Need Opinion: Best 2nd hand CUV at 700k

[tool_46n2]

Re: traditional AT - Are you referring to the 2016 model of the CR-V and CX-5?

On Forester - are you talking about the 2016 FXT?

Sorry for asking these because price is a major consideration

Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tsikot Forums mobile app

Mazda has always been traditional AT. I think they said that they will stick with it and never dabble with CVT or even DCT.

Previous gen CR-V was still using standard AT. Current gen CR-V 2.0 is already CVT, but the 1.6T diesel is the 9-speed AT

Previous gen Forester was the 1st one to use CVT, I think. Even the Forester XT used CVT, just a higher spec version to handle the increased torque.

I have a strong belief for the standard AT ever since BMW M cars started switching from DCT to 8/9speed ZF transmission. (Probably the best transmission overall right now in an Internal Combusion engine).
VolkswagenAudi has traditionally been pushing for DCT in all of their cars, and then came up with the Lamborhini Urus which uses the famed ZF 8speed.

[travajante]

Mazda has always been traditional AT. I think they said that they will stick with it and never dabble with CVT or even DCT.

Previous gen CR-V was still using standard AT. Current gen CR-V 2.0 is already CVT, but the 1.6T diesel is the 9-speed AT

Previous gen Forester was the 1st one to use CVT, I think. Even the Forester XT used CVT, just a higher spec version to handle the increased torque.

I have a strong belief for the standard AT ever since BMW M cars started switching from DCT to 8/9speed ZF transmission. (Probably the best transmission overall right now in an Internal Combusion engine).
VolkswagenAudi has traditionally been pushing for DCT in all of their cars, and then came up with the Lamborhini Urus which uses the famed ZF 8speed.

Well, even ZF couldn't make BMW stick w/ its CVT offering in their R50. Catastrophic failure! They swore never again.
BMW had to go Aisin AT for the MINI.

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

[Egan101]

DO NOT BUY a Subaru Forester if cheap and easy to maintain is one of your considerations ... just don't ...

Any AWD CUV is not cheap and easy to maintain. If most people think that they would spend similar to a small car, then they should stop considering a bigger car.

The same applies to fuel consumption. Most CUVs and midsize cars only get around 6-7 km/l on city routes. If you start owning a bigger car, then expect to spend for more fuel. If you’re not willing to spend, then be happy with a Vios or City.

On a different note, we found it harder to maintain a VW Jetta TDI over a Subaru Forester. On the regular oil needs pa lang, mas mahal na yung sa Jetta TDI. We are still looking for a shop outside casa that can service its DSG tranny when the time comes it needs fluid replacement.

With all the CVT scare, how come most Asian manufacturers still opt for it? Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, and Mitsubishi use CVT for their models. I guess we should stop buying new Vios, City, Jazz, Altis, Civic, HRV, CRV, Impreza, XV, Forester, Sentra/Sylphy, Xtrail, etc. These will not be reliable in the long run since they have CVT trannies. I know Mazda kept on with AT but would most people consider a Mazda3 to be more reliable than a Civic or Altis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[travajante]

On a different note, we found it harder to maintain a VW Jetta TDI over a Subaru Forester. On the regular oil needs pa lang, mas mahal na yung sa Jetta TDI. We are still looking for a shop outside casa that can service its DSG tranny when the time comes it needs fluid replacement.

With all the CVT scare, how come most Asian manufacturers still opt for it? Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, and Mitsubishi use CVT for their models. I guess we should stop buying new Vios, City, Jazz, Altis, Civic, HRV, CRV, Impreza, XV, Forester, Sentra/Sylphy, Xtrail, etc. These will not be reliable in the long run since they have CVT trannies. I know Mazda kept on with AT but would most people consider a Mazda3 to be more reliable than a Civic or Altis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no denying the efficiency of CVTs. A smokescreen, really, as the required care, service & replacement of these trannies will keep jobs secure, dealerships happy. How much does a CVT fluid change episode cost? Every 30-40k km interval....vs an AT on 'lifetime' fluid you can do every 100k for a lil' over Php7k I spent w/ filter & double drain & fill? And when the CVT conks...how much is a new tranny against 1 that's rebuildable? Belt vs gears.....All about commerce, if one won't refuse to see. We're all taken for a ride.
Mazda isn't on the bandwagon as its Skyactiv engine+AT combo can easily give em CVT numbers. They tweaked the engine, raised compression, increased engine efficiency w/o forced induction. The result=less attention & worries.
Reliability? I can only share my experience. Our 7yr old hobo Sky3 ownership is up there w/ the best we've had...better than our old CRV at the same age & kms clocked. Out there & as young as these arw, 300k mi Skyactivs aren't uncommon. I won't expect it be LC80esque, but it has been a non-diva all this time....hope it'll continue to remain 1.

