I don’t know about the value but don’t forget that if your CVT grenades you have an option to get one out of a junker. Sometimes Subaru Corporate will also give you a discount off the bill.
Furthermore, if you consider you have a solid car worth “x” and in 10-15 years it is “x-CVT”, you can replace the CVT as described above even though it may be close to the cost of “x”, but it would still be less than another $35k-x car payment.
Pilot
You are right about the availability of used transmissions.
Provided you find and get a good one, you would be saving a lot.
Actually you could buy several bad ones and still come out ahead compared to the ridiculous cost of a new CVT.
I also agree with you regarding replacement on your own car.
Provided the rest of the vehicle is in good shape, it would make sense to repair it if it was your car.
Your cost benefit equation seems right to me.
That won't make it a bargain for a used car buyer, especially if they are buying a car out of warranty.
We will see if that has a negative effect on resale, but if you look around on the web, you will find a lot of people who already won't even consider a car with a CVT because of replacement cost.
Regardless of the benefits of a CVT, one of them is not longevity compared to a more conventional gear driven transmission, the later also being more likely to be repaired rather than replaced when there is a problem.
The basic problem with the CVT is that when that chain fails, it fills the case up with lots of shrapnel and destroys parts (the grenade effect), which is why the transmissions are not typically rebuilt due to damage.
One shop mentioned a 95% rate of non-repairable, so they typically don't even check anymore - It's not worth the labor charge to the customer.
It would make a difference if the manufacturer admitted that CVT transmissions require maintenance, even for normal driving, that there are wear parts (the chain and pulleys) and had a MTBF for the wear components such that repairs could be made prior to catastrophic failure.
This would not be unique - Look at the prior scheduled service requirements for engines with timing belts.
What Subaru is advising, in effect, is that the original timing belt should be left on until it fails and destroys your engine, and then you just buy a new one.
To me, it seems ludicrous that a wear part is assumed to last forever when clearly it doesn't.
Likely, sales could be reduced for a several thousand dollar maintenance requirement, but it would still be less than a new transmission.
Which brings us back to the first point... At some time, finding a good, used transmission may no longer be an option if there aren't any being built.
. I noticed some seeping coming from my HT-CVT the TR-690 at 43k. They changed the the faulty seal out ( there was a tsb ) and the seepage stopped. I really hope the CVT lasts.
.
