Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Friday May 25, 2018
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors

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 03-13-2013, 07:45 AM   #1776
Calamity Jesus
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 44501
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Yeah, well, you know
Vehicle:
that 's, like, your
alternate facts, man.

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC View Post
By the way, the CVT is not an automatic. Please don't confuse the two. There is no torque converter in a CVT. It's a different type of transmission.
Incorrect. CVTs in cars use lock-up hydraulic torque converters just like automatics. Once the car is moving the lock-up clutch stays locked, which is becoming more popular with traditional automatics as well (see Mazda SkyActive).
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Calamity Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 03-13-2013, 08:12 AM   #1777
KC
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 442
Join Date: Oct 1999
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: RI/SE Mass
Vehicle:
17 Imp Spurt
00 S2k | 14 BRZ (SSC)

Default

Brain fart. Sorry. No gears. Wow. Whoops.

--kC
KC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:57 AM   #1778
G-Omaha
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 209172
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Omaha, NE
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza CLL
BL2

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC View Post
New, or broken in? That link I provided above breaks down the times recorded. How did you do your measuring, with lights/triggers/sensors or a stopwatch?
--kC
I think that the issue here is two people testing. One in the MT and the other in the CVT. If the driver of the MT has some "talent", they may attain a slight acceleration advantage in a side by side test. The CVT driver needs only the "talent" to depress the gas pedal to the floor. So if you are a little slow on one or more shifts, then the CVT could win the "race".

Some of the sales reps at my local dealer accomplished these types of head to head tests at the SOA test track and found that both the MT and CVT were basically the same as far as acceleration was concerned.

G-
G-Omaha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 12:35 PM   #1779
JustyWRC
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 153088
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Arlington, TN
Vehicle:
2005 Baja Turbo
06/04 For 18 Imp 4dr Sprt

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post
2012 Impreza 2.0 5MT is mid to high 8 sec 0-60 with the CVT being .5 sec slower than that.

Not sure why you think it is ground breaking the CVT is slower than the manual.

Never said that. Just can't duplicate a faster manual. Be it a Crosstrek, Impreza, or Outback(haven't tried a Legacy). My first attempt at racing a manual vs was against an 88 ECVT. No wait. His was a 1.2L and my 85 was a 1.0L. Nevermind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC View Post
New, or broken in? That link I provided above breaks down the times recorded. How did you do your measuring, with lights/triggers/sensors or a stopwatch?

This is the last post I make comparing the Forester to the XV. I've taken it off topic a bit and I apologize.

--kC
New. And we used the "3, 2, 1, GO!!!" method.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Omaha View Post
I think that the issue here is two people testing. One in the MT and the other in the CVT. If the driver of the MT has some "talent", they may attain a slight acceleration advantage in a side by side test. The CVT driver needs only the "talent" to depress the gas pedal to the floor. So if you are a little slow on one or more shifts, then the CVT could win the "race".

Some of the sales reps at my local dealer accomplished these types of head to head tests at the SOA test track and found that both the MT and CVT were basically the same as far as acceleration was concerned.

G-
We swapped several times to make sure and we came to the same conclusion. I just don't see enough difference in acceleration to sway someone towards a manual for that. CVT will get better MPG, so...
JustyWRC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 01:11 PM   #1780
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustyWRC View Post
CVT will get better MPG, so...
Maybe, maybe not. I would put my luck with the MT personally. Especially if you head over to the Impreza forum and read all the complaints of owners not getting close to EPA numbers. I know lots of factors involved with that, but appears 5MT are doing much better getting EPA numbers or exceeding it.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 01:27 PM   #1781
KC
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 442
Join Date: Oct 1999
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: RI/SE Mass
Vehicle:
17 Imp Spurt
00 S2k | 14 BRZ (SSC)

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustyWRC View Post
I just don't see enough difference in acceleration to sway someone towards a manual for that. CVT will get better MPG, so...
I was going with published numbers.

XV CVT gets ~2mpg more than the XV 5MT (published, not currently realized, which tilts even more to the MT).

That equates to a $3/week savings or $156/year in gas for the 350miles/week I average.

However, factoring in that the CVT is a $1k markup over the 5MT... it would take about 6.5 years to recoup the markup for the CVT, if gas prices and my miles driven per week remain constant.

For the length of the 5 year loan, it would be $4/month more expensive for me to own a CVT than a 5MT XV. Then, another 1.5 years after that solely in gas savings (for a total of 6.5 years) to when the CVT would realize full savings potential (at $3/week).

so....

--kC

Last edited by KC; 03-13-2013 at 01:36 PM.
KC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 01:39 PM   #1782
richde
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 79498
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: SCIC's trashy neighbor
Vehicle:
2013 XV

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post

Maybe, maybe not. I would put my luck with the MT personally. Especially if you head over to the Impreza forum and read all the complaints of owners not getting close to EPA numbers. I know lots of factors involved with that, but appears 5MT are doing much better getting EPA numbers or exceeding it.
Where are you getting that from? BTW, it isn't about getting the EPA numbers, it's about getting better numbers overall.
richde is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 01:46 PM   #1783
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
Where are you getting that from? BTW, it isn't about getting the EPA numbers, it's about getting better numbers overall.

From the Impreza forum there is a thread on this exact issue of CVT owners upset with their fuel economy. Could also be due to CVT+ PZEV combination as those with CVT w/o PZEV haven't really experienced this. Once again, forum thread, small sample size but interesting none the less.

