Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Saturday August 30, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Subaru Models > Impreza Forum

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-04-2013, 08:51 AM   #26
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

How about we don't feed the troll in every thread?
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 10:26 AM   #27
auskip07
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 315643
Join Date: Apr 2012
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Atlanta Ga
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Sedan
DGM 5mt

Default

If you are going to decide between the MT and CVT deciding between 32mpg and 34mpg is a ridiculous. It should be between are you willing to drive a MT, Knowing how much the individual tranmissions cost to maintain, and reliability record. Im sure they come out even if you include a clutch disk change.

for me i had to go with Reliability record since this was my daily driver. People argued that they have been using CVT for years but not on this car. First years already have alot of question marks i didnt want to add another. (that was my thought process on the MT vs CVT) i also had a finite amount to spend on the car so 1000 was a decent chunk.
auskip07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 12:18 PM   #28
Dirt Bringer
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 340297
Join Date: Dec 2012
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Cincinnati
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza 5sp Prm
Ice Silver

Default

Could we just get over the lunacy of arguing about CVT vs MT for fuel inefficiencies sake and get down to the facts? Some people like CVT better, some like MT better. Enthusiasts generally prefer MT better, it's more engaging. Some just prefer to relax more and get where they need to be without having to worry about the cars transmission that much. They like CVT. Get what you prefer to drive, because the MPG difference will be basically meaningless.
Dirt Bringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 12:19 PM   #29
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeper View Post
FAIL -- If I drove my 5 speed at 75+mph I would get crap mileage too.

But you are operating from some "theory" that my 5 speed gets higher mpgs than your car at highway speeds.

Who was it that complained about ignorant people who don't even own a "insert transmission here" talking about what they have no direct experience of?

Explain the science behind how my car, turning higher RPM's at highway speeds, is supposed to use less gas than your car, driven at the same speeds...
Heh. I was going to delete the irrelevent parts of that post, but 4 easy fish in a barrel is just too much fun.

Zeeper, thanks for pointing out and continually referring to the fuelly.com thread.

Then thanks to BigFatHorse for compiling the Impreza data at the bottom of this link. If you look at the averages of the MT's vs. the CVT's, you will see that, no matter how much Zeeper complains about the data from a website he continually refers to and how much he attempts to spin it, the MT gets better mpg than the CVT.

Next, I'm not talking about what I think of the MT's mpg. I'm just pointing to the data.

Then, the statement about being geared higher automatically getting better mpg than a lower geared car fails the reality test. If it didn't, all cars would be geared much higher. Engines have different efficiency at different rpm. So, if a car is geared too high it's below it's optimum efficiency and lugs. That would mean the CVT would hardly hold any grade at all in 6th gear or even with a mild headwind. Gee, sounds like my CVT...

Finally, (or about his first paragraph (or sentence, whichever you prefer) Zeeper says his MT gets crap mileage at 75 mph. Well, I didn't say the MT gets good mpg compared to other makes, just compared to the real world mpg vs. the EPA estimate of the CVT compared to its real world mileage.

Coincidentally, I switched cars this week for a mpg test. I got on the freeway and set the cruise control to the mode of the traffic speed (for you Zeeper that's the speed at which the highest percentage of traffic is flowing) which is typically 80 mph and with my 36 mpg EPA highway rated 5 speed Corolla on my two way trip I got 39.5 mpg. The next day I did the same with the Impreza, also rated at 36 mpg highway EPA. I got 28 mpg. And I really tried, by switching to manual mode and allowing it to slow going up hills, to maximize the mpg. It's not like I'm here making up a story and I'm trying to manufacture falsehoods. I do like the car - except for the crappy mpg.

Last edited by stevehnm; 05-04-2013 at 12:41 PM.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 12:22 PM   #30
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy1100 View Post
How about we don't feed the troll in every thread?
You need to look up the definition of troll. You are the one adding nothing to this thread except personal attacks. Stick with installing speakers.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 12:26 PM   #31
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt Bringer View Post
Could we just get over the lunacy of arguing about CVT vs MT for fuel inefficiencies sake and get down to the facts? Some people like CVT better, some like MT better. Enthusiasts generally prefer MT better, it's more engaging. Some just prefer to relax more and get where they need to be without having to worry about the cars transmission that much. They like CVT. Get what you prefer to drive, because the MPG difference will be basically meaningless.
I agree - and that's what I've been pointing out, despite the ignorami attacking my points. When I'm wrong I'll admit it, like I did to G-Omaha a few posts back here.

