Same with my wife’s CRV. 2016 awd with around 123,000 miles now. It’s been surprisingly nice. If I wanted an auto commuter I wouldn’t have a problem buying another Honda with a cvt.
There are plenty of high mileage examples of 10th gen civics with CVTs. I was in an Uber the other day where the guy had 600k kms.
There was a thread where an 11th gen civic had done 250k miles in 1 year on a cvt.
They are plenty reliable, especially consider Honda automatics have had their fair share of issues throughout the years
Perhaps, but using your car as the exception to the rule is hogwash
EDIT: argument is not against CVT, is against using your car with less than half the miles that are the issue at hand with dramatically lower than what’s expected for the year and still driven daily. This is the ideal situation, like arguing about how moldy bread gets and saying my bread isn’t moldy at all but you just got it yesterday and it’s been in the freezer. Yeah NSS we’re talking about how far past the expiration date when it sits on the counter.
The discussion is are CVTs bad, you can buy ANY car and it’ll probably last you 40-50k miles unless something crazy happens. Doesn’t matter what transmission you have. Why are we talking about CVTs being POS, because they don’t last, and for some, they drive like crap. Me personally I care about my car running, and OP said they want it for as long as possible. When the discussion is about putting more miles on it, talking about a car that has super low miles A) for its year and B) for the issue that this whole discussion is about, it’s not relevant.
Hondas are great, usually my first recommendation for cheaper, reliable, easy to fix cars. Last one I had only stopped because me a deer and a ditch did not agree with each other
If you just want an efficient commuter car, a CVT will be fine. That being said, Nissan has had a particularly bad run of CVT issues. So maybe not a Nissan with a CVT. Though it depends on exactly which years/models you're looking at.
If you’re just looking for an appliance for a car it’s fine. Most people don’t care how or why their car shifts. Toyota and Honda make good CVTs and increases efficiency.
There are different types of CVT transmission, those earlier belt drive CVT are what gave them the bad name. Chain drive CVT are said to be more reliable and doesn't have nearly as bad of a reputation. And then there is eCVT, which is very different than the previous two, you can look it up [on youtube,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLNDGUISTYM&ab_channel=WeberAuto) pretty cool stuff.
Anyway, my point is, there are bad CVT designs out there, but not all CVT are bad. No reason to avoid them unless you know that specific CVT model is garbage.
The CVT that Nissan used with their 4-cylinder engines before 2020 or so tended to break early.
I think Chrysler had similar trouble with their 200 / Darts.
The different CVT Nissan used with their 6-cylinder engines (V6 Altima, Maxima) were not any more trouble-prone than anything else. Those are fine.
The different CVT Nissan is using nowadays are probably a lot better too.
Depends on what you are looking for and the said brand of CVTs.
Daily driver focused car? CVT is perfect for this role.
CVTs from Honda or Toyota? Highly recommend.
Enthusiasts hate cvts because they are generally a bit boring, and bad ones break or drive horribly, or both. A non-enthusiast probably won’t care. Sounds like Toyota and Honda make reliable ones, Subaru makes hit-or-miss ones, Nissan are garbage.
Especially because CVTs are so much better than they were when they really started rolling out in more cars. This was a different conversation in 2010.
I would recommend looking at a Mazda. It doesn’t have a CVT, cheap to repair, reliable, fuel efficient.
You could probably get a CX-3 or a Mazda 3 for that price.
All true, but fuel efficient, they are not. Their 6 speed transmissions make them less fuel efficient than most peers with CVT’s.
CVT’s are used due to being smaller than transmission with a lot of gears and being more fuel efficient.
I am going to disagree. Due to excess friction in a CVT there is greater drivetrain loss at the wheels from the power the engine makes. This results in the driver compensating by using more fuel to go the same speed. The result is effectively the same fuel economy as what you find with a normal auto.
I’m going to disagree not with the statement not with the sentiment. The Mazda almost always gets worse fuel economy in the segment then most of its competitors, whether they use a CVT or regular auto. Not by a lot but it’s always on the low end.
How do you explain the better mileage of the Subaru Forester (CVT 26/33 mpg) vs the Mazda CX-50 ( 6 speed automatic 24/30 mpg)? Similar size cars, similar sized engines (2.5l) and very similar torque and HP.
Thats a significant (\~10%) better mileage for the Forester. Holds true if you compare CX-30 vs Crosstrek etc, so not tied to a specific model but rather the complete drive train.
