I believe that the CVT is cheaper to produce than a conventional trans. Notice that Honda puts then in a Civic and Accord but not in Acura cars.
The Subaru Outback Wins
- Thread starter gettinlm
- Start date
I believe that the CVT is cheaper to produce than a conventional trans. Notice that Honda puts then in a Civic and Accord but not in Acura cars.
Yes, CVT < AT < Dual-clutch.
CVT can definitely improve efficiency, in town and on the highway, when the best ratio is selected such that the engine uses less fuel compared with AT, which often requires a gear ratio which is slightly less optimal. For example, on a mild incline a CVT can choose the best ration where a 6AT will be forced to choose between 6th, which provides too little torque and 5th which provides too much torque and uses more fuel.
When accelerating, CVT can choose the point the engine's peak efficiency and keep it, where as a traditional automatic is more often off the peak efficiency because it has to vary engine RPM. Obviously, CVTs which choose to imitate traditional gears loose on efficiency when doing that, but they do that only on mild throttle application, not when driving in constant speed (or close to it) nor WOT.
However, CVTs have efficiency drawbacks as well. They have more friction losses in high RPM than traditional AT. To operate, they require a high pressure oil pump, which saps power and reduces efficiency. Modern CVTs have special pumps which automatically increase pressure on demand, such that they require less energy to operate on steady-state.
Drivers complain mostly about droning, when the engine is kept at constant high RPM while accelerating or driving up-hill, and of the rubber-band effect, where there is a delay in acceleration and feeling of flexing/sliding in the transmission. As a previous owner of a Prius, which was my wife's DD, I can tell you it exhibited all the bad things associated with CVTs (though it is actually mechanically different then most other CVTs). It was not fun to drive.
However, from test drives I did on Subaru Impreza and Honda Civic with CVT, I was more impressed with their units. In contrast, I did not like the feel of a Subaru Outback 2.5 I test-drove. It was sluggish and non-responsive. I also did not like the unit in a Nissan Rogue we rented for a few days, especially when driving on a hilly area. It was making much noise and I was hoping it will not break before we need to return it
CVT can definitely improve efficiency, in town and on the highway, when the best ratio is selected such that the engine uses less fuel compared with AT, which often requires a gear ratio which is slightly less optimal. For example, on a mild incline a CVT can choose the best ration where a 6AT will be forced to choose between 6th, which provides too little torque and 5th which provides too much torque and uses more fuel.
When accelerating, CVT can choose the point the engine's peak efficiency and keep it, where as a traditional automatic is more often off the peak efficiency because it has to vary engine RPM. Obviously, CVTs which choose to imitate traditional gears loose on efficiency when doing that, but they do that only on mild throttle application, not when driving in constant speed (or close to it) nor WOT.
However, CVTs have efficiency drawbacks as well. They have more friction losses in high RPM than traditional AT. To operate, they require a high pressure oil pump, which saps power and reduces efficiency. Modern CVTs have special pumps which automatically increase pressure on demand, such that they require less energy to operate on steady-state.
Drivers complain mostly about droning, when the engine is kept at constant high RPM while accelerating or driving up-hill, and of the rubber-band effect, where there is a delay in acceleration and feeling of flexing/sliding in the transmission. As a previous owner of a Prius, which was my wife's DD, I can tell you it exhibited all the bad things associated with CVTs (though it is actually mechanically different then most other CVTs). It was not fun to drive.
However, from test drives I did on Subaru Impreza and Honda Civic with CVT, I was more impressed with their units. In contrast, I did not like the feel of a Subaru Outback 2.5 I test-drove. It was sluggish and non-responsive. I also did not like the unit in a Nissan Rogue we rented for a few days, especially when driving on a hilly area. It was making much noise and I was hoping it will not break before we need to return it
Yes. CVT was invented to save on fuel.
Congrats on your new Subaru. Enjoy your new car!
I'm glade non of the Mazda's in my family do not have any oil consumption issues and they have been reliable. Lets see there is my two CX5's (currently just the 14 Touring), my 2012 Mazda 5, my brother in-laws 2013 Mazda 6, his wife's 2012 Mazda 3, and I cant forget my father in laws 2012 CX9 with the Ford 3.7 V6 too. All these do not consume a drop of oil (dipstick level stays the same between oil changes). My friend at work bought a Subaru Crosstrek with the 2.0 liter boxer engine and his oil light came on last week because it was low on oil. Mmmm, wonder why that is! Naa maybe its just coincidence and it must be something he did wrong. He told me the other day he doesn't like the car because it feels under powered. Too bad because its a kind of nice looking AWD vehicle too.
BTW its my opinion that the Mazda Skyactiv manual like feeling automatic transmission is superior in every way to a CVT especially if you value driving performance and fun. Its truly got all the attributes of what makes a manual feel great without having to do the shifting yourself. Mazda might have the best 4 cylinder naturally aspired engine/transmission combo for its class on the market.
BTW its my opinion that the Mazda Skyactiv manual like feeling automatic transmission is superior in every way to a CVT especially if you value driving performance and fun. Its truly got all the attributes of what makes a manual feel great without having to do the shifting yourself. Mazda might have the best 4 cylinder naturally aspired engine/transmission combo for its class on the market.
Last edited:
One of the worst parts is
I had a 2013 h4 OB and it had lifetime oil changes from the dealer. Notoriously they would insist on overfilling it! That continued even after I called them on it! As far as the CVT goes, Subaru has one of the best and BLEH...not for me!
The drone was very annoying!
