If you did some research online you would find that Nissan CVTs are complete garbage and have been for many years.  If you get 100,000 miles out of one, you are doing well.  CVTs are basically like a snowmobile transmission - a belt riding on a pulley that changes in size to adjust speed.  When the belt in the CVT lets go, it does a lot of damage inside the case.  They are cheap to make too.  Nissan reliability went into the toilet around 15 years ago when Renault (yes, that French company that made some tractors for AC) bought them.  They are in deep financial trouble too - could explain 6g to fix a CVT!

I have driven some CVTs before and I find them totally uninspiring.  They provide decent fuel economy, but that's about it.  Most of them have a whining sound to them and poor performance.  I vowed I would never buy one.  I bought my Mazda CX5 Signature 4 months ago.  It's got a conventional 6 speed slush box automatic that is a joy to drive (and I was never a big fan of automatics before).  Cruises silently over 75 mph at 2500 rpm and when you want to pass, drop the hammer and hold on.  It will downshift a couple of gears and take you for a ride.  I am sure the 250 horsepower turbocharged engine has something to do with that, but the transmission handles that engine very well and shifts very smoothly too.  Have not found any reliability issues anywhere either.

Mechanical Constant Velocity Transmissions fall in basically two categories... belt variometers, and disc variometers... and the ratio change concept is same for both-  two rotating surfaces in contact, where the contact point is on a variable radius.  In a belt, there's one driven sheave that goes from small diameter to large (usually by centrifugal force), while the other sheave goes from large diameter to small  (by spring force).  Tractive force is transmitted not by the FLAT of the belt, but by the SIDES.  You'll find belt-variometers in some machine tools (Clausing 5900-series lathe used one that was hydraulically controlled by an annular cylinder, they also used a similar setup on one of their drill presses, and my Milwaukee Die Filer uses a manually-variable variometer, which is like a CVT, but without the automatic variability) but the belt CVT found it's way into moped-scooters, UTVs, etc., too.

A disc-type variometer uses a drive disk on a shaft, and a driven roller on another shaft at a 90 degree angle.  The driven roller is on a sliding collar keyed to it's shaft, and sliding it from the middle of the drive disk out towards the edge of the drive disk changes the drive ratio.  You'll find these on machine tools of several flavors ( i.e. Drill presses, lighter milling machines, and the Snapper Comet rear-engine rider mower)

Yes, snowmobiles were the first place belt-type CVTs became largely popular in the US... and they worked well there, because the vehicles they were driving, were LIGHT.

When CVT transmissions were introduced in automobiles, it was very clear that they would work on very light cars, but as weight increased, their reliability and livespan reduced dramatically.

Good idea?  Well, it COULD be... but a modern electronically-controlled automatic transmission with locking torque converter, 6 speeds, and double-overdrive ratios will take a whole lot more of a beating, handling substantially higher loads, and require basically NO maintenance in comparison to the CVT, will beat it in basically every category.  Some will argue that the CVT will beat the automatic in fuel economy, my experience shows no substantial gain in that respect... they'd claim the CVT to be physically lighter, and in some cases, that would be true, but with a considerable loss in long-term power handling capacity.

In ANY respect, the torque converter and gearing of a modern automatic will stomp the CVT's tractive force capacity hands-down... as a torque converter, in full stall, has the ability to multiply torque from a standstill by a factor of 4 to 5-times' the input, and NOT SPIN the output, practically indefinately, with NO damage.  A CVT will smoke and fail...

And that is the reason why you won't see much towing capacity on a CVT... and for those that do, you'll be facing lots of repair bills.  Tbone apparently hasn't suffered what thousands of other have... my cousin's Maxima made it to about 36k before it started it's death-spiral, several tows and repairs, and by 50k, it was sitting dead in their driveway awaiting settlement for four years before the roll-back truck toted it to the junkyard.  If it'd been just two model-years older, we would've yanked the engine and CVT, and dropped in an earlier model conventional and at least had a driveable car, but no chance... the platform had changed to an irreversable setup.

on a scooter, they're da bomb...

