I don't get why its called a sport and have a 2.0L for its engine size and I don't get why they need a cvt. CVT are not much useful and they don't last long+ if you want to replace a cvt it could cost more than 2k. My current car which is an 03 camry has a 2.4L which is good and gives decent gas mileage which is suppose to be 21 mpg which I am happy with and also with an automatic transmission that hasn't gone out yet and my car has 190k miles and 2 previous owners. I was looking for used car and I was interested in the outlander sport but having a cvt and a wimpy engine doesn't please me to buy that. It needs atleast a 2.5L and a regular auto transmission. Right now I am looking at a kia sorento(2011-current), camry xle(2007-current), mazda cx 7,8,9, kia optima(2011-current), mitsubishi galant with leather seating and navigation. I was thinking bout buying a nissan rogue or an altima but they have cvt and I heard they don't last long so I can't be buying a car that will break down easily all because of a faulty transmission.

 

I've had the 2.0 CVT and it is under powered but very reliable.

The new Outlander Sport has the 2.4 and it is much better.

You should test drive one.

 

CVT are actually very useful, most other cars are switching to them because you have an infinite number of gear ratios for optimal fuel economy.

They should last at least 150k miles, but they are belt driven CVT so that will die eventually, you'll need the belt replaced in the transmission. Take a look at 2005+ nissan muranos, they all have CVT's, they aren't nearly as bad as people claim.

 

I have a friend who ]has over 800K kms on his CVT-equipped 2008 Lancer.

 

800 K ?? holy sheet...///....is he a courier??...is that the original CVT?


thats truly amazing...