SUVs and smaller trucks are now almost universally moving to 4cyl and 6cyl turbos with iffy CVTs. The channels run by folks with greasy overalls are pretty uniform in saying these vehicles won't last like their predecessors (even the Toyotas).
How are the CVTs in these trucks iffy compared to other CVTs? There's a number of reliable auto makers using CVTs for years, such as Subaru, Honda and even Toyota on their other vehicles. CVT transmissions have been in mass produced cars longer than most of us have been alive.
For example, a dual clutch transmission is complex and expensive, but at the same time, I wouldn't call it better. There's tradeoffs in all types of transmissions. My car might have one, but if I were driving a truck, I don't think I would want a DSG.
"a number of reliable auto makers using CVTs for years" is an utterly valueless statement. It says, proves, disproves, or even merely indicates, nothing.
There are countless reasons for any company to do anything, including for a "reliable" automaker to use a less-reliable part or design.
Both turbos and cvts increase gas mileage. Simple as that. That one thing has become so important that it's now worth sacrificing other things to get it.
When it comes to motor reliability, generally speaking a smaller engine with higher compression running closer to its peak output all the time will have more wear than a slightly larger engine that doesn't have to run at as high of pressures and load percentage. Lower RPMs needed for the same power output means less friction on all the components in the motor. There's a lot of variances in that so it is not exactly a given.
These kind of go away with more modern "eCVTs" which don't rely on belts and hybrid systems which can help even out that peak engine load challenge. But still, turbos will generally reduce your reliability. More moving parts, higher pressures, etc. The questions are, will the increased efficiency balance out the reduced reliability and will the motor reliability be the thing that does the car in at the end.
It sure seems like they would be great for large trucks if they could be made beefy enough.
Sure, one could spend quite a bit of money making it even beefier with more and more exotic materials, but in the end its kind of hard to match the friction efficiency of well-fitting gears directly connecting the torque. You're pretty much guaranteed to encounter more friction on the belt sliding on the cones compared to well lubricated and properly made gears, and more friction means more wear which means shorter life.
But this is kind of the idea of eCVTs. Instead of belts sliding on cones (pulleys), they use motor/generators and novel gearset placements to change how the torque flows through the system. In this way friction is considerably reduced. There are no belts to stretch or wear out.
Isn't the CVT going bad one of the main complaints people have with Subaru? Like at 100,000-150,000 miles. Other than the head gasket issue which was fixed a decade ago? Asking, since I'm in the market for a used vehicle, and the CVT reliability has me hesitant.
Dealers charge $3000 for the job. They install all new valve bodies for about $1200, and for some reason want 8 hours for the job.
I helped a friend do it after watching some YouTube videos, and we just swapped the one bad solenoid. 20k miles later, 120k total, everything is fine.
The problem isn't always the cars even. It's the entire repair model.