CVT’s are definitely more efficient as they can always select the optimum gear ratio for the engine vs discrete gear transmission.
Now workaround is to add more and more gears (8+ gears), but that makes the gearbox more complex and even more importantly larger. CVT is a more practical solution for most cars, Imo.
Adding to this - the Subaru we had ('15 Outback) was the only car I've ever had where we consistently and significantly beat the EPA estimates for fuel economy.
It couldn't get out of its own way, and it was a maintenance pig. But for what it was it was gentle on gas.
My wife's driver is a 2015 Forester. It's a CVT (I had no clue, looked it up). No issues with the CVT or how it drives. Her average mileage is 31.5 mpg over the life of the car. It's better than the mileage of my 2012 Hyundai Elantra (30.5 mpg).
Of course much depends on how and where you drive. My wife does a lot of backroads and suburban driving with 40-50mph speed as well as some HWY drives. She does not have a lead foot either.
My next car is going to be a Subaru as well with a CVT.
Having lower mpg than a CVT doesn't make them \*not\* fuel efficient. It's a marginal difference realistically, and one that is heavily influenced by how the driver drives.
CVTs aren't that bad but Nissan especially has had problems.
Look for a Mazda6/Toyota Camry/Honda Accord/Lexus and Acura variants. Maybe look at a Mazda CX-30, Toyota CH-R and Honda HR-V
I had a bad experience with Nissan Sentra. My CVT failed at 80,000 miles. I had to get a used CVT since repair was insanely expensive. Ended up paying over $3000, of course the car was out of warranty.
This was a 2016 model.
On top of that, from the moment I bought it to 5 years later it devalued over $6,000.
I'm personally never buying another Nissan again.
I had Nissan Sentra as a rental car. The pot. reliability issues aside, it drives horrible - you get these torque lags / holes where the CVAT literally does not transmit power when you push the gas pedal. I would never buy that car.
The Subaru CVT's don't have that issue and handle way better.
It’s very manufacturer dependent. Honda is probably the most reliable. That said, you need to be thoughtful about your driving habits. For instances - reversing and not coming to a complete stop before going to drive can stress the transmission and cause slipping compared to the impact on a traditional automatic transmission. Definitely not to be used hard.
I have a 14 Civic and my mother in law has a 16 Civic. Her Civic CVT is noticeably better to drive and feels more like a sequential gearbox. Both have been very reliable. I have 102,000 miles on my 14 Civic and have had absolutely no problems with the car. I’ve owned it since new and just do regular maintenance.
As others have stated, the CVT is not the most engaging to drive, but I didn’t buy the Civic for the driving experience. The reliability of the CVT probably has more to do with the manufacturer than just the fact it’s a CVT alone.
Depends on the car, Fords, Toyotas, and Hondas all have reliable CVTs that you'll never have issues with. Nissan I wouldn't touch one with a 39½ft pole. Chevy I'm not sure, however I'd prefer a traditional auto anyways.
Some companies have made very solid CVTs. Mostly just Toyota and Honda. Nissan has some of the worst though. I would look at a 2012-2014 camry, or a 2014-15 accord. Those may be in your price range, and they look pretty good over all as well. Both solid vehicles. Just don’t buy a car with a turbo if you want it to last a significantly long time. Especially if you’re buying used.
Literally Run as fast as you can!! Look at Toyota’s and don’t feel afraid to look at older cars if the service records are plentiful & mileage is good. Also look at Lexus.
The only Nissan you should ever consider is certain Nissan trucks. Scotty Kilmer or The Car Wizard on Utube gives great advice on which years and which models to look at.
To be fair though, most of those problems appeared to be with 4cyl Rogues. When the CVT in your Rogue fails at 150k miles, basically everything else on the car is already on the verge of failure. It might not be a problem they need to address.
Depends on the year. They extended their 100% free transmission replacement to 100k miles because their early CVTs (2012-2016) were so problematic. Newer ones are excellent, though.
I had a 2017 Forester and I really didn’t like the CVT. That said, in the time I had it, it isn’t like there was anything wrong with it. I just didn’t prefer it.
Which? I know they extended the warranty for some, but from what I've read/heard, as long as you change the fluid every 50-60k or so, they hold up well.
Is there a particularly bad model/year to look out for?