Despite the EPA numbers Subaru has provided, there is basically no difference between the two, so don't buy a CVT for the increased mpg. That's all I'm saying. Then the real trolls attacked...
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 12:52 PM   #32
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt Bringer View Post
Could we just get over the lunacy of arguing about CVT vs MT for fuel inefficiencies sake and get down to the facts? Some people like CVT better, some like MT better. Enthusiasts generally prefer MT better, it's more engaging. Some just prefer to relax more and get where they need to be without having to worry about the cars transmission that much. They like CVT. Get what you prefer to drive, because the MPG difference will be basically meaningless.
And the op really liked the cvt he test drove, all he wanted to know if it was a fair price
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 01:52 PM   #33
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy1100 View Post
And the op really liked the cvt he test drove, all he wanted to know if it was a fair price
Really? Where did he say he "liked the cvt he test drove"?
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 01:57 PM   #34
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

2nd line of first post, I understand reading comprehension is difficult for trolls

Just because you have buyers remorse doesn't mean you need to go into every thread and bitch about your mpg.

Last edited by flyboy1100; 05-04-2013 at 02:08 PM.
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 02:41 PM   #35
G-Omaha
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 209172
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Omaha, NE
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza CLL
BL2

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt Bringer View Post
Could we just get over the lunacy of arguing about CVT vs MT for fuel inefficiencies sake and get down to the facts? Some people like CVT better, some like MT better. Enthusiasts generally prefer MT better, it's more engaging. Some just prefer to relax more and get where they need to be without having to worry about the cars transmission that much. They like CVT. Get what you prefer to drive, because the MPG difference will be basically meaningless.
One other reason for an AT or CVT over a MT. Bum left knee that simply "lets go" without warning. When walking, this causes pain/spill/fall - when driving, this causes damage and/or serious injury to others.
G-Omaha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 02:49 PM   #36
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy1100 View Post
2nd line of first post, I understand reading comprehension is difficult for trolls
You must be right, about the reading comprehension part anyway (swinging back with purse, this one has rocks in it though instead of ping-pong balls).

Not only do I not see where he says the '13 he drove is a CVT, the subject line is about a '12 that he is thinking of buying. Strike 2 on you. Then, you had two chances, so that's strike three. You have to go sit in the corner for the weekend.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2013, 03:33 PM   #37
Zeeper
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 299286
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Albany NY
Vehicle:
2012 Sport 5MT
Green/Silver

Default

Comparing the average combined mpg using fuelly data, without knowing or taking into account certain buying behaviors (such as people who drive in stop and go traffic most of the time being more likely to buy an automatic), is moronic.

City mileage is lower than highway mileage, and if a higher percent of the driving among the vehicles on fuelly (CVT or 5 Speed) is in the city, overall combined mpg for all cars shown will be lower.

On the same drive, at the same speed, a CVT will get better mileage than a 5 Speed on the highway.

A fact that is obvious and shown in the EPA testing, which rates a CVT Sport at 36mpg while a 5 speed Sport is only rated for 33mpg highway.

You could also just look at the forums to see that those reporting the highest highway mpg's are, wait for it, you guessed it, driving a CVT version of the Impreza.

Of course some of the drivers getting the lowest are also driving a CVT, but don't tell them that how the car is driven affects mpg's...

Shhh don't tell the troll, he will sling another spreadsheet at you...

Last edited by Zeeper; 05-04-2013 at 03:40 PM.
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2013, 10:37 AM   #38
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeper View Post
Comparing the average combined mpg using fuelly data, without knowing or taking into account certain buying behaviors (such as people who drive in stop and go traffic most of the time being more likely to buy an automatic), is moronic.

City mileage is lower than highway mileage, and if a higher percent of the driving among the vehicles on fuelly (CVT or 5 Speed) is in the city, overall combined mpg for all cars shown will be lower.

