CVTs have a reputation of not being reliable. Maybe Nissan has made that reputation, so perhaps it's not a problem among others. The other thing is engine braking, which isn't just a CVT thing, but is usually worse on the CVT cars I've driven. You basically have D, which rolls down the hill as if it's in neutral, or L or B, which slows your car to a 25mph crawl. So which do you choose going down a 6%, 7% or 8% grade for dozens of miles? There is also the fact most CVTs don't have an equivalent to a 1st gear and tend to lack torque, both for taking off and engine braking at very low speeds. We get lots of ice and snow and some times you need to crawl down mountain passes at slower than 25mph. I don't know what you don't like about gearing in an automatic as shifting has only gotten smoother over the years. As long as the car gives you the option to choose your gear, things are fine. If it shifts in and out, then pick the lower one. The thing I mainly like is having options when going down hill. Now not all automatics give you access to choosing any gear you want. I drove a Honda Pilot that didn't, and I thought was an absolute terrible design. It only had like 3 "gears" you could choose out of 6 or so. I don't even thing they related to just one gear and would shift as the computer saw fit. Terrible.
We have a 12 Mazda 5 Grand Touring as our "truck" and a 21 hybrid Sienna Limited (The One to Rule Them All) for everything else. We've had a Maverick hybrid on order for over year but gave up and are going with this combination that is serving us very well. Because of a horribly unreliable Pacifica hybrid (4 fails within first 6 months), we've road tripped across Texas in the Mazda with 5 adults and Christmas luggage with the aid of a cargo carrier. I truly wished Toyota would have made the V this way; such a versatile design. Working: Road tripping in the miles eater (range>550 miles is awesome).
@Isaac Zachary It's too thirsty for current fuel prices, but I could see a late 2nd generation Subaru Tribeca (with 3rd row option) doing otherwise well on your list. That car had the lovely JATCO-derived 5EAT. Same gearbox in the Infiniti G35, Nissan Titan truck and some up-trim Outbacks, among others. It's auto, but it's a great auto for drivers who like control in hilly driving. It was eventually replaced by the Ascent which has considerably better mpg, but none of those are old enough to drop into your price bracket yet.
I think that is mostly Nissan, and that could be because they embraced CVTs early on in the US when the technology wasn't as robust. CVTs are popular in other markets, and been used there for some time. I recall Hyundai having issues with a CVT (Tucson?), but manufacturers can, and had, have issues with any transmission type. The manual of the Sonic generation I had was more prone to failure than the auto. Friend has a 13 Outback he had since 2015 without any CVT issues. Subaru does call for fluid changes more often than the automatics I've had. They also have a 6000 mile oil change interval. I scoffed at the idea of virtual gears for CVTs when they first came out. On the Outback, they do act just like down shifting the autos I've had when on hills. Only seen gear hunting with the 6 speed Camry on the big hill of my commute, so would drop a gear there. The 6 speed Sonic was fine, but the little turbo was likely making more torque at lower rpms. Got to read the owner's manual. Old, non-electronic step autos locked out the higher gears when lower gears are selected. A transmission now might do so, or it might do something else. Some examples. HHR - the M, I, L gears moved the shift points so it stayed in the lower gears longer. In theory, you could reach overdrive in L. Sonic - select a gear in manual mode, and it pretty much stayed in the gear. It would downshift on its own if engine speed got to low, but you saw the gear shift on the display. Camry - sequential mode looked like it was acting like the Sonic, but it worked like an old style auto. Selecting a gear had the system lock out the higher ones. The transmission could shift between the lower ones without giving the driver notice of what gear it was actually in.
I think Nissan CVT's have lousy reliability. But I think that's due to Nissan's CVT being bad and not CVT's in general. Similarly, Honda made a terrible ZF 9 speed Auto for the Honda Odyssey which resulted in lawsuits. I think Honda's 9 speed is bad, not all automatics. The Outlander CVT has a Ds sport mode and an L mode. I rarely use the L mode as you describe as it slows down to 25 mph. I use the Ds sport mode for long hill declines which holds the engine at a higher rpm. Higher trim models may have selectable simulated gears but I don't use them even in automatics that have real gears. I do use the L on a particular steep mountain climb in NH when it snows heavily with traffic. So this is really a knock against both transmission types unless you have simulated or selectable gears which I never use on either transmission types. What gear would you choose in an automatic? I've heard about the first gear thing where there is less torque on a CVT. I don't think I've experienced it. The CVT will apply the appropriate torque as the Prius eCVT. I have been stranded at the bottom of my driveway on icy days but that's due to traction and not torque. I heard the Corolla now pairs a first gear with a CVT transmission. No doubt with more gears and power, automatics are much improved from the 5 speed Civic I last drove. Downshifting is the problem. When one downshifts for more power. 1. The engine screams. It's very jarring for the driver and passengers. On a CVT, the tone will be gradual and rarely reaches the same decibel level. 2. There is an abrupt change in power which makes the vehicle unwieldy. In a CVT, it's a linear and gradual change. 3. There is an rpm for every grade and to maintain that speed on that grade. In an automatic, one would need to shift up and down, sometimes too loud and powerful, sometimes too weak. CVT's are just smoother and more comfortable drive and ride. Maybe if I lived on flatland, it wouldn't matter but there are enough inclines and declines to make a big difference for me. And then there is cost, those 9 speed transmissions are just as complicated and costly to repair and replace as CVT's. So I'm confused at the animosity for CVTs. The only thing I agree with is performance but then just get a manual.
Here's a typical downhill descent in a 6 speed, manual or automatic for me. The top of the pass starts out at a 7% grade with tight hairpin curves. For those I might shift down into second, maybe first if they are 5 or 10mph curves. Then as the curves lessen I may shift up into 5th or even 6th to get up to speed, but then back down into 4th to hold it at say, 50mph. The grades get less for the next couple miles, so I shift into 5th. Then they get steeper for a few more miles, so back into 4th. Then come some more tight turns, so back down into 3rd, or maybe even 2nd, and so on and so forth, all the while using the brakes lightly. I drove commercial class B vehicles all over these mountains and was well aware of all the past accidents that had happened due to drives not knowing how to engine brake. I was also in a minivan that lost its brakes going down a steep mountain pass because the driver (not me, obviously) didn't ever downshift. You can imagine what that felt like. The place I worked at had company cars the executives would take over the passes. The mechanic said he would have to change the brakes on the cars every single time they came back from the city so he ended up putting oversized, drilled and slotted racing discs with large performance ceramic brake pads so he wouldn't have to change them so often, but he never had to replace bus brake because we bus drivers knew how to engine brake. I personally wish they'd make a CVT with infinitely controllable engine braking, maybe with a knob or something. Simulated gearing is ok as long as there are enough choices. But just one or two "L" options aren't enough for my tastes. Let me put it this way, if I have to brake more than about 25% of the time, it's not in a low enough gear for me. In some CVT cars the only option is to put it L and either creep at 20mph or so, or use the accelerator to get down off the mountain in L at a reasonable speed. I still don't get what's so "jarring" or "screaming" about modern day automatics. Modern automatics have more gears closer together. The torque converter acts as a shock absorber and takes up any "jarring" effect. They also do not lose torque at any point, unlike a manual that you have to shift into neutral between shifts no matter what. You don't get any screaming in any vehicle unless you like to drive with the pedal to the metal.
See, that's the thing. I could get something with lots of seats and lots of cargo space. But with the four of us it would mostly be wasted space except on those once in a while exceptions. The Avalon fits us fine, except on those once in a while exceptions when I need to fit more people. So what about a car that sits in the middle of both extremes? I can pull a trailer with about the same capacity as a Ford F150 pickup bed behind the Avalon. Hell, I've hauled a full sized upright piano with my Avalon and trailer down a 65mph highway! I imagine I could do the same with the MAZDA5. A cargo carrier is also always an option. Tying grandma in her rocking chair to the top of the vehicle isn't.
I see what you mean by going downhill. I've never experienced a need for the engine braking you describe. L and sport mode have provided me enough finesse, although, infinitely controlled engine braking is nice. Many EV's have that control for regen braking. On going uphill, that's the thing, I don't drive pedal to the metal but when there is insufficient power to maintain speed, one has to press down on the accelerator causing a downshift. Where the engine was calm at 2000 rpm is now north of 4000 rpm 1 or 2 gears up. More gears just means it downshifts in multiples. Helps, but doesn't solve the issue. On a manual, at least I can deal with the noise and leave in gear. In an automatic, it violently downshifts causing a surge of power like the car is trying to get away from me. The issue is magnified in small 4 cyl engines which is the norm when one wants to maximize fuel economy. I dislike simulated gearing in CVT's as Nissan has done to appease people who don't like CVT. It seems people who don't like CVT have their reasons and putting in gears just annoys people who already made the switch like me. I've been very happy with my Outlander and looked forward to the next model but unfortunately, the new Outlander and Rogue are based on the same platform and share the same engine and simulated CVT gearing. It brings back the violent downshifts and defeats the purpose of a smooth power delivery. Apparently, we're polar opposites in transmissions and mountain driving style. At least we both agree manuals are the best. Good luck on your search.