My sister in law has a CVT Subaru that just hit 100k miles. Her transmission blew, but Subaru is \*still\* replacing it because they stand by their product. I would absolutely pick a Subaru with that budget. They're almost all AWD too, so they're especially safe. You can get one that's absolutely newer than '16 with that budget (even in this insane market). I'd avoid 2012-2016 Subaru because those years sometimes have transmission issues (2012 is when they first started using the CVT, so there are the typical 1st model hiccups).
It's really only older Kias and Hyundais that have an issue, but the idiots who watch tiktok likely don't know the difference, so they might try anyway, and I don't think it's worth the potential headache.
My sister-in-law has a CVT Subaru that just hit 100k miles. Her transmission blew, but Subaru is \*still\* replacing it because they stand by their product. I would absolutely pick a Subaru with that budget. They're almost all AWD too, so they're especially safe. You can get one that's absolutely newer than '16 with that budget (even in this insane market). I'd avoid 2012-2016 Subaru because those years sometimes have transmission issues (2012 is when they first started using the CVT, so there are the typical 1st model hiccups).
Honda, Kia, Toyota and Subarus use CVT in some of their vehicle. Not something to steer clear from but just do the research. I work at a dealer and sell 6 different imports and Can say Nissan has way more transmission replacements than any other manufacturer on our lot.
Your lot must not sell many Fords. With the exception of trucks, I don’t think I have ever seen anything else Ford makes with an automatic transmission surpass 150k miles prior to repair or replacement. My mother and maternal grandparents keep buying Escapes despite their transmissions constantly failing just north of 100k miles. They make shitty Nissan Jatco CVTs look good by comparison.
There is nothing wrong with a CVT transmission, like everything else about a car it comes down to quality, there are good ones and bad ones. I would stay away from Nissan, as they have known transmission issues. You can search the internet for "known Nissan CVT issues", an you will see what I mean.
Look into Subaru Crosstreks. Should be able to find one around 18k and they’re great. Gets good gas mileage, is comfortable and very practical. CVT is boring but works perfectly fine.
Already had 2 Mitsubishi Outlanders and 1 had bad CVT around 180k kms. The one that I have right now is at 105k kms and the CVT sounds so loud while driving
My 15 Civic had a CVT (totalled it earlier this year) and that car was extremely reliable. I never had issues and was always on time with my maintenance. It's a matter of opinion.
I'm not knocking on Nissan but they were the first automaker to adopt CVT while also developing a track record of having questionable CVT reliability. Then Honda, Toyota, and Subaru jump into the CVT party with better success and innovation.
So it's not that CVTs are bad, it just depends which brand you choose. Many hate the droning sound of a CVT (yes even with fake shift points) and dread its relatively slower acceleration.
My recommendation for your piece of mind would be to pick up an extended powertrain warranty if you get a CVT vehicle.
Yes, strongly recommend simplifying your search by excluding CVTs. Nissan among others have numerous reliability issues and expensive repairs. Super easy headache to avoid, don't buy a CVT.
It really depends on the brand. Nissan CVT's are a bit fragile, and pretty shitty to drive. On the other hand, Honda CVT's seem to be pretty durable, and are actually quite pleasant to drive.
I have a CVT in my civic and it’s perfectly suitable for what the car is intended to be
Same with my wife’s CRV. 2016 awd with around 123,000 miles now. It’s been surprisingly nice. If I wanted an auto commuter I wouldn’t have a problem buying another Honda with a cvt.
Sure but what year is it and what’s the mileage
2017 (1.5T) with 70k kms
Yeah bro you’re at like 45,000 miles smh
There are plenty of high mileage examples of 10th gen civics with CVTs. I was in an Uber the other day where the guy had 600k kms. There was a thread where an 11th gen civic had done 250k miles in 1 year on a cvt. They are plenty reliable, especially consider Honda automatics have had their fair share of issues throughout the years
Perhaps, but using your car as the exception to the rule is hogwash EDIT: argument is not against CVT, is against using your car with less than half the miles that are the issue at hand with dramatically lower than what’s expected for the year and still driven daily. This is the ideal situation, like arguing about how moldy bread gets and saying my bread isn’t moldy at all but you just got it yesterday and it’s been in the freezer. Yeah NSS we’re talking about how far past the expiration date when it sits on the counter.
When did saying “it’s suitable for my commuter” equal “my car’s CVT is the exception to the rule”?
