to drive a stick and I don't feel like replacing clutch(es).

We shall see. How many (max) miles does anyone already have on 3.6 with CVT? I presume not too many. If I knew the CVT can last at least 150k miles I would not worry much and I'd go for it.

 

I find some comfort reading reviews (like out of "transmission digest" or such) that refer to the Subaru CVT as unique to other CVT equipped vehicles. I remember one article saying the Subaru CVT looks like it came out of a Sherman tank.
This technology has been around for a while now. I know that gears are generally a more reliable form of power transmission but the chain in these Subaru CVT's are monstrous. The main failure of a chain is to have a pin drift out the side....ain't no way that can happen here. I think replacing the fluid every 50k miles in a car seeing average duty should mitigate most causes of failure.
JM2C.

 

I've been on numerous Subaru sites for years and I've never heard of CVT problems in these cars. The CVT found in the 3.6r is the same one found in the 2015 WRX, a car of which is designed to be raced, to some extent.

Subaru designed the CVT to tow and if it wasn't, Subaru would have flat out said no towing. CVTs of today are nothing like those from even 5 years ago. They are reliable, and are really quite simple. Yes, they aren't really shop serviceable, but I don't know of many late model transmissions that can be serviced in the shop except for fluid changes. Almost all under warranty transmission work is a tranny swap, not a bench repair. Todays transmissions are quite complex and simply too difficult to trouble shoot internally when time is of the essence to repair as many cars as possible.

 

I've been on numerous Subaru sites for years and I've never heard of CVT problems in these cars. The CVT found in the 3.6r is the same one found in the 2015 WRX, a car of which is designed to be raced, to some extent.

I hope you are right but we really wont know until years from now.

 

I suspect that most of the Subie CVTs will last the life of the car, and that at sometime in the future most automobiles from all manufacturers will have the CVT as the one and only transmission option.

 

I don't think CVTs have major future. I think they are transitional solution to EPA miles per gallon problem.

 

Looks like someone has selective reading deficiency. The Subaru CVT is 100% servicable. It even has a drain plug right where any transmission would have a drain plug. LOL The owners manual even states that fluid change may be needed under specific types of heavy use. Even suggests servicing the CVT when used to tow.

So you need to update your perception regarding the CVT.

As for hybrids you clearly do not live in CA which is also the largest Auto market in the Country. The Hybrid is no doubt the vehicle of choice for people who commute to work. Just purchased a plugin hybrid a few weeks ago for my wife. The tax write offs along with the HOV lane sticker makes it a no brainer. $1500 state tax write off and $4025 GOV tax write off. Also working on installing a solar power system on the house which by the way is a 30% of the installed system tax write off till December 31st 2016. Yes some of us pay enough in taxes to take all of those write offs in a single year.

Our 2016 Ford Fusion Energi hybrid is averaging 58miles to the gallon on my wifes commute. It costs $1.15 to charge at work which is good for 30 miles. At home once we add our solar which is looking like a 5-6yr pay off and pure free power given our utility costs its just money in our pocket and added value to our home. People today in CA buying homes are starting to expect homes to have solar power when they are paying over 1 million for the home to start with.

 

Looks like someone has selective reading deficiency. The Subaru CVT is 100% servicable. It even has a drain plug right where any transmission would have a drain plug. LOL The owners manual even states that fluid change may be needed under specific types of heavy use. Even suggests servicing the CVT when used to tow.

So you need to update your perception regarding the CVT.

As for hybrids you clearly do not live in CA which is also the largest Auto market in the Country. The Hybrid is no doubt the vehicle of choice for people who commute to work. Just purchased a plugin hybrid a few weeks ago for my wife. The tax write offs along with the HOV lane sticker makes it a no brainer. $1500 state tax write off and $4025 GOV tax write off. Also working on installing a solar power system on the house which by the way is a 30% of the installed system tax write off till December 31st 2016. Yes some of us pay enough in taxes to take all of those write offs in a single year.

Our 2016 Ford Fusion Energi hybrid is averaging 58 miles to the gallon on my wifes commute. It costs $1.15 to charge at work which is good for 30 miles. At home once we add our solar which is looking like a 5-6yr pay off and pure free power given our utility costs its just money in our pocket and added value to our home. People today in CA buying homes are starting to expect homes to have solar power when they are paying over 1 million for the home to start with.

I believe my good Sir it is you who suffers from reading deficiency. I already acknowledged that it is good Subaru CVT can be serviced. My gripe with CVTs is that they are not as robust as "classic" ATs and major manufacturers seem to agree as they do not, for most part, offer them with V6 or V8 applications.

As for CA and hybrids - great. The only problem is the manufacturing process for batteries used in them is extremely polluting. This whole hype aroud hybrids is also marketing b.s. A good clean diesel gets that mileage and lasts forever. Half of the cars sold in Europe are clean diesels.

 

@ammcinnis,


About Motor Weeks perception of non sportiness, that's what I thought also.
In my opinion it's not the type of transmission (i.e AT, CVT) but the programming of the transmission that makes it sporty or dull. Instead of making blanket statements of how bad CVT's are and that they are glad that a particular car does not have a CVT, they could note how boring a particular CVT is, and how it could be improved upon.

 

I too have strong opinions about CVTs and even some facts!!

Lexus makes two V6 and a V8 model with a CVT, hybrids, which I would not describe as "low torque".
The GS 450h has a V6, the RX450h also has a V6. Both of these have CVTs.
Lexus also makes the LS600h, not with a V6 but with a 5.0 liter V8. And a CVT. Not a "low torque" combo by any means.

Nissan makes the Altima and Maxima with a V6 and CVT. The Maxima is now up to 300bhp and 261 lb/ft. Neither "low" in my book.

Subaru has used CVTs since the 1987.

CVTs have been used for many decades not just in cars.

 

Posts on the internet and has doubts about transmission longevity.
Cites Honda automatics as baseline.

That´s gold Jerry. Gold!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

RE: CVT PERFORMANCE-

Before I bought an OB, I drove a '15 Accord Sport w/ my first CVT. it was AWESOME. It was Super Smooth, very quickly -and seamlessly- responded to accelerator input, keeping the engine RPM's in the sweet-spot 99% of the time. In short, it was a joy to drive.

The Accord "Sport" has paddle shifters and 189hp, dual exhaust, stiffer roll bars & suspension, larger wheel-tire combo. On serveral occaisions, I torn it up on twisty country roads and was COMPLETELY IMPRESSED with the whole package. The car was super fun to drive like that. CVT GOOD.

Trading the Accord for the OB, I have been dissapointed with the response of my 2015 2.5 OB's CVT/drivetrain combo. By comparison it's clunky and not as smooth or as responsive. Hopefully the Subaru engineers can improve this. It's would really add a sense of quality to the feel of the drivetrain if they could.

 

RE: CVT PERFORMANCE-

Before I bought an OB, I drove a '15 Accord Sport w/ my first CVT. it was AWESOME. It was Super Smooth, very quickly -and seamlessly- responded to accelerator input, keeping the engine RPM's in the sweet-spot 99% of the time. In short, it was a joy to drive.

You should have bought that Accord Sport with a 6spd manual. That would have been even more awesome. God bless Honda for keeping a manual option (for now anyway). Acura no longer offers one.
I've never driven any other CVT than the one in the Outback. I don't care for the transmission that much. It lugs sometimes below 20 MPH and it motorboats some when I hit the gas hard. It seems like you can get different performance depending on what the computer feels is appropriate, even for the same conditions. In my Yukon I could push the throttle a certain amount and pretty much know exactly how the transmission would respond.
I guess I'm just not used to the CVT yet. I have read good things about the Accord CVT so maybe it just works better.

 

One thing to keep in mind when talking about hybrid CVT's, more specifically the Toyota/Lexus/Ford hybrids, they are not really CVT's. Those hybrid CVTs are just the two electric motors and a planetary gear set working together.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino Palangic
"Better fuel economy can be achieved thru clean diesels, diesel-hybrid engines (with over 100 miles per gallon easily achieve as Honda Civic did in Europe)."

What year(s) was/is this production diesel-hybrid Honda Civic that achieved 100 miles per gallon in Europe made in??? Swindon only or did it make it to the continent?