On the same drive, at the same speed, a CVT will get better mileage than a 5 Speed on the highway.

A fact that is obvious and shown in the EPA testing, which rates a CVT Sport at 36mpg while a 5 speed Sport is only rated for 33mpg highway.
More fish in a barrel. You really don't have much mechanical aptitude do you?

First off, I find driving in the city with an automatic much more bothersome since I have to keep using the brakes so much, so I would prefer a manual in that situation. That's all I know, and apparently all you know is that you would prefer an automatic. So what is moronic here is your assumption you know that more city drivers would prefer the CVT over the MT.

Second, your assumption that a CVT will always beat a manual on the highway "on the same drive, at the same speed" shows your definitive lack of knowledge of the limitations of a CVT. There is always energy loss through a CVT that makes that statement ludicrous. While it may be compensated for in some situations by the CVT's ability to maintain a programmed engine speed, that is also be done by a skilled MT driver. (I think that also says something about your driving ability).

With today's valve, ignition, and fuel mixture (at least) on the fly adjustments the ability of an engine to maintain optimum efficiency over a wider range of rpm's widens the speed variability where the MT equipped vehicle is more efficient in changing fuel into work, which means mpg to you. Most definitely there are highway speeds and terrain where the MT is more efficient. On the highway in cruise control my CVT will sometimes wind to 6,000 rpm on hills to maintain speed, where the display on instantaneous shows less than 10 mpg.

Strike three on you too, is that although the differences in real world performance of the CVT vs. the MT compared to their EPA highway estimate claims by Subaru are quite apparent and have been shown repetitively, you still refer to the EPA estimate difference of the CVT's 36 mpg highway EPA estimate vs. the 33 of the MT, showing you are either indeed the one trolling here, or appear to be quite stupid when it comes to the mechanics involved in this discussion.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2013, 11:30 AM   #39
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post
You must be right, about the reading comprehension part anyway (swinging back with purse, this one has rocks in it though instead of ping-pong balls).

Not only do I not see where he says the '13 he drove is a CVT, the subject line is about a '12 that he is thinking of buying. Strike 2 on you. Then, you had two chances, so that's strike three. You have to go sit in the corner for the weekend.
wow, you are really a piece of work, could easily be a typo on his part, who knows. After you start bitching about your mpg the thread went to ****, which I'm sure is your goal. Either way it clearly states he has driven and Impreza with a CVT, he loved it, and is looking for advise on purchasing.
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2013, 11:54 AM   #40
Zeeper
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 299286
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Albany NY
Vehicle:
2012 Sport 5MT
Green/Silver

Default

CVT's are such power sucking nightmares that, when tested on the same equipment as a 5 speed, they return higher mpg's. Yes, you are filled with mechanical aptitude, given you dispute that outright.

I guess the reports of forum members posting their CVT derived HWY mpg numbers (you know, the mpg's higher than my car can achieve) are as meaningless as the EPA testing. Maybe I just don't know how to correctly shift to 5th and set the cruise at 65mph, you must have a secret I don't know about how to do that more skillfully.

You hate your CVT, at this point I am glad you are stuck with it, but please, please, please do not trade it for a 5 speed because then we would be subject to your next round of bitching, "when I drive my 5 speed at 75+ MPH up the side of a mountain, I don't get 33 mpg" ....(insert custom dope-slap emoticon here)

Oh, and even a scientifically challenged math guru such as yourself should know that using Combined MPG's to discuss HWY MPG's is invalid. I don't think the data on fuelly is bad, just how you are attempting to spin it.

Last edited by Zeeper; 05-05-2013 at 12:15 PM.
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2013, 12:37 PM   #41
sgoldste01
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 322264
Join Date: Jun 2012
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Webster, NY
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Sp 5sp
Obs Blk Prl/Drk Gray Mtl

Default

^^Guys, instead of debating him, why don't we just add him to our ignore lists? That would keep all of these threads from going to ****.

I've just done it, and I suggest that others who find his posts unhelpful should do the same.
sgoldste01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2013, 12:54 PM   #42
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeper View Post
CVT's are such power sucking nightmares that, when tested on the same equipment as a 5 speed, they return higher mpg's. Yes, you are filled with mechanical aptitude, given you dispute that outright.