6K isn't that bad( tongue in cheek).. it'll cost you 4K+ for a TH350 rebuild up here...

as pointed out CVTs are great in LIGHTWEIGHT vehicles.... MTD 'Automatic' riders are one example. Sleds are the most well known uses for them though.

still like the way RR engines are made. diesel engine driving a genny to power motors on the wheels. 'Dialed' in they'd be GREAT....

happy wife didn't get trailer hitch on her Quashqui (baby rogue...)

re: Jay, all that weight is put to good use on a locomotive, not so great on a passenger vehicle.

weight ?? small diesel engine spinning a genny, feeds controller, that feeds 1 to 4 motors

engine/genny would weigh a lot LESS than the 1800#, 12K$ battery in the Lightning.

gives you CVT performance and NONE of the belt issues....

Reliability shouldn't be a problem. Very few wires, 3 or 4 for power, 2-3 for dumb sensors. It ain't rocket science to make water proof, salt proof  connectors. Most every jetplane has simaler tech and they don't fall out of the sky,

You should see some of the Ebike motors. Was thinking of making a 4WD 'bike' with them. Did most of the code cutting  preCovid, then lost interest after selling next door.

Now my immediate quest is to get the starter rebuilt from the forklift..

'they' are just trying to get as many coins out of your pockets. Same as 'computers' and 'smart phones',we don't NEED most of the new features, just get scammed into them...

BTW I hate ABS, if you KNOW how to drive, no NEED for it...same as NO need for active LASER tech in the car cabin. Interesting from the tech side but really do we NEED it ? I get daily updates on the tech ,at  the chip level.. still wondering where all the 42V cars got to ?

 I'll keep my pre computer vehicles , thank you.  

  You got to read the owners manual to do that  

Thanks for the "heads up" on the fluid change interval, I will look into getting the fluid changed . The wife just informed that her Nissan Buggy has 110K  on it as of tonight 

Your opinion, plenty of crashes involving people stopped on the side of the road by distracted drivers, vast majority weren't Teslas. I don't agree with handsfree or auto drive function, this is driving, not boating or flying. Highways, roads and streets are too crowded with pedestrians and vehicles for it to be safe. The logarithm cannot account for all the variables.

I will take some of the features that modern vehicles have, to each his own. 

Awesome reply Trawler !! Just this past week I saw a school bus stopped at a RR crossing but the driver (of the bus) was directing traffic around her bus  ? After getting around the bus, it was stopped due to a rearly-mid '2000 series RAV4 with the hood/engine doghouse up into the windshield. This happened in Indiana, but the offender had Ohio plates 

WTH are you jabbering about  ??

Jay is referring to devices which jam cell communications. 

While it SEEMS 'simple to do', Unfortunately, RF 'jamming' of cell signals isn't that simple.  One cannot make the 'jamming' remain just inside the boundaries of a car, it would not only escape the vehicle and jam the area around, it would cause the cell system (both the tower, and every user) to increase transmit power in order to maintain their programmed signal-to-noise ratio target.  Furthermore, it would prevent others in the car (the non-driver) from having cell access.  It would also prevent the VEHICLE from being able to communicate with the manufacturer (you may not realize that your car is now connected, via it's own cell/sat system, to the manufacturer).

The one way you COULD do it, is just shut off the cell system in any place where there's motor vehicles... that IS simple to do...

So, having been deeply involved in the ACELA HST (which is basically a blood-brother of the TGV), and teaching the propulsion systems of those, and plenty of fossil-fueled variants, I can say with great certainty that WEIGHT is one of the reasons why an electric transmission system is NOT used in road-going motor vehicles.  One could make an engine MUCH lighter than the 2400hp GM V16 diesel, but the generator it drives, is HEAVY... that generator's output goes to a pair of 3-phase inverter drives that, while not comparatively heavy in pounds, they're rather heavy in DOLLARS.  After that, you get a PWM-synthesized 3 phase variable-frequency/variable voltage high-current output that goes to a pair of VERY HEAVY 3-phase traction motors in each end, that have very heavy gearboxes.

Weight in a locomotive is, in an overall sense, a generally GOOD thing... as, like in agricultural traction, weight on driven axles is key to providing tractive effort.  Steel wheels and steel rails are not without their limitations, but when your limitation is about 225,000lbs, a dozen tons here and there are usually not a noticable change.

