[Gldwng]

I have on order an 04 Murano SL AWD, Black with black interior, loaded with nav and dvd. Now I test drove 2 different ones and didn't notice any problems or weaknesses with the transmission. Then I read this on Edmund's:


(Unfortunately, the Murano was ultimately hamstrung by its continuously variable transmission (CVT). The tranny, which gave the Nissan the best fuel economy (a miserly 20 mpg city and 24 mpg highway) of all the vehicles in the test, was also responsible for its third-place finish. We found the CVT interfered too much with the wonderful performance of its 245-horsepower, 3.5-liter V6. Despite having the most ponies in the test, the confused wind-up of the CVT made the Murano feel sluggish at takeoff. Off-road ability aside, the Murano is a likable vehicle that blends unique styling with a spacious, comfortable interior and a fun-to-drive character. If it wasn't for the power-sapping CVT transmission, it might have won the test, but such is the chance you take with new technology. Future revisions may cure the Murano's transmission woes, but until then, it will have to be satisfied with a strong third-place finish in a field of four strong competitors.



Help me out here, you are the REAL PEOPLE here, the owners. I didn't have a chance on my test drive to really look into the transmission. I appreciate any input you can give.

Signed, hoping to take ownership in mid Nov,

 

[goldmu]

I read that comparison on edmunds when it came out and what I noticed is that, for once at exactly the same time they had a big advertisement campaign for Mitsubishi Endeavor (some influence there, maybe ?). But then if one looks at the final scoring table and take out the "personal and recommended" subjective factors the Murano is first:
Click here
As to the CVT - it is the decisive factor that led me to buy the Mo. Subjectively, I have been driving only manuals before and never been able to adjust to a "classic" automatic and the way it was shifting gears out of my control and very inefficiently. The CVT is a different story - it keeps the engine in its optimal power band, responsive yet comfortable. The only alternative I would consider would be a manual again...

 

[dklanecky1]

An automatic transmission is generally considered the weakest link in all powertrains.

It's job is to provide a compromise between smooth shifts, good gas mileage, and efficent horsepower delivery to the driving wheels. This compromise is very difficult to engineer to give all elements equal support. (Some people also want them to be able to do 4 wheel burnouts, but that's for another discussion.)

The CVT is IMO the best at delivering the gas mileage and the shifts (there aren't any) but is not as good for delivering the obvious horsepower that the VQ can and does deliver with other transmissions in other Nissan/Infiniti products.

I bought the Murano SE AWD, primarily for the style, functionality and I like the CVT and the performance it delivers in gas mileage. It's the best road trip vehicle I've ever ridden in (with the Bose/SAT/Nav and good ride height, and I've been on a lot of road trips!

Do I wish I could do a 4 wheel burnout? You bet! If I could, would I really do it? Maybe once or twice.

The CVT programming won't allow you to do that however and I suspect that someday, someone may develop a chip or a program that might allow the CVT to be a bit more performance orientated, but it's fine now, at all speeds except from a dead stand still.

You are starting to move a 4000 lb vehicle from a stand still after all, and it wasn't designed to be drag racer.

Even with all of that, I rarely find myself being the last one away from the stoplights anyhow, so how much more would be really useable?:2:

 

[hfelknor]

I won't apologize for the performance of the Murano.

I will say that I think that Edmunds either doesn't know what they are doing, or they have an agenda, or there was somethng wrong with the Murano.


Point: The 0-60 time of a Muranao has been clocked at 7.5 secs by Car and Driver. C&D knows how to get off the line in a Murano. So do I. Hint - it ain't in D.

Point: I have test drove both the Pilot and the Highlander and can guarantee that the Murano will absolutely kill these two out on the street. YOU go test drive them and see. Don't know about the Mitsu, but It doesn't scare me.

Point: I am willing any day, to run any one of these cars.

These SUVs are not much when it comes to acceleration.
So it is a bit like some kid in a riced out Honda talking about how he would win big at Daytona if they would just let him in, but believe me, the Murano is far faster than these other cars.

