[ab16]

An old habit, at least for me, is to gear down when I want to slow down. Is the CVT robust enough to withstand the so called “gearing down”?

 

[wtgkb8]

Well...as long as you aren't really abusing it like dropping it down so low the engine runs high rpms...I don't see how it wouldn't be capable of slowing you down on a semi-regular basis with no excessive mechanical wear.

In fact...the transmission programming does this for you to some extent when going down hill. It will automatically adjust the ratios to provide engine braking when it senses acceleration without throttle input.

I have been using the CVT to slow down in my last 3 CVT equipped 3.5L V6s from Nissan with no issues (2007 and 2012 Maximas, and now a 2015 Murano). However...I wasn't abusive to the mechanicals while doing it...and it wasn't at every instance I wanted to slow down either.

 

[Halwg]

I think it's a bad idea, period. That's what they make brakes for, and replacing brakes is much cheaper than replacing a transmission. I would not do it.

 

[wtgkb8]

I think it's a bad idea, period. That's what they make brakes for, and replacing brakes is much cheaper than replacing a transmission. I would not do it.

If it's such a bad idea...why does Nissan's own transmission programming also provide automatic engine braking using the same methodology when going downhill? I agree though...replacing brakes is much cheaper than a transmission.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of Nissan CVT failures were design/assembly defects compared to mechanical abuse (outside of wrong fluids or excessive service intervals)...and what abuse was identified as the culprit.

 

[Dushash]

If it's such a bad idea...why does Nissan's own transmission programming also provide automatic engine braking using the same methodology when going downhill? I agree though...replacing brakes is much cheaper than a transmission.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of Nissan CVT failures were design/assembly defects compared to mechanical abuse (outside of wrong fluids or excessive service intervals)...and what abuse was identified as the culprit.

Besides excessive service intervals (which is obviously very bad for CVT) I think heat comes first as culprit - towing and excessive tire spin in winter contributes to that.

On close second place - I think steel belt/chain and pulleys contact surface friction deterioration that gradually destroys smooth surface of pulleys and belt/chain contact spots lose their grip (they become worn out). This is usually from 0-60 flooring starts and frequent pedal to the metal accelerations.

Not sure where "gearing down" stands among these "bad habits" for CVT, but I think this generation CVT is somewhat foolproof from such thing. Even if you gear it down it will automatically adjust to get rpm lower. Of course if one does that on purpose and in manual mode and frequently - I think it can at some point do an excessive (and completely unnecessary) tear and wear to CVT.

Bottom line is - it's better to fight this "bad habit" unless one has lots of free money for future CVT replacement.

P.S. CVT does "gear down" by itself when appropriate, but it has limits of course and brakes are available in a car for a reason. CVT is not designed to "gear down" 4000lbs car on downhill from 60mph using just its belt/chain. I can see it done occasionally - but on a regular basis - its a bad idea. I mean pads cost $25 to replace once every 2-3 years. CVT costs $3K + $2K labor to replace.

It's almost same as using car in idle for generating power for a 12V vacuum cleaner to clean your home carpet. It can be done once in a while, but IMHO it's much wiser to just use your usual home vacuum cleaner that plugs into home electricity socket.

 

[Pilgrim]

An old habit, at least for me, is to gear down when I want to slow down. Is the CVT robust enough to withstand the so called “gearing down”?

Absolutely, and I did that all the time with my Murano. It's also a great idea in heavy traffic when you want to reduce gearing so you can creep along at a slower speed and avoid riding the brakes.

I disagree with others here in feeling that the difference in wear on the transmission is negligible and offset by gains in safety and control over the vehicle. Halwg is correct that brakes are much cheaper than transmissions, but I personally think that being in the correct "gear" (drive ratio) for the situation overrules that concern.

 

[kevintomb]

The CVT upshifts and downshifts almost constantly while driving.

Simply "downshifting" it manually is no different.
Same as hitting the gas some and causing it to downshift while under a lot more torque from acceleration.

I think manually downshifting to "S" or low while going down a hill would be fairly stress free.

Huge acceleration, spinning in ice or snow, and other things would be much more harmful, but overall it seems to be a robust transmission.

 

[Pilgrim]

Agreed. Overall, I think evidence points to the transmission being more robust than the transfer case.