Please don't laugh, but I understand from a friend that owns a Vespa Scooter that the Rollers (?) on the CVT need regular replacement (5-10K).

Most manual, and automatic transmissions require minimal maintenance. Does the CVT on the 2015 Fit add an additional maintenance cost? What is the frequency of maintenance of a CVT?

Thanks
Dave

 

Having watched some CVT videos on youtube recently, the CVT should be fine in the low horsepower Honda Fit application. They should have worked out the belt construction by now (appears to be the weak link, belt failure). There is oil lubricating the belt/cone surface, so that might need a flush one day like any other transmission.

Average motorcycles (and scooters) tend to be made "cost effectively" and opt for light-weight materials vs strong materials. However their maintenance (done by one's self) is also very reasonable.

 

I have a GD3 with a CVT. I can tell you from personal experience that there is way more maintenance on a CVT. I change my CVTF every 15,000km. The fluid still looks cleanish at this point, but any further and it really starts to get a dark colour about it. The fluid is super thin like water, not really an oil.
The oil is $80 for a 4L bottle, and the first time I changed the fluid, the magnetic sump plug was covered in metal filings, which scared me a little but every change since then has had no filings.
Also the start clutch in the CVT seems to be a little shit, it has caused lots of issues here in AUS, but this was mainly due to Honda using auto trans fluid instead of the CVTF.
Feel free to ask me any questions about the CVT.

 

Scooter has a variator that uses rollers to push the plate up or down. This has nothing in common with the CVT in an automobile.

 

What a CVT looks like in operation.

 

Honestly I would complain about the crudeness of CVT (squeezing of the complex belt for friction/traction) before DI tech.

 

Keep in mind the CVT in your Fit is a different animal than what's in the all-new 3rd-gen Fit. The Earth Dreams CVT is VASTLY improved. It's much better than any CVT Honda has ever produced. The new belt is an ultra strength belt and overall durability is greatly enhanced while maintenance is expected to be kept to a minimum. There is a special CVT oil that needs to be changed (frequency unknown at this point). As you alluded to one of the main issues with Honda's earlier CVT's was the type of fluid being used.

 

Wouldn't want a cvt. I have a scooter with cvt and I know how vulnerable the belt and the surfaces are to grooves, wear, belt wear, and slipping. It has some advantages (simplicity and low price mainly) but I don't consider it a serious and long-term component for a car that I expect to go for several hundred thousands without major repairs. Manual all the way for me.

 

Someone already stated that the scooter CVT is a different beast.

 

Most manufacture claim CVT's have lifetime fluid. At my shop we do a drain and fill every 30k. Most cars only take 3 quarts to do this.

I do NOT reccomend flushing a CVT.

 

Honda had a CVT (in the US) on their 96-00 Civics (HX, I believe). I don't think the reliability record was that great. I was leery of CVT's until a couple of years ago when we bought a Subaru with a CVT. I am still in the "test" stage, as the car only has 23k miles on it. Some things to keep in mind:

- If you like spirited driving, this is not for you. There is a severe delay in throttle response (which I guess could also be attributed to DBW) and the performance is lacking due to the car dropping out of the powerband (unless in paddle shift mode) on hard acceleration.
- I have heard drivetrain power loss is much more than a typical auto transmission. Not sure on this, though.
- This transmission is made for the purposes of getting the best MPG and delivering a "jerk-free" ride. I really like the "no-shift" transmission. No jerk from going from 1-2-3, etc.

Overall, for the purposes of the car, I preferred the fuel economy and less jerky ride over performance. Maintenance on my Subaru CVT is almost none. Supposed to be checked every 30k miles, but service intervals have no "Replace" marked on the mileage. It is a lifetime part (as mentioned above). I wouldn't be afraid of the CVT as long as you understand its purposes.

 

Noone says it's the same CVT. The similarity is the basic design - belt and conical shape pulleys.

Instead of transferring torque through gear teeth contact (like in a manual transmission), CVT relies on friction of a belt between too pulleys.

This design's main disadvantage is significantly higher wear rates and thus reduced longevity compared to gear driven transmissions.

CVT may be better for efficiency over conventional automatic, it's cheaper to manufacture (hence honda offers other "goodies") but it is at the expense of long term maintenance and repair, which added hassle of replacing the belt and pulleys, makes CVT costlier choice overall.

 

I understand how the CVT keeps revs low and improves fuel economy, but how does it prevent Audis from coming near your car to provide a jerk-free ride?

 

Audi CVT's use a clutch where as hinda is using a conventional torque converter.

 

I wasn't talking about Audi transmissions

 

Subaru CVTs use a chain, manufactured by LUK http://www.schaeffler.com/remotemedi...2010_09_en.pdf ,rather than a belt. My intuition is that it will prove to be more durable than a belt. Macroscopic metal parts vs microscopic ones: who knows. Both designs rely on friction with the pulley surfaces, rather than meshed gears, so there is that inherent inefficiency. Subaru uses it in the new Wrx, so it has lots of torque handling capacity, obviously. Of course, the Honda will be dealing with less torque, so despite using a belt, it may last very well.

One thing that I am pleased with is the fact that both Honda and Subaru have a torque convertor in the drive line, which should help to avoid any jerk/slip damage. Any CVT with a startup clutch would be a no-no for me (the previous Honda CVT).

I sometimes wonder if there is an alternate universe where the type of drive train used in diesel-electric locomotives is used, where there is no direct mechanical connection between engine and drive wheels. Obviously very robust, but perhaps scaling it down to car-size leads to inefficiency. And of course, cost.

 

i guess i'll chime in since i'm an owner of a similar car to the fit with a CVT....overall i have been happy with mine and over 15,000 miles in i have not had one issue with the CVT in my Note. The one thing that i will point out that i'm not sure honda is doing with their CVT, is that the CVT transmission in the Note is actually a hybrid CVT unit where it has 2 actual gears just like in a regular automatic and a compact torque converter. the two gears in the CVT on my Note are a low and a high gear with the CVT belt handling all other ratios in between so from a dead stop the CVT in my car uses the low gear to get going and then switches over to the CVT belt afterwards and once it senses no acceleration, switches over to the high gear for low RPM cruising. Not sure if honda has any press releases for their CVT for the Fit, but it would be interesting to see what type of setup they went with for the CVT in the 3rd gen fit.

 

I've 4 cars here with CVT and not one had any reqiured maintenance listed and indeed one with the most mileage, almost 60,000 miles, has had no maintenance including numerous track sessions. There must be some checks though, like tranny fluid level.Consulting the service manual, it states checking level at service B, and replace every 60k miles, 30k if towed behind an RV, and 30k thereafter. Sounds right. Certainly not a problem area. haven't checked Altima or Toyota manuals but they are probably the same.

 

The CVT in my Accord I'm sure is the same technology as the one in the new Fit and it's fine. I'll admit there is a slightly different feel but not an issue. I also have it in ECO mode 99% of the time only turning that off when I want to do some spirited driving through the mountain highways.

 

Interesting video, which kinda spawned an idea I just started thinking about. Thanks for the video!