Even in Edmunds poor test, you will notice that the Murano won the 1/4. And you will notice that Edmunds had no comment about that?
People don't race to a speed like 60. They race to a distance.

There are a lot of reasons why people would pick a Pilot or a Highlander, and I suppose an Endeavor, over a Murano but Speed isn't one of them.
I would have to guess that the number one reason would be a chance to drive something that looks like a truck.
But things like the Honda or Toyota brand are also strong motivator.
I have no idea why anybody would want the Endeavor other than the truck thing. I wouldn't have a mitsu if you gave it to me.


Homer

 

[Eric L.]

See this post.

Linky

 

[Gldwng]

Thanks

Thanks for the answers, I really wasn't worried about 1/4 mile times or spinning wheels, part of the article said it spent time switching to lower and higher gears, like it was never satisfied. Anyone have trouble with that? As far as performance I had heard that the Murano more than held its own, it even beat the Lincoln Aviator with its V8.

 

[Halo]

That's exactly what the CVT doesn't do... hunt for the right gear. The best I can describe it, is it feels like an electric motor. The powertrain just keeps winding up smooth as glass.

Given that this engine has plenty of torque below 3000rpm, I usually barely touch the gas and don't try to do too many full-throttle acceleration runs. Because the rpms will stay relatively constant during acceleration, it doesn't 'feel' the same as a conventional automatic that revs the engine through it's entire powerband resulting in that sensation of the torque building to its peak and then dropping before each shift. That's what Edmunds was talking about IMO.

edit: If you ordered one, can't you go to the dealer and test drive one off the lot so you can see what you're getting? I mean, this is a considerable investment, I would think it's worth a short test drive at least.

 

[TikiMan]

I have owned many sports cars over the years and when I decided to by my first SUV, I test drove many different ones.

I choose the Murano because not only does it have great power, but VERY smooth power. The CVT doesn't "jolt" into gear and give that sense of one two second G-force off the line that a regular gear transmission does, but what it does do is give a smooth linier take off with great horse power. But what I do notice is the only race the guy next to me in his Honda, Mitsu, Toyota, or even Mercedes SUV is winning is the 10 foot race, after those 10 feet I am always 50 feet in front of them within just a couple seconds.

I use to own a 1994 300ZX twin-turbo stage III, and it too had a sluggish take off, but it always made up for it in the long run. I would go up against big torque V-8 Mustang SVT's and sure they would blow me away off the start, but after 3rd gear in my Z it was all over (and I mean like ten car lengths in front all over). The look on the Mustang owner’s faces was hilarious, when they just got smoked by an import V-6 in the ¼ mile!

Torque is nice if you plan to pull a boat, but pure horse power is what wins all races!

 

[turbodog]

I agree the Edmunds's comparo misses the boat. They contradict themselves when the say the CVT is responsible for the Murano's higher mileage ratings, then call it 'power sapping'. It can't be both.

The "personal rating" and "recommended rating" categories serve merely to double the weight of the testers' subjective opinions.

If one deletes the subjective ratings, the Murano wins handily, as stated above.

If my goal in buying was to have a stoplight warrior (fortunately I already have that need covered.... in spades!), I probably would not have gotten the Murano, primarily because of the CVT. Not that there is anything wrong with it.... I just know myself... stock power levels would not be enough, and I don't want to spend my money exploring the power-handling limitations of the CVT. AWD traction amplifies any weakness in the tranny.

 

[copperstreak]

Did I miss it, or was it noted that you can pop it into DS if you want more acceleration right off the bat. At least that is how mine reacts?

My single biggest impression of the MO over the Pilot and Highlander was how powerful and responsive it is. The Pilot is better than the Highlander in this regard, but at highway speeds it really puts out to merge or pass. If you want sports car driving feel, Ds at 15-40 mph is a lot of fun. Sluggish was never a word I would have associated with this vehicle.

 

[Enforcer]

Gosh, there are so many threads on the CVT now I don't even know where to start.

This Thread.
This Thread.
This Thread.

Edmunds is ranking right up there with CR in my book with comments like this.