• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I love the CVT in my Nissan

gorcorps

gorcorps

aka Brandon
It seems like there's a lot more negative opinions about CVTs than positive, but as somebody with limited experience I love the CVT in my Rogue. Honestly it's one of the few things I really enjoy about it. Having a continuous acceleration with smaller engine vehicles takes away a lot of sluggish feeling IMO you get when a standard auto changes gears. In years past I also had to be conscious of where I set my cruise control as the transmission would switch between gears right at ~60, but now I don't have to worry about it. Despite the limited acceleration I do have, I don't feel as limited merging on the highway because I'm not fighting my way through the gear changes to get up enough speed.

I understand there's issues with more powerful cars, but is that the only beef there is? For slower cars I think it's a great option from what I've felt. I just don't get all the opinions that it "feels off". Is there anybody else out there who actually likes it?
 
It takes a bit to adjust, but I don't mind it too much. I think it works best if automakers take efforts to make sure it doesn't drone too badly in the cabin.
 
Took a little getting used to on our Murano, but now....no problem and works quite well. So far it's handled towing an ~2700# boat/trailer combo without problem, incl. a 1200 mile trip through a moderate snow storm as I crossed Ohio, PA and NY via I-90 last winter.

No complaints at all so far, and while I've only used it ~24K miles, cannot imagine situations in which I'd be less than pleased with its performance.
 
:thumbsup:

My co-worker and I were impressed with the CVT in a Nissan Altima we rented for a business trip. I think Nissan is doing it right.
 
feels "off" because it kind of does the opposite of what people are used to. You hit the gas and the revs go up very quickly and just fall. You expect them to rise, and you expect a shift... neither happen
 
Except for the high engine noise when accelerating hard, i.e., merging on to an interstate, I like the CVT tranny in my 2008 Versa SL.

According to the shop manual Nissan recommends not replacing the trans fluid unless the "CVT Fluid Deterioration Number" on their Consult II computer program exceeds 210,000. Not sure what this number refers to.
I had my Versa checked at 60,000 miles and it read 9400. My driving habits are about 80% highway, 20% city.

The shop manual also states:
If towing a trailer, using a camper or a car-top carrier, or driving on rough or muddy roads, inspect CVT fluid deterioration with CONSULT-II every 60,000 miles (96,000 km), then change CVT fluid NS-2 if necessary. If CONSULT-II is not available, change (not just inspect) CVT fluid NS-2 every 60,000 miles (96,000 km). Using transmission fluid other than Genuine NISSAN CVT Fluid NS-2 will damage the CVT, which is not covered by the NISSAN new vehicle limited warranty.

Nissan has extended the CVT trans warranty on 2003-2010 Murano; 2007-2010 Versa SL, Sentra, Altima and Maxima; 2008-2010 Rogue; and 2009-2010 Cube to 10 years/120,000 miles, whichever comes first.
http://www.nissanassist.com/faqs.php?menu=3
 
I love the CVT in my Outback. I would now consider a traditional automatic a negative in any future car purchase decision.
 
I had one in a Nissan Maxima rental a year or so back. Very linear power delivery, reminded me almost of an electric motor.
 
I had a Maxima rental a few months ago with the CVT. I found it strange but I imagine I could get used to it. I have pretty much only owned manual cars, so the CVT made for a particularly sharp contrast with a stick, but in general it worked fine and I imagine most non-driving enthusiasts would like it relative to a conventional automatic.
 
Last edited:
CVT's no longer seem to have an advantage over the multispeed autos, though.

I wonder if CVT's will be around much longer?
 
I think what he means is if you compare a CVT to say the 8-speed autos in some of the German cars is there still a big advantage? Maybe ability to handle lots of torque? Or maybe there's a packaging advantage?
 
NutBucket said:
I think what he means is if you compare a CVT to say the 8-speed autos in some of the German cars is there still a big advantage? Maybe ability to handle lots of torque? Or maybe there's a packaging advantage?
Click to expand...

I'd bet a CVT is smaller, lighter, and has fewer moving parts compared to a 7 or 8spd auto.
 
I've got the 2012 Subaru Impreza with the CVT. It didn't take too long to get acclimated to, coming from driving a 4-speed automatic Elantra. The main differences that I noticed, though some of this may be the transmission in general, and not specifically the CVT:

- Can't coast down hills like on the Elantara. Coasting downhill on that was like being in neutral. The Impreza gives a bit of engine braking.
- Flip-side of that: Cruise control is reasonably effective when going downhill. Not so with the Elantra. Set cruise to 40, then go downhill and speed up until the wheels fly off. It also does a hell of a lot better than the Elantra at maintaining speed when going uphill. The Elantra could dip from 65mph to 55 or 50 before trying to gently upshift. The Impreza just gradually boosts the rpms and the ratio and holds the speed.
- Push gas, car goes. If it's still trying to figure out what gearing ratio to settle on, the car will still at least start moving. The Elantra would sometimes lag a bit while trying to make up its mind between 1st and 2nd gear. Paddle shifters or manual mode can get it flipped into a ratio faster, though stumping the gas pedal harder is also pretty effective.
- I've noticed that the engine does sound a bit different than the Elantra. That might be the CVT, the Boxer engine, or both. I'm certainly not clamping my hands over my ears or anything. It's like any car, the engine makes some sounds.