Doing the same in a car, is NOT practical.  A WEAK car engine, let's say Tbone's Nissan, is mebbie 175hp...  that's about 130kw.  To make 130kw of electricity, you're gonna need a generator frame, windings, and rotor that will weigh about two tons.  If you wanna put that electricity to work, you could do it with one 30hp electric motor in each WHEEL, which will weigh about 250lbs, and it'll need about a 6:1 reduction for each, that will weigh at least 80lbs...

And that means your wheel assembly will be 330lbs, plus another 60lbs for tire and wheel (because sissy tires won't carry a whole lotta weight).  Your unsprung weight being phenominal, it is NOT going to handle well... and it isn't going to be climbing hills very well... henceforth, this is why TRAINS are fine with it-  they can't climb steep grades to start with, so weight in the loco is a benefit, not a curse.

If you're interested in the concept, take a half-hour to watch Jay's video on his 1916 Owen Magnetic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYQ2PiX_Z9o" rel="nofollow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYQ2PiX_Z9o

It is, for all practical purposes, an internal-combustion engine, driving an electric reluctance transmission, as if it's a diesel-motor-generator system.

As old as it is, the concept is actually magnificent, because it has the potential to be SUBSTANTIALLY lighter than any OTHER concept we use nowdays... but really, it a reluctance coupling, driving a driveshaft, differential, etc.

If you study how the Owens reluctance drive does what it does, and then compare this to how the Hydramatic Torque Converter does what IT does, you'll see that they're DOING THE SAME THING... it's just that what the Owens does with magnetism, the HydraMatic TC does with centrifugal force and fluid dynamics.  The TC just does it with substantially higher effectiveness, and substantially lower weight.

It IS a cool car, though... His Stanley and White steamers are HOT, but the Doble Steamer is the best!   The Baker electric is cute.   If you REALLY wanna see some cool cars, his videos do more than ANY museum visit you'll get, because you get a thorough description, pictures, explanations, and a drive video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUg_ukBwsyo

The Doble E-20... an amazing piece of engineering.

https://www.google.com/search?q=2010+nissan+maxima+horsepower&sxsrf=APq-WBsScrlqbixs-tUYlWa5xtiluvNwTw%3A1644844237122&ei=zVQKYqiQB8XG0PEPi8q4SA&oq=2010+nissan+maxima+horsepower&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIKCAAQgAQQRhD7ATIGCAAQCBAeMgYIABAIEB4yBggAEAgQHjIGCAAQCBAeMgYIABAIEB4yBggAEAgQHjoHCAAQRxCwAzoHCAAQsAMQQzoKCAAQ5AIQsAMYADoMCC4QyAMQsAMQQxgBOhIILhDHARCjAhDIAxCwAxBDGAE6BAgAEA06BggAEAcQHjoICAAQCBAHEB5KBAhBGABKBAhGGAFQzhZYiiFg7jJoAnABeACAAU-IAfgCkgEBNZgBAKABAcgBE8ABAdoBBggAEAEYCdoBBggBEAEYCA&sclient=gws-wiz" rel="nofollow - https://www.google.com/search?q=2010+nissan+maxima+horsepower&sxsrf=APq-WBsScrlqbixs-tUYlWa5xtiluvNwTw%3A1644844237122&ei=zVQKYqiQB8XG0PEPi8q4SA&oq=2010+nissan+maxima+horsepower&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIKCAAQgAQQRhD7ATIGCAAQCBAeMgYIABAIEB4yBggAEAgQHjIGCAAQCBAeMgYIABAIEB4yBggAEAgQHjoHCAAQRxCwAzoHCAAQsAMQQzoKCAAQ5AIQsAMYADoMCC4QyAMQsAMQQxgBOhIILhDHARCjAhDIAxCwAxBDGAE6BAgAEA06BggAEAcQHjoICAAQCBAHEB5KBAhBGABKBAhGGAFQzhZYiiFg7jJoAnABeACAAU-IAfgCkgEBNZgBAKABAcgBE8ABAdoBBggAEAEYCdoBBggBEAEYCA&sclient=gws-wiz

hmm, thanks for the 'numbers' Dave !