I had a 2013 h4 OB and it had lifetime oil changes from the dealer. Notoriously they would insist on overfilling it! That continued even after I called them on it! As far as the CVT goes, Subaru has one of the best and BLEH...not for me!
The drone was very annoying!
In the above sentence, I think you should replace 'might have' with 'has'.
I've heard the oil burning issue has been corrected. Tell your friend to keep close watch on it and take it back to the dealer if it continues.
And nobody is arguing that the CVT is better than any geared transmission. I'm just saying that as far as CVTs go, Subaru's are pretty solid. I don't consider myself a huge auto-guy, but I couldn't tell the difference in the 3.6 Outback. I wouldn't doubt if the wimpier engine Outbacks are guilty of some of the common CVT annoyances. But I found none of those in the 3.6. Buttery smooth, 256 horsies, and 237 lbs of torque. Yes, please! In my opinion, the upgrade in power and AWD is worth the CVT (which, again, I had zero problems with). In comparison, I found the CX-5 to be a smooth and very capable ride, but ultimately a little weak for what we wanted (we wanted one powerful AWD car to compliment our compact wimpy sedan).
Yeah, I hope its just a one time fluke because it would suck to have paid the price of a new car with the oil consumption issues of a used car. He does like the AWD in the snow though especially after that past winter.
Nope because I think this is pretty much common knowledge (and my opinion) but I think CVT's are a good way for a manufacturer to improve fuel economy and boost corporate average fuel economy too. I'm guessing they are cheaper to make than a geared transmission with more then 6 speeds too.
Agreed, Subaru makes some of the best and most reliable vehicles on the market and their AWD systems are legendary. They also score consistently near the top in Consumer Reports testing.
It sounds to me gettinlm like you have done your homework and are okay with the compromises (all vehicles have them) and that the Subaru 3.6 Outback is the best choice for your needs. In the end this is what really counts. The CX5 also is more on the noisy side for NVH in its class and if you're planning on doing a lot of highway driving than its my opinion that you wouldn't be as happy with it as a quieter more plush vehicle like the 3.6 Subaru Outback. I think you've made the right choice!
That 3.6R motor does do wonders for making the car feel good to drive. I can understand that choice for sure.
It certainly doesn't have the power of a 6, but the broad flat torque curve starting at 1500 rpm combined with the excellent 6 speed AT make the CX-5 a very easy car to drive, and it feels surprisingly muscular for a normally aspirated 2.5 L 4 banger.
- :
- '17-6, '21 CX-5
My last ride was a 2011 Outback -
Was great, played the role of my highway/trip cruiser really well, soft cushy ride, plenty of cargo space, fairly quiet interior, no problems in five years of ownership. Last week, I ordered a 2016 OB Ltd but was not happy with the deal from my Subie dealer, and in the past, I've had to wait for months on end while waiting for factory orders on Subaru. AWD is not a critical factor to me since I live in the SE and don't experience the harsh winter weather. Visited a nearby Mazda dealer and was pleasantly surprised when they made me an offer I couldn't refuse........so I wound up with this and canceled my OB order -
2016 CX-5 GT w/GT Tech Pkg in Deep Crystal Blue
Have yet to take a trip with it (just got it last week), but I can see already I'm falling in love. But having owned two OB's in the past that served me well, I wouldn't hesitate to get another one in the future........that is if I can get a freakin' deal on one!
Was great, played the role of my highway/trip cruiser really well, soft cushy ride, plenty of cargo space, fairly quiet interior, no problems in five years of ownership. Last week, I ordered a 2016 OB Ltd but was not happy with the deal from my Subie dealer, and in the past, I've had to wait for months on end while waiting for factory orders on Subaru. AWD is not a critical factor to me since I live in the SE and don't experience the harsh winter weather. Visited a nearby Mazda dealer and was pleasantly surprised when they made me an offer I couldn't refuse........so I wound up with this and canceled my OB order -
2016 CX-5 GT w/GT Tech Pkg in Deep Crystal Blue
Have yet to take a trip with it (just got it last week), but I can see already I'm falling in love. But having owned two OB's in the past that served me well, I wouldn't hesitate to get another one in the future........that is if I can get a freakin' deal on one!
Its too bad they put the 2.0L in the new Miata. Should have been the 2.5L with a stick.
That thing will be blast even with the 155HP 2.0. Keep in mind it weighs 2000 lbs and has a 50/50 weight distribution.
Not only that but it has about half the aerodynamic drag vs. CX-5 so it's performance above 80 mph should be quite satisfying.
People who think "sport" is all about big HP numbers probably won't even test drive the new Miata.
I think you're greatly overestimating how aerodynamic the Miata is.
It's more "slippery" than the much much larger CX-5, but not as much as you would think by looking at them.
According to this test the miata is "drag limited" to 129MPH top speed.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-mazda-mx-5-miata-club-test-review
The 6MT cx-5 tops out at 123MPH
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-sport-manual-test-review
The 6MT Mazda 3 tops out at 131MPH
The Miata also only gets "34MPG" HWY. You can partially blame that on gearing, but small convertibles just aren't that aerodynamic.
That's a good observation. I just assumed it would have a lot smaller frontal area due to less width and height but it looks like the Mazda 3 might beat it. I guess the new Miata was optimized more for space and a muscular look than aerodynamic slipperiness. Even so, the small mph differences in their drag limited top speeds can be misleading for a number or reasons. But having seen these figures it's apparent that higher speeds are not the Miata's forte.
However, the top gear roll-on from 50-70 is dramatically better than the CX-5 (8.5 sec. vs. 14.3 sec). Partly due to weight and who knows how much different gearing plays into it.