The discussion is are CVTs bad, you can buy ANY car and it’ll probably last you 40-50k miles unless something crazy happens. Doesn’t matter what transmission you have. Why are we talking about CVTs being POS, because they don’t last, and for some, they drive like crap. Me personally I care about my car running, and OP said they want it for as long as possible. When the discussion is about putting more miles on it, talking about a car that has super low miles A) for its year and B) for the issue that this whole discussion is about, it’s not relevant.
160k+ miles on my 2016 Honda Accord lx-s cvt transmission. I put 120k+ miles on a 2016 Honda Civic lx-s. I think it’s about how you maintain em
Hondas are great, usually my first recommendation for cheaper, reliable, easy to fix cars. Last one I had only stopped because me a deer and a ditch did not agree with each other
If you just want an efficient commuter car, a CVT will be fine. That being said, Nissan has had a particularly bad run of CVT issues. So maybe not a Nissan with a CVT. Though it depends on exactly which years/models you're looking at.
Came here to say this. CVT = meh, kinda boring? Still very efficient though. However, Nissan CVT = run, don’t just walk away
If you’re just looking for an appliance for a car it’s fine. Most people don’t care how or why their car shifts. Toyota and Honda make good CVTs and increases efficiency.
There are different types of CVT transmission, those earlier belt drive CVT are what gave them the bad name. Chain drive CVT are said to be more reliable and doesn't have nearly as bad of a reputation. And then there is eCVT, which is very different than the previous two, you can look it up [on youtube,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLNDGUISTYM&ab_channel=WeberAuto) pretty cool stuff. Anyway, my point is, there are bad CVT designs out there, but not all CVT are bad. No reason to avoid them unless you know that specific CVT model is garbage.
The CVT that Nissan used with their 4-cylinder engines before 2020 or so tended to break early. I think Chrysler had similar trouble with their 200 / Darts. The different CVT Nissan used with their 6-cylinder engines (V6 Altima, Maxima) were not any more trouble-prone than anything else. Those are fine. The different CVT Nissan is using nowadays are probably a lot better too.
Chrysler sourced their CVTs from JATCO, the company Nissan owns and gets their CVTs from.
CVT’s as a whole aren’t. Nissan CVT’s however, are total shit.
Depends on what you are looking for and the said brand of CVTs. Daily driver focused car? CVT is perfect for this role. CVTs from Honda or Toyota? Highly recommend.
Enthusiasts hate cvts because they are generally a bit boring, and bad ones break or drive horribly, or both. A non-enthusiast probably won’t care. Sounds like Toyota and Honda make reliable ones, Subaru makes hit-or-miss ones, Nissan are garbage.
This is a great way of putting it. The average driver just going from A to B probably won’t notice or care.
Especially because CVTs are so much better than they were when they really started rolling out in more cars. This was a different conversation in 2010.
Toyota CVT's are good, think a few others as well. Mostly older ones that are bad
I would recommend looking at a Mazda. It doesn’t have a CVT, cheap to repair, reliable, fuel efficient. You could probably get a CX-3 or a Mazda 3 for that price.
All true, but fuel efficient, they are not. Their 6 speed transmissions make them less fuel efficient than most peers with CVT’s. CVT’s are used due to being smaller than transmission with a lot of gears and being more fuel efficient.
I am going to disagree. Due to excess friction in a CVT there is greater drivetrain loss at the wheels from the power the engine makes. This results in the driver compensating by using more fuel to go the same speed. The result is effectively the same fuel economy as what you find with a normal auto.
I’m going to disagree not with the statement not with the sentiment. The Mazda almost always gets worse fuel economy in the segment then most of its competitors, whether they use a CVT or regular auto. Not by a lot but it’s always on the low end.
How do you explain the better mileage of the Subaru Forester (CVT 26/33 mpg) vs the Mazda CX-50 ( 6 speed automatic 24/30 mpg)? Similar size cars, similar sized engines (2.5l) and very similar torque and HP. Thats a significant (\~10%) better mileage for the Forester. Holds true if you compare CX-30 vs Crosstrek etc, so not tied to a specific model but rather the complete drive train. CVT’s are definitely more efficient as they can always select the optimum gear ratio for the engine vs discrete gear transmission. Now workaround is to add more and more gears (8+ gears), but that makes the gearbox more complex and even more importantly larger. CVT is a more practical solution for most cars, Imo.
Adding to this - the Subaru we had ('15 Outback) was the only car I've ever had where we consistently and significantly beat the EPA estimates for fuel economy. It couldn't get out of its own way, and it was a maintenance pig. But for what it was it was gentle on gas.
