2014 Nissan Rogue SL AWD Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com

Read the full story here

yellowbal

CVTs are the worse. Long term reliability is questionable and may be unrepairable. Normal automatics can be rebuilt by some transmission shops, CVTs are usually replaced as a unit.

A good 6,7, or 8 speed automatic is plenty for almost all cars.

cobryson

This is just a random observation, something I've noticed in my own driving recently: I wonder if driving cars with significant amounts of power ends up ruining the driving experience, somehow sets the bar higher for every other normal car. I too find myself aggravated with Nissan CVTs when I'm driving rental cars, and often annoyed by other four-cylinder, cheaper cars these days. However, before I had my relatively powerful Mustang I drove a weaker car and didn't have any issues with it. That so many people purchase and are happy with things like CVTs tells me that maybe some of us are just corrupted, and can't handle reverting back to slower cars.

foxtrot685

Give it time. As someone who owns a CVT equipped car, gas mileage and performance sucks for about the first 5,000 to 8,000 miles. It sorts itself out after that, sometimes sooner.

emajor

We've got a plain-Jane 2012 Altima with the 2.5 and CVT, and unless Nissan changed the programming on this Rogue, I don't agree with much of anything you've said here. With all the internet bellyaching I was expecting to hate the transmission but was surprised. It's responsive. It's smooth. Works well in passing maneuvers. I've driven 6-speed autos that are extremely balky and sluggish and this CVT mops the floor with them. My only complaints are a fairly soft takeoff from a stop and occasional difficulty in dialing in the right amount of throttle to keep the engine settled on long hills. CVTs are probably a bummer in more aggressive driving. For family sedans and CUVs, they work very well. And don't report "combined" fuel economy figures unless you provide a breakdown of city vs. highway miles or it's worthless. Give us the mpgs you are receiving on a mostly-city or mostly-highway tank.

okbeartoy

CVT's are not the best choice for a vehicle that is driven hard, especially by someone that is used to pushing the accelerator peddle to the floor all the time. They typically do a great job for normal day to day driving that most folks do, even when mated to a smaller engine. Sure they take some getting used to, at least it took quite a while for me.. Have owned several and Nissan produces some great CVT's. I have owned Nissan, Honda, and Toyota CVT's (the Toyota was a Prius so not quite the same tranny) and all did a good job.
Not the best tranny for foot to the floor drag racing and boy racer activities.

bankerdanny

@cobry: I think you are mostly right. For the past two years my regular driver has been my '72 MGB-GT, which had 95 gross hp when new and certainly has far less than that now with 150k+ miles on it. About the only thing on the road that I can out acceller

cobryson

I just feel like it's got to be hard to swap from a 600+ HP V12 Merc to a Rogue CVT without feeling...underwhelmed. I'm sure it's a challenge to be entirely objective, put the blinders on and review an individual car fairly.

diigii

I don't understand why Nissan never offered the current Nissan Quest with the manual shift capability that the Japanese-spec Elgrand has in Asia. It is basically the same car, albeit the right-hand drive setup and front/back body panels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SOtRrTF0P4

dm7279

Corby is exactly right I think. We have a 2014 Rogue, and since I have driven nothing but modestly powered cars over the last ten years, it feels perfectly adequate. If my car was considerably faster than the Rogue, I'm sure it would annoy me more. I have always thought an advantage of the CVT was quick responses to throttle inputs, and this is no different. Most conventional automatics are very hesitant to downshift.

zimtheinvader

I agree with cobryson completely. Not only is it hard to not feel underwhelmed when switching that far down in HP you also tend to drive the 'slower' car faster which sucks up more gas. I notice it when going from our 2.5 Mazda to the 2.0 and most recently when going from a rental car with a 5.7 back down to the 2.0 - - - Another factor that I see is where you drive. If it is mostly back highways and less crowded freeways then there aren't as many instances when one would think "boy I wish this accelerated faster" compared to crowded freeways where you might need to zip around cars to get where you want quite quickly. That 5.7 engine was a godsend quite a few times in SoCal traffic when I needed to get over 4 lanes quickly to go where I wanted. There were plenty of quick maneuvers I'd have never tried in my 2.0 Mazda. It would do it but it would need more time, which I didn't have in order to make it through the opening in traffic.