I guess the reports of forum members posting their CVT derived HWY mpg numbers (you know, the mpg's higher than my car can achieve) are as meaningless as the EPA testing. Maybe I just don't know how to correctly shift to 5th and set the cruise at 65mph, you must have a secret I don't know about how to do that more skillfully.
Probably, based on your exhibited lack of mechanical aptitude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeper View Post
Oh, and even a scientifically challenged math guru such as yourself should know that using Combined MPG's to discuss HWY MPG's is invalid. I don't think the data on fuelly is bad, just how you are attempting to spin it.
Well, assuming the data on fuelly validly represents Combined EPA mpg (a long shot at best) or even closer than actual highway (probably) you are correct. Additionally, we've established (those who understand it anyway) that according to Consumer Reports' results, the CVT gets the same highway mpg as 11 other non-Subarus, and they are rated at about 30 mpg with a standard deviation of around 1.2 mpg. So, I agree with you, since it is well established that the CVT mpg is 6 off highway, it is more than the 3 off "combined", making your above assumption.

Oh, and here is some information for you on the inefficiency of CVT's:

http://www.lib.ucdavis.edu/dept/pse/...s/04CVT-56.pdf

That will be true until the belts and pulleys or whatever is used are made of unobtainium that will transfer an infinite amount of friction per unit area, so the inherent friction losses are done away with.

Of course that link is for the benefit of others - I wouldn't expect you or flyboy to understand it even if you were to challenge your assumptions and read it.

P.S. Flyboy - to avoid repetitive postings, I'm still not sure where he says the vehicle he drove was a CVT (even under your mandate that it was a typo)
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2013, 01:14 PM   #43
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sgoldste01 View Post
^^Guys, instead of debating him, why don't we just add him to our ignore lists? That would keep all of these threads from going to ****.

I've just done it, and I suggest that others who find his posts unhelpful should do the same.
Yea, I will do that
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2013, 03:10 PM   #44
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

Gee, so have I! Or not...
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2013, 02:15 AM   #45
NW_Photographer
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 355316
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt Bringer View Post

Not entirely true. Around here I'm seeing one year old Impreza's with over 10k going for 1 to 2k under new at best.
I priced the entire market. I could not find a single one with the color, mileage and 10 yr warranty. Inspection went flawless. 3 sets of tires are new. I can sell them easy. I want the tint and the 3M wrapping. I want the roof rack. It's got fog lights too which I wanted. Sport grill. I wanted. Trunk rubber mat/seat back protectors. I wanted everything SHE did to the car.

All warranties. All records.

I'm buying for 21k, transfer of warranty $35.

The mileage is nothing. The car has no problems. And tires alone add another 1.5k in value.
NW_Photographer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2013, 02:21 AM   #46
NW_Photographer
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 355316
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default

BTW I wasn't asking about MT vs CVT. I don't care. I wanted automatic. Less pain in the ass to drive. I drive in traffic a lot.

Thanks for hijacking most my thread troll!
NW_Photographer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2013, 06:45 AM   #47
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NW_Photographer View Post
BTW I wasn't asking about MT vs CVT. I don't care. I wanted automatic. Less pain in the ass to drive. I drive in traffic a lot.

Thanks for hijacking most my thread troll!
Lol, congrats on the car!
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2013, 11:32 AM   #48
NW_Photographer
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 355316
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy1100 View Post

Lol, congrats on the car!
Thanks! I'm off to sign papers now. I'll hopefully get around to posting pictures of her sometime!
NW_Photographer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2013, 12:13 PM   #49
auskip07
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 315643
Join Date: Apr 2012
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Atlanta Ga
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Sedan
DGM 5mt

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NW_Photographer View Post
Thanks! I'm off to sign papers now. I'll hopefully get around to posting pictures of her sometime!
i should hope so. you have photographer in your screen name. They better be damn good ones too
auskip07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2013, 06:23 PM   #50
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

Congrats on the car!!!

It's always a great deal if you feel good about it. It will be money well spent, I just wish I would have bought mine earlier. I didn't know what I was missing.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.