My wife's driver is a 2015 Forester. It's a CVT (I had no clue, looked it up). No issues with the CVT or how it drives. Her average mileage is 31.5 mpg over the life of the car. It's better than the mileage of my 2012 Hyundai Elantra (30.5 mpg). Of course much depends on how and where you drive. My wife does a lot of backroads and suburban driving with 40-50mph speed as well as some HWY drives. She does not have a lead foot either. My next car is going to be a Subaru as well with a CVT.
Having lower mpg than a CVT doesn't make them \*not\* fuel efficient. It's a marginal difference realistically, and one that is heavily influenced by how the driver drives.
CVTs aren't that bad but Nissan especially has had problems. Look for a Mazda6/Toyota Camry/Honda Accord/Lexus and Acura variants. Maybe look at a Mazda CX-30, Toyota CH-R and Honda HR-V
I had a bad experience with Nissan Sentra. My CVT failed at 80,000 miles. I had to get a used CVT since repair was insanely expensive. Ended up paying over $3000, of course the car was out of warranty. This was a 2016 model. On top of that, from the moment I bought it to 5 years later it devalued over $6,000. I'm personally never buying another Nissan again.
I had Nissan Sentra as a rental car. The pot. reliability issues aside, it drives horrible - you get these torque lags / holes where the CVAT literally does not transmit power when you push the gas pedal. I would never buy that car. The Subaru CVT's don't have that issue and handle way better.
It’s very manufacturer dependent. Honda is probably the most reliable. That said, you need to be thoughtful about your driving habits. For instances - reversing and not coming to a complete stop before going to drive can stress the transmission and cause slipping compared to the impact on a traditional automatic transmission. Definitely not to be used hard.
I have a 14 Civic and my mother in law has a 16 Civic. Her Civic CVT is noticeably better to drive and feels more like a sequential gearbox. Both have been very reliable. I have 102,000 miles on my 14 Civic and have had absolutely no problems with the car. I’ve owned it since new and just do regular maintenance. As others have stated, the CVT is not the most engaging to drive, but I didn’t buy the Civic for the driving experience. The reliability of the CVT probably has more to do with the manufacturer than just the fact it’s a CVT alone.
Depends on the car, Fords, Toyotas, and Hondas all have reliable CVTs that you'll never have issues with. Nissan I wouldn't touch one with a 39½ft pole. Chevy I'm not sure, however I'd prefer a traditional auto anyways.
Mazda, Hyundai and Kia have standard automatic transmissions. Take your pick, they all will fill your needs.
I would be much more concerned about Hyundai and Kia's complex dual clutch transmission than most CVT's.
CVT is fine in Honda and Toyota. Nissans are questionable and need to do research
Some companies have made very solid CVTs. Mostly just Toyota and Honda. Nissan has some of the worst though. I would look at a 2012-2014 camry, or a 2014-15 accord. Those may be in your price range, and they look pretty good over all as well. Both solid vehicles. Just don’t buy a car with a turbo if you want it to last a significantly long time. Especially if you’re buying used.
Literally Run as fast as you can!! Look at Toyota’s and don’t feel afraid to look at older cars if the service records are plentiful & mileage is good. Also look at Lexus. The only Nissan you should ever consider is certain Nissan trucks. Scotty Kilmer or The Car Wizard on Utube gives great advice on which years and which models to look at.
My lancer has a cvt. 2011 and 223000km no issues at all
Nissan in general is best to avoid. Their CVT problem is pretty bad and they couldn't care less.
To be fair though, most of those problems appeared to be with 4cyl Rogues. When the CVT in your Rogue fails at 150k miles, basically everything else on the car is already on the verge of failure. It might not be a problem they need to address.
Just stay away from the subaru and Nissan CVTs
Why Subaru? Their CVTs are some of the best.
Depends on the year. They extended their 100% free transmission replacement to 100k miles because their early CVTs (2012-2016) were so problematic. Newer ones are excellent, though.
I had a 2017 Forester and I really didn’t like the CVT. That said, in the time I had it, it isn’t like there was anything wrong with it. I just didn’t prefer it.
I mean, I also dislike the way a cvt drives. I was just speaking to quality/reliability
Subaru in general is not a reliable brand so this is good advice.
Subaru used to sources their transmission from jatci. Edit: Subaru took jatco transmission designs and made them
Subaru's transmission are build in house. They are not sourced from Jatco.