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

[Egan101]

There is no denying the efficiency of CVTs. A smokescreen, really, as the required care, service & replacement of these trannies will keep jobs secure, dealerships happy. How much does a CVT fluid change episode cost? Every 30-40k km interval....vs an AT on 'lifetime' fluid you can do every 100k for a lil' over Php7k I spent w/ filter & double drain & fill? And when the CVT conks...how much is a new tranny against 1 that's rebuildable? Belt vs gears.....All about commerce, if one won't refuse to see. We're all taken for a ride.
Mazda isn't on the bandwagon as its Skyactiv engine+AT combo can easily give em CVT numbers. They tweaked the engine, raised compression, increased engine efficiency w/o forced induction. The result=less attention & worries.
Reliability? I can only share my experience. Our 7yr old hobo Sky3 ownership is up there w/ the best we've had...better than our old CRV at the same age & kms clocked. Out there & as young as these arw, 300k mi Skyactivs aren't uncommon. I won't expect it be LC80esque, but it has been a non-diva all this time....hope it'll continue to remain 1.

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

Travs, we all know your angst against CVT but does that stop people from buying a Toyota or Honda against a Mazda? If CVT is so bad, many such cars would be scrap already.

I bet a lot of members here have cars with CVT. We have three. Jut has two. A few others are happy with their City or Jazz or Vios or Altis.

It maybe the bandwagon now but the same was said of AT trannies of old. Would it go away? Maybe time will tell when we are all driving electric cars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dr. d]

in my view,
only the engineers know the real deal with CVTs.

so, if they are inferior, long-term-wise, to traditional ATs, why are they on the market?
my main theory is, " it's what the buyers want, and the manufacturers are only catering to the market that their advertising campaigns have created.
as one costumer said, 'why buy jurassic AT, when the future of transmissions, CVT, is easily available?' "

and as one industry worker said, "the automobile industry is part science, part sales talk, and part the 'it' factor".

[Lakwatsero]

in my view,
only the engineers know the real deal with CVTs.

so, if they are inferior, long-term-wise, to traditional ATs, why are they on the market?
my main theory is, " it's what the buyers want, and the manufacturers are only catering to the market that their advertising campaigns have created.
as one costumer said, 'why buy jurassic AT, when the future of transmissions, CVT, is easily available?' "

and as one industry worker said, "the automobile industry is part science, part sales talk, and part the 'it' factor".

It's management who get to decide which parts to use. Its well documented that CVTs are cheaper to produce, needing only a belt/chain and 2 pulleys vs a torque converter with gears. And we see CVTs in econoboxes and smaller vehicles because margins are much lower vs large SUVs and trucks so any savings will definitely sway decision-making.

I think his point is, CVTs are more fuel efficient but cost more to maintain and much much less repairable.

However, Mazda came up with a product that doesn't use a CVT yet can be more fuel efficient than those CVT-equipped vehicles. So it's easier to recommend the Mazda just by that fact alone.

If I was in the market for a used vehicle, I'm not only budgeting for the acquisition, but also for any foreseeable expenses in running and maintaining said purchase. CVTs may be reliable but riskier if buying used.

[thearsenal1205]

why not consider toyota rav4 on your list? Or maybe a fortuner (basically a jacked up innova also seats 7-8.)

[travajante]

Travs, we all know your angst against CVT but does that stop people from buying a Toyota or Honda against a Mazda? If CVT is so bad, many such cars would be scrap already.

I bet a lot of members here have cars with CVT. We have three. Jut has two. A few others are happy with their City or Jazz or Vios or Altis.

It maybe the bandwagon now but the same was said of AT trannies of old. Would it go away? Maybe time will tell when we are all driving electric cars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not angst, bai.[emoji4]
And as I've been saying all along, CVTs are fine new & for owners who periodically change their cars every few years....a habit manufacturers survive on or kill for. Unfortunately, fate failed to get me in that good company. We have to keep cars long term here...can't have a ticking timebomb. Just me, bai...the odd 1 out. Treat me the exception.[emoji4]

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

[travajante]

why not consider toyota rav4 on your list? Or maybe a fortuner (basically a jacked up innova also seats 7-8.)

Good USED options....all nonCVT.[emoji106]

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk