[Black21Limited]

I know when I was shopping, I drove a Jeep Patriot and a Jeep Compass (both CVT equipped) and was .. shocked? annoyed? pissed off? by the way it worked. You put your foot down and the revs climb and climb (relatively quickly) to over 4000 RPM (the engine roaring all the way) until I hit 40 MPH (or whatever) and let off the gas pedal. Even moderate gas pedal pressure resulted in the engine racing to power peak and staying there.

The Subaru CVT only raced to power peak when I was really pushing the pedal ... and then it "shifted" to a different ratio to keep the engine in a better position for power and use.

My mother has a 2007 Dodge Caliber, same basic platform as the Patriot and Compass. The CVT in that acts pretty much the same as the Subaru, but the throttle response is a bit more delayed. I refer to it as the rubber band throttle, becuause that's what it seems like: You press the throttle, and its like a rubber band is pulling the throttle plate open.

The poor E throttle response I think is the most annoying part of the car. Once the engine responds, the CVT works great, like a CVT should, no shift points, keeping the torque where it needs to be. I had to admit, I was impressed with the fuel mileage compared to other comparable cars when they first introduced it, for as much as the engine stays at higher than "normal" rpm.

After 190,000 miles, and 14 years, the engine and CVT are going to outlive everything else on the car. For the Caliber/Compass/Patriot CVT supposedly being a turd, hers has done pretty well. Can't say much about the rest of the car....

 

[Black21Limited]

Just curious if the CVT fluid was ever changed?

No.

Just a little added, when the axle shafts had to be changed, we bought the "dipstick" that was basically a piece of cable with a spot marked on it to fill it to level. But it was maybe a quart or so that was used to top it off. That was years ago, so I don't recall exactly the amount.

 

[Black21Limited]

It is that car: The one you come to realize you never really liked, won't miss much, but the D*MN THING WON'T DIE!

 

[Black21Limited]

Mine does not do any of that. It has more issues with the start stop than anything else. I suppose it's more because I only use enough brake pedal pressure to hold the vehicle and don't press it consistently hard enough. But it seems like sometimes it kills the engine before coming to a complete stop at times.
Shutting off auto stop solves this.

 

[Black21Limited]

For those that remember the Subaru Justy from the late 1980's, it too had a CVT.

I was thinking about those the other day.






Never had that issue with the A604, but then the ones I drove were made after they fixed the bulk of the problems with them. (41TE)
They still had issues in the bigger V6 cars (Dynasty) and some longevity issues when they downgraded it to the 40TE. The best ones were in the V6 Shadow/Sundance, and the later Caravans seemed to go past 200,000 miles.

At least that was my experience with them. IMHO they killed the reliability when they began varying the hydraulic line pressure with engine load to reduce power consumption. (Fuel economy)

I had a 3.0 5 speed Sundance and a co worker had a 3.0 4 speed ATX (41TE)

We put them side by side and hammered them. Neither car had an edge. It was an interesting experiment. The sad part was the ATX got 1 more MPG than the MTX.

By the time they put the 41TE in the neons, that was no longer the case. Whatever they did to them, if you wanted fuel economy and reasonable acceleration, you better get a 5 speed MTX.

But it early on demonstrated the potential that was lurking there, spelling doom for MT cars as CAFE became more important, and the masses didn't want to be bothered learning how to use that 3rd pedal.

Part of the reason I didn't complain too much about the Forester not having an MT option is with the CVT my wife can drive it if need be. My other cars I had/have, if something had happened, where I couldn't drive, we would be stuck, as she has no intention on learning to drive stick. And she grew up on a farm, driving tractors.
















With automatic transmissions... 😑

 

[Black21Limited]

Having driven my wife's '17 Forester, I was impressed how responsive it is, and I hate to admit it, but it at least seemed faster than my 2010 MT Impreza Outback Sport. The Impreza is a 2.5 but 8 to 10 hp less. Not sure on torque. And her Forester got better fuel mileage.

Now, the '17 and the 21 are two different animals. Her '17 seems less refined, the throttle/CVT is a lot more responsive to input. You have to be more conservative on throttle input to maintain a smooth take off. Otherwise it will chirp the tires if you get a bit throttle heavy. Even driving around town at speeds under 40 MPH, it is a bit jumpy.

The '21 seems to be less jumpy, but still puts down the power, just in a smoother fashion. It could also be partially due to the difference between port injection, and direct injection.

Edit: Actually the Impreza and '17 Forester are both the same rated HP, I was thinking the
'17 had 182, but they are 170. It shows how the power is transferred can make a difference in what the wheels see. Usually an MT will do better than an AT, but that was the old days...