AWCAWD

Encouraged by CottageLifer's comment in another thread I have looked up the recent changes Mitsubishi applied in their CVT equipped models:
As it turned out the 2.0 L and the 2.4 L Outlander Sport/RVR also use different CVTs. Please see the detailed specs from both Mitsubishi USA and Canada here (scroll down to transmissions and look for the ratios):
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/outlan...specifications
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.ca/en/v...vr/2015/specs/
This information,however, appears to be confusing or incorrect.
The newer JATCO JF016E/JF017E (CVT 8) transmission like the one in Nissan Rogue and Altimas has a ratio coverage of 7, while the JF011E (reportedly used in the OS/RVR 2.0L versions) has 6.
http://www.jatco.co.jp/ENGLISH/products/cvt/cvt8.html
The problem is revealed when one looks at the CVT specs of the 2.0 L and the 2.4 L OS/RVR models posted on Mitsubishi Canada and USA sites.
They both report for the 2.4 L OS/RVR a ratio range (coverage) of 6 (2.631 – 0.378), and for the 2.0 L version 7 (2.349 – 0.394). If this information is correct then it would contradict with the intended purpose of the newer JF016E that has been designed to handle more torque. The posted specs for the 2.4 L full size Outlander are the same, so most likely incorrect as well:
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.ca/en/v...er/2016/specs/.
I suspect an honest mistake and conclude that the 2.4 L OS/RVR models are most likely equipped with the same CVTs as found in the 2015 Rogue/Altima models
http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/TECH...W/new_cvt.html
while the 2.0 L ones are still using the JF011E model. Thanks CottageLifer for the initiative.
BTW Mitsubishi Australia also reports a ratio of 7 for the CVT in the ASX 2.0L version (the 2.4 L version is apparently not available there):
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com.au/...specifications

CottageLifer

Awesome work man! Serious CVT forensics!

BMX RACR

I know that the CVT in my 15 OS is different from the CVT in my Moms 13 OS.
I've noticed when I have mine in sport mode you have 6 selectable gears and when you put it back over into drive it seems to shift into a 7th gear.

AWCAWD

This is just a sensation. If you look at the ratios on the links I provided the 6th simulated gear has a ratio of only something like ~0.5 (sorry I do not have this link open). When you move it back to drive it shifts to the ~0.39-ish final ratio. This is why the automatic mode is more fuel efficient because it keeps the revs lower.
Are the engines both 2.0L? There has been some software changes to modify the "shift patterns" over the years. Here we try to find hardware differences.

BMX RACR

Yes..both are 2.0L

AWCAWD

If one can believe the published numbers (by Mitsubishi) the 2015 OS (2.0L) may provide ~10% higher torque/power off the line at the wheels than the older versions (2011-2014). Similarly, the 2.4 L OS may have another ~10% more torque/power advantage over the 2015, 2.0L and ~20% over the older 2.0L ones. The 1.8L diesel with 6 speed manual transmission give 2.2 times (220 %) higher torque at the wheels than the older 2.0L with CVT. The same ratio in new 2.2 L diesel with the 6 speed automatic (same as in the V6 Outlander) is 2.35 times.
Details
I calculated the torque at the wheels with the following formula: torque at the flywheel (@ 2000 rpm) x highest gear ratio (1st gear or the equivalent in the CVT) x final drive ratio = torque at the wheels.
Strictly speaking the parasitic losses, minimum 25% should have been considered but it would be across the board the same (or I simply cannot determine them for each car from the published data). I picked 2000 rpm as a reference torque (from torque rpm curves), as I think nobody uses launch control to start from a stop or traffic sign. The diesels have the maximum torque available from below 2000 rpm while in the gasoline ones only about 75% is available at this engine speed (except CX-3 that appears to have 88%).
So, here it goes in the same order as in the formula. Total torque at the wheels:
2.0L (pre 2015): 150 Nm x 2.349 x 6.12 = 2156 Nm (reference, 100%)
2.0L (2015): 150 Nm x 2.631 x 6.026 = 2378 Nm (10% higher)
2.4L (2015): 172 Nm x 2.349 x 6.466 = 2612 Nm (20 % higher)
1.8L D (6MT):300 Nm x 3.83 x 4.058 = 4662 Nm (2.2 times higher)
2.2L D (6AT): 360 Nm x 4.19 x 3.36 = 5068 Nm (2.35 times higher)

I did few more calculations to compare the OS with the competition:
Mazda CX-3 (6AT): 176 Nm x 3.552 x 4.388 = 2743 Nm (27% higher)
Honda HR-V (CVT): 130 Nm x 2.526 x 5.436 = 1785 Nm (20% lower)
Subaru Crosstrek (CVT): 150 Nm x 3.58 x 3.7 =1987 Nm (8% lower)

All the data above were taken from manufacturer approved sites (national, not local dealer sites) or from service manuals. I know it is a very rough estimation but at least something.
This data supports why people feel the newer 2015 OS (2.0L) or the diesels to be faster off the line. However, this may not translate to better 0-60 acceleration (as the test data indicates from various testers (Motor Week, Edmunds, etc) because at the other end of the spectrum the gear ratios have reversed 0.394 (older 2.0L and 2.4L) and 0.378 (2015, 2.0L).