 

This*100 MPG*Honda Is The World's Most Efficient*Wagon

 

´ammcinnis:
I´m with you but so many "facts and figures" have been brought to the post, we´re going to be a while.

These future turbocharged engines of the future that have been in the current Forester XT and WRX with CVTs for a couple of model years certainly are so weak that none of them can move on their own power. Dealers, they haul them around with horses and rope. Actually many many horses because they have a lot of horsepower.

 

In much of what I've read, people (mainly the press) don't like CVT's. Even when you they are nearly as quick, they don't necessarily do much for the perception of acceleration. We know they are helpful in keeping an engine in the most efficient portion of it's powerband, but they don't snap your head around as you go forward.


Perhaps they can be engineeed to be sufficiently durable in higher power applications, and would be more popular if they had better public reception. From a driving experience standpoint, they're quite pleasant if one favors a smooth and steady acceleration. (They really shine in traffic.)

OP, I think if you care for your cars as much as you say, you shouldn't be so hesitant to go with a CVT. Now if you plan to tow, or drive consistently aggressively and/or are rough on your tranny's, I could see steering away from them more so. I think most of the failures (as a whole) were earlier generation CVT's, weren't they?



{I'm not an automotive mechanical engineer, nor will I pretend to opinionate like one.... }

 

OP, I think if you care for your cars as much as you say, you shouldn't be so hesitant to go with a CVT. Now if you plan to tow, or drive consistently aggressively and/or are rough on your tranny's, I could see steering away from them more so. I think most of the failures (as a whole) were earlier generation CVT's, weren't they?
{I'm not an automotive mechanical engineer, nor will I pretend to opinionate like one.... }

I do maintain the crap out of my cars :laugh: and I do like Subaru and very likely I will purchase 3.6 Outback. The only thing that can kill the deal for me is the CVT feel. I have to test drive it some more before I decide.

 

Here's an even bigger tractor. TractorData.com CaseIH Magnum 380 tractor engine information
8.7L 6 cylinder turbo diesel, 380-435 max HP at 2,000 RPM attached to a CVT
Calculated torque is between ~998 - ~1,142 ft-lb

Point being, CVTs can handle huge amounts of power.

 

Point being, CVTs can handle huge amounts of power.

True, if you spend enough money on it. But CVTs are mainly used to reduce fuel usage, and that is less a concern with 6 and 8 cylinder models. The cost of the CVT rises faster than the AT as torque requirements rise, and right now, the cost/benefit just isn't there at high torque. Ford tried it and gave up. Unless I'm missing something, only Subaru and Nissan are in that market (please don't confuse hybrid eCVTs with CVTs - different beast altogether).

 

Gotta love the obsessive, over-confident attitude; presenting everything as though it were gospel truth, without even a hint of authority to back it up. Classic internet character, but hopelessly derivative.

 

LOL - a CVT designed to handle X torque / load will operate fine just as a standard AT is designed to handle X torque and load. Now if you find people modifying their NA 2.5's and NA 3.6's and getting some sort of magical boost in power and torque both the standard AT's the CVT's and even the Manual transmissions start to have failures unless they are modified to handle the added torque and power they were not originally designed to handle.

The CVT's are not being put in high powered Luxury vehicles because of one simple aspect - they don't feel fast, they lack the decades of association of slamming through gears changes tied to perceived fast performance etc.

I took a few hot rod friends flying in the plane I built as a kid with my grand pops. 190mph cruise speed on 100hp! The perception of speed and performance was lost on them till we took off 10 minutes or later after a typical Cessna 172 and passed them 5 minutes into our flight as if the Cessna was parked for a lunch stop. Cars are funny you can have a very slow car by the numbers but if the vehicle feels sporty and fast people will think its fast even when its not. In reality ground travel is slow and perception of speed is silly given pretty much every street legal vehicle can do the speed limit.

 

LOL - a CVT designed to handle X torque / load will operate fine
just as a standard AT is designed to handle X torque and load.

'Zactly! Once upon a time, affordable belt-style CVTs were
pretty much relegated to sub-50hp apps like snowmobiles.