- It takes its sweet, sweet time to flip the mechanism from Reverse to Drive. Back up, stop, shift to Drive....wait......wait............ok, now you can go.



After driving that for several months, I was visiting my sister in another state, and drove her car. It's a regular automatic transmission. That just felt so weird having static gearing ratios again, and that little lull in power when it was shifting.
 
Last edited:
JCH13 said:
I'd bet a CVT is smaller, lighter, and has fewer moving parts compared to a 7 or 8spd auto.
Click to expand...

How is the reliability?

I have 120,000 miles on my Maxima which is 9 years old and have never had any trouble with the automatic transmission... knock on wood.
 
Zivic said:
feels "off" because it kind of does the opposite of what people are used to. You hit the gas and the revs go up very quickly and just fall. You expect them to rise, and you expect a shift... neither happen
Click to expand...

Odd....my Murano actually revs up very quickly when I plant my foot without the abrupt jerky shifting of a regular automatic. How much have you driven a CVT equipped vehicle, Zivic?


JulesMaximus said:
Advantage? Fuel economy is about the only advantage I know of. Is slushyness an advantage? 😛
Click to expand...


No, but my Murano has no slushyness I can detect, esp. if I pop it into sport mode. But in either mode, regular drive or sport mode, plant the foot and it'll hang at ~6200 rpm until it either runs out of steam or I lift.....and do it quickly. And, just as I posed the question to Zivic, how many CVT equipped vehicles have you spent time driving?
 
Meghan54 said:
Odd....my Murano actually revs up very quickly when I plant my foot without the abrupt jerky shifting of a regular automatic. How much have you driven a CVT equipped vehicle, Zivic?
Click to expand...

That's been my (limited) experience also. Even as a 'car guy' I was impressed.
 
Meghan54 said:
Odd....my Murano actually revs up very quickly when I plant my foot without the abrupt jerky shifting of a regular automatic. How much have you driven a CVT equipped vehicle, Zivic?

No, but my Murano has no slushyness I can detect, esp. if I pop it into sport mode. But in either mode, regular drive or sport mode, plant the foot and it'll hang at ~6200 rpm until it either runs out of steam or I lift.....and do it quickly. And, just as I posed the question to Zivic, how many CVT equipped vehicles have you spent time driving?
Click to expand...

I rented a Murano for a few days one time I and was impressed with how it drove actually. I also drove a Nissan Versa as a loaner just to get from the dealer to work and back.

Wasn't crazy about the Versa but the Murano was fine.

I drove a Ford 500 a while back and didn't like the CVT in that car at all. This was my first experience with a CVT though.

I've also driven the Lexus hs250h.

FYI-Enthusiasts frequently refer to automatic transmissions as a slushbox. 😉
 
I'm not a fan, but virtually every one of my cars has always been manual only, which is kind of the polar opposite.
 
I have a CVT in my '07 Altima, and it's not too bad. I'm very used to the engine braking effect that you get in it, which actually causes me to hypermile like I'm in a Prius. For those of you foaming at the mouth, I still follow my "don't slow down other drivers" rule... so no worries! 😛

The most annoying thing about driving a car with a CVT has to be that most other cars don't have a CVT. When accelerating from a stop light, I usually keep my acceleration in tandem with the car in front of me. The only problem is that when he shifts from 1st to 2nd, his car will lag a bit. Since I have a CVT in my car, I don't get that lag, which means I need to let off the accelerator, or else I'll be giving said CVT-less car a nudge. 😛

Jeff7 said:
- Can't coast down hills like on the Elantara. Coasting downhill on that was like being in neutral. The Impreza gives a bit of engine braking.
Click to expand...

That's because unlike your normal planetary-gear-based automatic transmission, CVTs do not use viscous torque converters. Those torque converters are what allow the usual automatic to roll like that as it does not have a direct mechanical linkage to the engine.
 
You can still get a bit of engine braking with a traditional auto. Just takes higher RPM's.


NutBucket said:
I think what he means is if you compare a CVT to say the 8-speed autos in some of the German cars is there still a big advantage? Maybe ability to handle lots of torque? Or maybe there's a packaging advantage?
Click to expand...

The more speeds, the bigger the trans has to be to handle the same amount of power (generally). You can probably get away with using weaker parts (like smaller clutch packs) on higher gears, though. OTOH, a CVT in a powerful car kind of scares me.

The important thing to note on the CVT 'debate' is, like just about anything having to do with cars: when it was made and who made it.

I drove some of the early, cheaper, CVT's that seemed to cruise endlessly at like 4,000rpm. Horrible. I think most of the newer ones are using 'simulated' gears (and generally just smarter TCM programming) now, which alleviates that. But then I fail to see the point I thought the CVT was made for: fuel economy, by keeping the engine in the most efficient RPM range.

Which makes me think it's now just a penny-pinching measure, rather than innovative new tech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top