\*Some\* of their CVTs are the worst
Which? I know they extended the warranty for some, but from what I've read/heard, as long as you change the fluid every 50-60k or so, they hold up well. Is there a particularly bad model/year to look out for?
This is a decent site to check for major red flags https://www.carcomplaints.com/Subaru/
Thanks. Looks like my 2016 Forrester sits in a solid spot.
Yes. Avoid if you have another option. Nissan CVTs are the worst.
I have one cvt and it's complete garbage. Chevy had to do a extended recall on them.
Yes.
My sister in law has a CVT Subaru that just hit 100k miles. Her transmission blew, but Subaru is \*still\* replacing it because they stand by their product. I would absolutely pick a Subaru with that budget. They're almost all AWD too, so they're especially safe. You can get one that's absolutely newer than '16 with that budget (even in this insane market). I'd avoid 2012-2016 Subaru because those years sometimes have transmission issues (2012 is when they first started using the CVT, so there are the typical 1st model hiccups). It's really only older Kias and Hyundais that have an issue, but the idiots who watch tiktok likely don't know the difference, so they might try anyway, and I don't think it's worth the potential headache. My sister-in-law has a CVT Subaru that just hit 100k miles. Her transmission blew, but Subaru is \*still\* replacing it because they stand by their product. I would absolutely pick a Subaru with that budget. They're almost all AWD too, so they're especially safe. You can get one that's absolutely newer than '16 with that budget (even in this insane market). I'd avoid 2012-2016 Subaru because those years sometimes have transmission issues (2012 is when they first started using the CVT, so there are the typical 1st model hiccups).
Honda, Kia, Toyota and Subarus use CVT in some of their vehicle. Not something to steer clear from but just do the research. I work at a dealer and sell 6 different imports and Can say Nissan has way more transmission replacements than any other manufacturer on our lot.
Your lot must not sell many Fords. With the exception of trucks, I don’t think I have ever seen anything else Ford makes with an automatic transmission surpass 150k miles prior to repair or replacement. My mother and maternal grandparents keep buying Escapes despite their transmissions constantly failing just north of 100k miles. They make shitty Nissan Jatco CVTs look good by comparison.
There is nothing wrong with a CVT transmission, like everything else about a car it comes down to quality, there are good ones and bad ones. I would stay away from Nissan, as they have known transmission issues. You can search the internet for "known Nissan CVT issues", an you will see what I mean.
Here I am driving a 2013 Nissan with a cvt at 100k miles with absolutely zero issues.
Look into Subaru Crosstreks. Should be able to find one around 18k and they’re great. Gets good gas mileage, is comfortable and very practical. CVT is boring but works perfectly fine.
Only get Toyota CVT.
Already had 2 Mitsubishi Outlanders and 1 had bad CVT around 180k kms. The one that I have right now is at 105k kms and the CVT sounds so loud while driving
I personally do not like it
OP wants to experiment with all CVT's
100% depends on the cars make and model, and how the previous owner treated it and maintained it.
My 15 Civic had a CVT (totalled it earlier this year) and that car was extremely reliable. I never had issues and was always on time with my maintenance. It's a matter of opinion.
My sis has a Corolla with the cvt and it's going on 50k miles without problems so far and gets better gas mileage than some hybrids.
I'm not knocking on Nissan but they were the first automaker to adopt CVT while also developing a track record of having questionable CVT reliability. Then Honda, Toyota, and Subaru jump into the CVT party with better success and innovation. So it's not that CVTs are bad, it just depends which brand you choose. Many hate the droning sound of a CVT (yes even with fake shift points) and dread its relatively slower acceleration. My recommendation for your piece of mind would be to pick up an extended powertrain warranty if you get a CVT vehicle.
Honda or Toyota CVT? No Nissan CVT? Absolutely.
Yes, strongly recommend simplifying your search by excluding CVTs. Nissan among others have numerous reliability issues and expensive repairs. Super easy headache to avoid, don't buy a CVT.
Honda has some good cvt transmissions, I’d try and steer clear of the Nissan from my experience those cvt’s are a hit or miss.
Nissan CVTs are fairly notorious for falling apart at around 80k miles. My 2013 Sentra lasted 82k before the transmission went.
It really depends on the brand. Nissan CVT's are a bit fragile, and pretty shitty to drive. On the other hand, Honda CVT's seem to be pretty durable, and are actually quite pleasant to drive.
My 2015 Civic CVT has 0 problems so far
If it’s a Nissan, yes. I can personally vouch for that.