That was then, this is now. Designs evolve, materials improve,
and electronics that were impossibly expensive 10 years ago
are now cheaper-than-free (i.e., cost less than the mechanical
Rube Goldberg cams, pulleys, linkages that they replace).

Anyhow, the essence of a CVT is its ability to decouple RPM
from MPH. The belt-on-sheave design found in today's cars
is just an "implementation detail."

I'd love to see someone develop an affordable, compact,
light-weight, hydraulic CVT -- like those used to train &
elevate in WWII-era naval guns. That technology offers a
smooth, continuous range from full-ahead to full-reverse
including a 0.0 ratio in the middle -- thus eliminating the
need for torque converters and reverse-gear kluges.

Might also eliminate differentials and transfer cases by
locating the hydraulic motors directly at the wheels.

Google: "hydraulic tilt-plate transmission"

Looby

 

I guess I should trash my H6 since it has HTCVT. According to the previous posts since sixes doesn't, shouldn't, or can't be in today's vehicles. :spin:




Inherently by design CVTs cannot handle torque. Again, that is why Nissan's Murano was downgraded to half of previous towing ability due to CVT.

If CVT was capable of "surviving" reliably high torque engines (V6s and higher or turbo 4s) manufacturers would install them. It has nothing to do with "people dont like them" - plenty of 4 cylinders use them, but only and mostly 4 cyl. To meet CAFE requirements car manufacturers would love to stick them into v6 or v8 applications.

BUT they/CVTs cannot handle it. There is a reason why Toyota and Lexus are staying away from them, and so is to a lesser extent Honda which uses them in 4 cyl applications only until they develop their own (in process) in-house classic 10 speed auto. Acura is using ZFs 8 and 9 speed trannies with outside torque converter. Ford is also (as is GM) working on "classic" 10 speed auto.

No one is seriously counting on CVTs for anything other then light 4 cyl applications, and I will make a prediction that within 5 years Subaru will abandon CVTs.

Future engines will be turbocharged (even Honda and Toyota are moving towards them, Ford is already there but they are unreliable) and CVTs cannot handle the torque.

 

I guess I should trash my H6 since it has HTCVT. According to the previous posts since sixes doesn't, shouldn't, or can't be in today's vehicles. :spin:

Spin is right, as I don't think anybody actually said that.
Consider that you have a unique vehicle which has broken through the price / performance ceiling as a competitive 6 cylinder CVT!
Subaru has succeeded where others have failed.

 

We´re up to seven pages. I am running out of beer!

1. OP is mainly concerned about longevity of CVT with 3.6 motor. Thread title: "2016 OB 3.6 Transmission Question"
2. OP: "... CVTs also cannot tow much presumably because they are so weak."
3. OP: "...due to these transmissions being weak..."
4. OP asks about maintenance on CVTs
5. Posters address maintenance issues
6. OP: "I still think CVT is not the way to go for V6 motors. "
7. OP: "If I knew the CVT can last at least 150k miles I would not worry much and I'd go for it."
8. OP: "I don't think CVTs have major future."
9. OP: "True but with some analysis good predictions can be made. "
10. OP: "In any event it will take years before something so complex as CVT proves to be reliable - if ever."
11. OP: "I will make a prediction that within 5 years Subaru will abandon CVTs."
12. OP: "Future engines will be turbocharged and CVTs cannot handle the torque."
13. OP: "Better fuel economy can be achieved thru clean diesels, diesel-hybrid engines (with over 100 miles per gallon easily achieve as Honda Civic did in Europe)."

I just reread every post here. It´s a very slow day.
Some great information about CVTs. Thanks for the info!!

It is clear the OP does not like CVTs. If I held these beliefs I would not buy a car with a CVT.


I will now go away and look for this mythical European Honda Civic with a diesel-hybrid that gets over 100mpg.

Hurray for internet forums!!!

 

I will now go away and look for this mythical European Honda Civic with a diesel-hybrid that gets over 100mpg.

Hurray for internet forums!!!

Read Jalopnik's and other article of the very realy Civic with 100 miles per gallon. Go thru European car web-sites in Europe and check the mileage of various diesel engines.

See? You learn something new every day. >

This*100 MPG*Honda Is The World's Most Efficient*Wagon