Guy around the corner has a Stanly Steamer, sure is interesting...

wondering how to convert rotary motion into 20-40KHz, 3 phase power, at high power levels ?

I know aircraft used 400HZ,1000Hz power systems for weight reduction compared to line freq of 60Hz

 That GM 350 is one of the best trannys out there with a bit of work. Take off the tailstock and put on a gear vendors overdrive and you have a 6 speed! That is another $2800 but sure is a good combo.

Tbone95 wrote: 175 HP, honestly, I didn't know what it was, but that there sure didn't seem right.  It's not.  Try 290 HP.

I don't doubt that.  I based my math on 175hp, because that's a reasonable baseline level for a modern 4-person 4cyl passenger car.  So plug 290hp into the math... 290hp is 215kw.

One will NOT find a combination prime mover/generator of 215kw, in a package light enough to use in a 2100lb car... and even if one COULD, the wheel motors suitable for 54hp each would equate to at LEAST the same, or greater weight yet.  It would simply be WAY too heavy to ride on any common passenger-car tires.  It would be somewhere in the range of 7,000lbs or so... BEFORE adding passengers.  You're over 10k just taking the family on a picnic.

By comparison, your CVT, or a 5-speed manual, are almost insignificant weight by comparison to an electric generator/motor propulsion combination.

Drivelines are all about compromises... manual shift, automatics with torque converters, CVTs, hydrostats, and motor-generator traction all have unique characteristics where there's advantages and disadvantages.  With CVTs, Hydrostats, and motor-gen traction, they have one thing in common:  Constant speed engine.  This seems like an end-all-problems type solution, because an internal combustion engine can be tuned to operate with maximum power at one speed, and the transmission solves the rest.  The gotcha, is that maximum power occurs at the speed where cylinders fill most completely, which means it will NOT be the most 'fuel efficient' speed... and it will be a formidable 'drone' while running.  To alleviate this, you'll need more than one mode of operation, and what will resuilt, is an engine with a 'powerband'.  Of course, the CVT can modulate to 'pick' a spot in the powerband that provides just-enough-power for demand, while staying in a 'fuel efficient' running range... in effect, a manual, or automatic transmission does exactly that, without any fancy control wizardry.

So again, it's all about picking the aspects of compromise that mean the most to an individual's needs.

I can do all the same math.  I was just pointing out what my car is, especially since it's such a pile of crap and can't handle any horsepower, yet it's over 100 more than your example and been trouble free.

If you happen to have noticed, I mentioned the weight of things in my earlier reply.  I didn't make paragraphs out of it, just mentioned it. Cheers.

OK, the F150 EV has an 1800# battery pack in it( the 'cheap,low range' version.

It's EASY to get energy from the battery to the wheels, it's NOT easy to get energy from a prime mover(engine) to convertor(generator) THEN to the wheels.

THAT's the 'cheat', toss a batterypack into a vehicle...a 'nobrainer' so to speak.

Now design/build a genny that can be driven from a smallish engine and you'll have made a zillion bucks, or end up like Mr. Pogue(sp) did.

Frankly the 100s of HP, 0-60 specs don't impress me.. true offroad torque, maybe, but then WHO is going to drive an F150 lightning off road and haul out logs ? ACTUALLY USE a truck as it's supposed to ?

Got any kids on your lawn to yell at?

Jay you are off on your prices a bit. TH350 is the cheapest trans to rebuild. I used to get those done for $350 dollars. And do the re and re myself. Plowin snow. LOL. Can still get a complete one from B&M for $1500. And that is beefed up a bit. Just got a 4L80e done a couple years ago. 99 GMC plow truck. That was $3000 parts and labour. Getting lazy in my old age. Anyway to get back to topic I think one of the best transmissions made is the Chrysler 8 speed. That is a ZF trans used in millions of apps all around the world. I have one in a Chrysler 300. 250 km on it and works like brand new. I did service it at 180km which is imperative on any tranny to make it last. GM 6 speed is good too and so is the 4L80e. 

CVT is a major headache when fail, generally NOT rebuildable and the replacement transmission ends up New or Salvage yard used.  Same concerns as with CVT drives in UTVs, Combines or other mechanisms using that tech, friction wear of surfaces and eventual erosion regardless fluid lubricated or cooled or not.