CVT swap? (Into 2005 Civic, replacing 4-spd auto)

[oil pan 4]

Just because they're new doesn't mean they are better.
CVT does no favors for the consumer.

[EcoCivic]

Originally Posted by California98Civic

Huh, I thunk you are right. I thought I had read over on d-series.org about a guy swapping a D17 trans onto a D16 block and working around the immobiliser but now I can't find that problem cited. A 1996-00 HX would be next tallest with the 3.722 FD. Then maybe the DX/LX with like a 4.011 FD or something.

Definitiely, by rep, manual is more durable than the CVT. But maybe you'll not abuse it and maybe with maintenance it ain't so bad.

Maybe the CVT transmissions are just more delicate and don't tolerate abuse like ignoring the fluid for 200K miles or changing directions while moving. I don't know how reliable the CVT would be when driven and maintained correctly, but my opinion is that a lot of decent products get a bad reputation simply because they are owned by an idiot who abuses it or has unreasonable expectations and I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case with these CVTs as well. People complain about Honda autos all the time, but I got 243K miles out of mine before it failed, likely because it has been maintained correctly since it was new and has never been abused. Getting nearly 1/4 million miles out of a transmission isn't too bad IMO.

[California98Civic]

Yeah. That's wise skepticism.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

CVTs are still often pointed out to be more suitable to lower torque outputs. But anyway, they are substantially different from a traditional geared automatic. It's a matter of understanding its operating principles. I'd be more concerned about the integration between the ECU and the electronic controllers of the CVT itself.

[EcoCivic]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

CVTs are still often pointed out to be more suitable to lower torque outputs. But anyway, they are substantially different from a traditional geared automatic. It's a matter of understanding its operating principles. I'd be more concerned about the integration between the ECU and the electronic controllers of the CVT itself.

Thank you. I'm not worried about the ECU's integration, my plan is to get a CVT ECU and harness and everything will plug right in.

[California98Civic]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

.. CVT does no favors for the consumer.

Why so? Curious.

[EcoCivic]

Originally Posted by California98Civic

Why so? Curious.

I'm curious about this as well. Presuming a CVT is reliable, and I see no reason why it couldn't be, I see it as a good option for someone who wants the fastest and most fuel efficient automatic transmission possible. I'm one of the people who doesn't hate the feel of a CVT, likely because I understand the undeniable benefits that they provide.

[Ecky]

I can't speak for the HX CVT. I can speak for the Insight CVT, however.

-Generally speaking, an Insight CVT will get 55-60mpg where a manual would be getting 80+. Part of this is due to the manual having a higher top ratio.
-The CVT Insights purportedly have better acceleration down low, where the manual doesn't have many ratios to choose from. They're favored for autocross.
-The CVT is considerably heavier than the manual - something like 65lbs vs 180lbs
-The CVTs have a reputation for early failure. The manuals can last 500k+ miles, whereas it isn't unheard of to see Insight CVT failures before 150k even with 30k fluid changes, and a 250k mile CVT is a rare beast indeed. And, it isn't just one point of failure either.

This CVT is a contemporary to the HX's, being produced from 2000-2006. I would not buy a CVT Insight, if that helps.

[EcoCivic]

Originally Posted by Ecky

I can't speak for the HX CVT. I can speak for the Insight CVT, however.

-Generally speaking, an Insight CVT will get 55-60mpg where a manual would be getting 80+. Part of this is due to the manual having a higher top ratio.
-The CVT Insights purportedly have better acceleration down low, where the manual doesn't have many ratios to choose from. They're favored for autocross.
-The CVT is considerably heavier than the manual - something like 65lbs vs 180lbs
-The CVTs have a reputation for early failure. The manuals can last 500k+ miles, whereas it isn't unheard of to see Insight CVT failures before 150k even with 30k fluid changes, and a 250k mile CVT is a rare beast indeed. And, it isn't just one point of failure either.

This CVT is a contemporary to the HX's, being produced from 2000-2006. I would not buy a CVT Insight, if that helps.

That is good to know, thank you for the information! One reason I wanted to go with a CVT is that I can floor it at pretty much any speed and get maximum power. Unlike a manual, it holds the RPMs right at the power peak at full throttle, has a wide range of ratios, and still allows me to cruise down the highway at a low RPM.

With the EX 5 speed (the one I would probably go with) I would be at about 3200 RPM going 70, but I could drop that to around 3000 if I change the 5th gear to the DX/LX gears. With a CVT I could cruise at 2500 RPM going 70 and still have maximum power available at almost any speed.

[Ecky]

It's a shame there were no 6 speed D series gearboxes.