My car is a 2015 Subaru Outback. It has a CVT, and I really like it. I can if desired use the paddle shifting, but have only wanted to do so to improve engine braking on down slopes.
Yes, it is a bit different. For example, on level ground I can take off from a stop and keep the accelerator pedal at a constant depression. The tach will show a particular rpm for the degree of acceleration I am using, and it will stay in the same range as the engine is operating in the most efficient part of its torque curve for that particular demand.
Smooth, better mileage, and with options for sporty driving. There is a lot to like.
Early Nissan CVT trannies were troublesome, and they had problems with them. But that is not true of other manufacturers. Word from Subaru mechanics is that CVTs are experiencing fewer problems and failures than traditional automatic trannies. I don’t know about Honda, but they had their own problems with traditional transmissions a few years back, so does that mean nobody should buy a 5-speed automatic?
As for 3 MPG, that is a 10 to 15 percent gain. Whether you call that modest or not is certainly a matter of opinion. But it is far from trivial to manufacturers, who worry about tenths of a MPG to satisfy CAFE regs.
Manufacturers are being forced to raise fuel efficiency. Transmission-wise, they either have to add gears or use a CVT. Is there a chance that the new 6-, 7-, 8- and even 9-speed (!!) automatic transmissions might prove to be less reliable than simpler units?
In the end, you choose a car you like, with an engine that is suitable. Sometimes, you have a transmission choice, but most of the time you don’t. There are fewer ad fewer cars even offering traditional stick shifts. Once you choose a car model, the manufacturer has already made the choice of a traditional automatic transmission (with more gears) or a CVT. If you don’t like the CVT, you have to choose a different model of car.
Point taken about the more powerful engines and CVT limitations.
I remember the first time I saw a CVT transmission opened up. It was at a breaker’s yard (AKA junk yard) in England around 1990. I can’t remember the vehicle but thought that the CVT was a brilliant idea.
Just something I learned about CVT’s that I thought I’d pass along. It does not transfer power as a normal belt does by pulling, but by stacking metal plates attached to the belt and pushing the secondary pulley.
One thing I have heard is that the CVT is very expensive to repair. As in 2 or 3X what a automatic would cost. Once they quit, they cannot be repaired, they get replaced, and it might be a $4 or 5K bill. My local mechanic had a Jeep with a CVT sitting behind the shop for 2 years. They owner couldn’t afford the repair, but was still making payments on the Jeep.