A CVT that has virtual gears for the sake of acting like an automatic is pointless. The Outback CVT does have 'gears', but not for that reason; no simulated shift points. They appear to shift the rpm target the CVT aims for. Haven't the need to try them out while accelerating, but when going down hill, they allow control of engine braking.
Exactly. I don't mind the way a CVT "shifts" going uphill. The idea behind them is very good, and I might even slighly prefer them to any geared shifting. Adding pseudo gears to a CVT for anything other than engine braking is plane stupid. I still don't see modern day automatics as being harsh or noisy. Automatic gear seeking is the only thing that bothers me on modern day automatics, albeit modern day automatics actually seem to do it less than older ones. But if it happens, that can easily be solved if the shifter has the controls to either lock it into a particular gear or limit it to the lower of the two gears it keeps seeking between. Old automatics (circa 1990's and earlier) did do a lot of harsh shifting at times, and I hated it a lot. But I haven't seen in a long time an automatic that will, say, suddenly break traction and spin the wheels from downshifting, even on extremely icy and snowy conditions going up a steep mountain pass with 2WD and plane old all season tires. That kind of jerking around is a thing of the past in all the automatics I've been in. I still prefer a manual, as the control is fun, the risk of harsh shifting is 100% completely removed, unless you feel like it, and there are still a lot of things you can do in a stick shift you can't do in anything else: rocking your way out of deep snow, for an example. But regardless, it's the control going downhill that I want. If a CVT has infinitely variable ratios going up hill, why can't that be made available for going downhill? Granted, ideally every vehicle would be an EV or hybrid with a battery big enough to soak up all that downhill energy through regenerative braking. But I don't have $50,000 for some hybrid minivan, so that's out of the question for me.
I like the idea of CVTs, not yet thrilled with reliability. I thought the fake gears in modern CVTs were a nice software fix to a perceived problem ...But for the love of all that is holy why isn't there a button to enable/disable the pseudo gears?
Well I had the family crammed in the Avalon with another couple, 6 total. about a 6 hour trip. One child was in a child's seat taking up a lot of the back seat. If I had anymore room we could have taken two more people. I'm thinking of selling the Prius and getting a minivan. I don't care what minivan, but if I find anything with a manual transmission I'll get that as long as it seats at least 8 and is affordable.
Well, it seems my budget allows for either a 10-year-old Mitsubishi Outlander with 100,000 miles or some minivan with nearly 200,000 miles on it and still no money to spare, or one with 300,000 or more miles on it in need of an engine, suspension, brakes, and/or transmission. Looking at bang for buck, it seems I would be paying more in the long run for a used van than a new van right now, but I don't have the money for a new van.
Maybe that's where I should start. Put it up for sale and see. The car cost me $300. I still need to replace a wheel bearing, but have the part, tools and manual to do it. Now I just need the time. The windshield is cracked up and the hood has hail dents. Mileage 215,000. Check engine light comes on due to bad catalytic converter. Used or non-California compliant cats are not allowed to be sold here in the state anymore. Burns oil. But if I could get a couple grand, that would be good I guess.
Yea - pretty sure 6'-11" is average size for mazda manufacturer employees. Our 4yr old plug in Pacifica has under 21,000 miles on it. That doesn't mean it hasn't seen hard miles. It did 3 interstate trips - last one during winter. 1,250 miles over the contental divide ... parts over 80mph & parts below 0°f. Fully loaded plus trailer hitch luggage rack. Even so - when averaged with 80+% trips of no more than its 33 electric miles - the lifetime mpg is currently around 64.4mpg at last glance. Yea it's pricy like most all plugins. But it'll hold 4X8 sheets of plywood or drywall etc when the back 2 seat rows are stowed - & with the outrageous gas prices? It working fine.
I just found my dream van. But I'm still kind of on the fence. 1991 Toyota Previa, 8 seater, AWD, 5 speed stich shift. The van looks impecable inside and out, at least in the photos. Owner claims it's mechanically sound. But it has 215k miles, is going for $6,000 and is 10 hours away from here.
Agree with @Leadfoot J. McCoalroller on this. I don't care what the seller says, there is no way I put my trust in the 30 years old car to haul my family across the state line. For hauling cargo in and around town only... then maybe.
Well, if that's the case I'll probably just stick with the Avalon and the Avalon only until used prices come down. I don't see myself paying $20,000 on a vehicle with 150,000 miles on it and that isn't exactly what I want. At that rate I might as well as get a brand new van.
