Yes the combined sales including Hybrids were significant, much more so than CNG. Both had subpar CVTs, 2001-2005, now well documented. Call it what you want but it's a good example of CvT because of the higher volume Hybrid sales. In the case of 2001-2005 Honda CVTs , they are more likely to fail than other Honda trannys. No kidding the CVT brought the results down (even without guessing and even without the granularity), it should be noted that many of the 2001 CVTs failed early enough to be covered under warranty.
But who cares what I think, here are some of Honda's own words from TSB 07-050 (dated 02/05/08), lol this should inspire confidence:
Because of a class action settlement, the
warranty extension coverage for CVT drive belt
slippage on 2002–05 Civic GXs and HXs with CVT,
2003–05 Civic Hybrids with CVT, and 2002–05 Insights
with CVT purchased or leased between April 13, 2002,
and November 7, 2006, is 7 years or 105,000 miles,
whichever occurs first. For more information, refer to
Service Bulletin 06-085, Warranty Extension: Vehicle
Warranty Mileage.
On affected vehicles, the CVT (continuously variable
transmission) drive belt may slip during acceleration.
To increase customer confidence, American Honda is
extending the warranty for this potential problem to 7
years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first. This
extended warranty covers only CVT drive belt slippage
and CVT start clutch judder below 15 mph (see Service
Bulletin 07-049, Warranty Extension: CVT Start Clutch
Judder). Any other customer complaints with the CVT
are covered by the normal 3-year, 36,000-mile new
vehicle limited warranty.
Doesn't mean CR data is flawed, it's just best to be aware of strengths at a summary level to determine reliability or as they say "used car verdict" which is very helpful for buyers both new and used.
I fully expect a Tesla sedan to be safer than gas cars owned by most. I know exactly what you mean about hearsay on Internet. But it has little to do with this CVT disucssion, CVT is not new technology like that in the Tesla S.
As I pointed out earlier the CvT has small fuel efficiency advantage consistently. I agree, it's a key contributor to Forrester economy advantage over CX-5. For many potential buyers that advantage outweighs the reliabilty risk based on past history and the slightly less pleasant driving experience. For mainstream automakers it's obvious why CVT is used. Although premium automakers for non hybrid setups use sophisticated 6/7/8+ speed trannys, which happens to be preference of more demanding drivers too.
Yes I would not be scared by new CVTs even if it's still TBD about long term reliability at consumer level. The leading automakers do better durability testing today before first customer shipment. And as I said earlier, history doesn't tell the whole story with new designs, and the latest Subie CVT design (the topic here) may prove itself to have excellent reliability in a couple years, that's what I would expect for a new design in a 2014/2015 model.
I personally avoid CVTs in non-hybrid applications more because of driving experience, preferring what Mazda and the premium car makers have selected for transmission offerings. But I do understand that the tolerance of individual drivers is different and the desire for fuel efficiency as a top priority.