If the CVT is getting significantly less mpg than the EPA number and the 5MT crowd is getting or exceeding the EPA numbers, then yes it matters.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 02:15 PM   #1784
richde
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 79498
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: SCIC's trashy neighbor
Vehicle:
2013 XV

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post

From the Impreza forum there is a thread on this exact issue of CVT owners upset with their fuel economy. Could also be due to CVT+ PZEV combination as those with CVT w/o PZEV haven't really experienced this. Once again, forum thread, small sample size but interesting none the less.

If the CVT is getting significantly less mpg than the EPA number and the 5MT crowd is getting or exceeding the EPA numbers, then yes it matters.
With so many variables, that info is almost worthless.

I got the CVT because although the manual in my WRX was fine, that car also had 80 extra HP and the meat of the torque curve was right at highway cruising speeds. The idea of having to downshift to climb moderate hills is not appealing to me and I would find it downright frustrating. Because no matter which transmission is mounted, it's still connected to a relatively gutless motor.

I was getting close to 25mpg in my '05 WRX, with 100 miles on the clock of my XV, the dash display has climbed up to 27mpg so far for the same commute and speeds even though it strains quite a bit more on the previously mentioned gentle hills.
richde is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 02:24 PM   #1785
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
With so many variables, that info is almost worthless.

Guess you missed this where I mentioned it wasn't perfect science. Regardless of what you think, there are enough members raising the issue to the point it is still interesting. Not sure why you take great offense to the MT reaching or exceeding the EPA numbers while the CVT might very well have issues doing the same.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 04:26 PM   #1786
richde
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 79498
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: SCIC's trashy neighbor
Vehicle:
2013 XV

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post
Guess you missed this where I mentioned it wasn't perfect science. Regardless of what you think, there are enough members raising the issue to the point it is still interesting. Not sure why you take great offense to the MT reaching or exceeding the EPA numbers while the CVT might very well have issues doing the same.
The closest thing to "perfect science" is the EPA numbers, where you get marginally better mileage with the CVT. That's in addition to not having to work the gearbox just to drive up a hill on the highway and a higher eventual resale/trade-in value. It all adds up.

I like driving a manual, don't get me wrong, but I DO NOT like the idea of having to downshift just to keep the car traveling the same speed on the highway because the engine lacks the ooomph to hold a constant speed. Both the 2.5 Forester and XV are guilty of this, as I was driving a loaner Forester last week. 75mph and a constant gradual rise are just too much for either engine.
richde is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 04:39 PM   #1787
JustyWRC
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 153088
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Arlington, TN
Vehicle:
2005 Baja Turbo
06/04 For 18 Imp 4dr Sprt

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC View Post
so....

--kC
.....I am done driving manuals.....so.....that cost is nothing to me. After D.C. Christmas rush hour traffic last year, no more 3 pedal for me for a "regular" car. Only for the toys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post
From the Impreza forum there is a thread on this exact issue of CVT owners upset with their fuel economy. Could also be due to CVT+ PZEV combination as those with CVT w/o PZEV haven't really experienced this. Once again, forum thread, small sample size but interesting none the less.

If the CVT is getting significantly less mpg than the EPA number and the 5MT crowd is getting or exceeding the EPA numbers, then yes it matters.

I do think that probably has a lot to do with location and the way they are driving. Most of what we hear here() is better than EPA. 3 employees have one and they are all doing better. Waiting to hear back from some Crosstrek owners.
JustyWRC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 04:57 PM   #1788
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
The closest thing to "perfect science" is the EPA numbers, where you get marginally better mileage with the CVT. That's in addition to not having to work the gearbox just to drive up a hill on the highway and a higher eventual resale/trade-in value. It all adds up.
Yes because all EPA numbers can be believed amiright? Talking to you Hyundai, Kia, Honda and others.

Didn't realize shifting was so complex and hard?

Resale/trade in value? Don't see a big difference as you are paying $1000 upfront. Just doing a quick search on KBB to compare a used Impreza auto vs. MT, the estimated value difference between the two is $700-800 in favor of the auto. So not like you have a higher resale value in the auto as you believe.

Now if you want to bring in other factors, I would rather have an issue with my MT out of warranty than have an issue with the CVT out of warranty. That is "if" an issue occurred. Much cheaper to work on the MT.


Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
I like driving a manual, don't get me wrong, but I DO NOT like the idea of having to downshift just to keep the car traveling the same speed on the highway because the engine lacks the ooomph to hold a constant speed. Both the 2.5 Forester and XV are guilty of this, as I was driving a loaner Forester last week. 75mph and a constant gradual rise are just too much for either engine.
What is the big problem with downshifting? I don't get it. Do you change the radio station? Do you change the speed on your cruise control? It is like you have to do some complex operation to downshift.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 05:43 PM   #1789
richde
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 79498
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: SCIC's trashy neighbor
Vehicle:
2013 XV

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post
Yes because all EPA numbers can be believed amiright? Talking to you Hyundai, Kia, Honda and others.

Didn't realize shifting was so complex and hard?

Resale/trade in value? Don't see a big difference as you are paying $1000 upfront. Just doing a quick search on KBB to compare a used Impreza auto vs. MT, the estimated value difference between the two is $700-800 in favor of the auto. So not like you have a higher resale value in the auto as you believe.

Now if you want to bring in other factors, I would rather have an issue with my MT out of warranty than have an issue with the CVT out of warranty. That is "if" an issue occurred. Much cheaper to work on the MT.

What is the big problem with downshifting? I don't get it. Do you change the radio station? Do you change the speed on your cruise control? It is like you have to do some complex operation to downshift.
It doesn't matter how the EPA estimates relate to real world driving, it's how the ratings for two different transmissions compare to each other under the only scientific testing around. Why is that so hard to understand?

NASIOC in general needs to get off of it's collective perceived high horse when it comes to the manual vs automatic debate. Just because someone doesn't want to do something, it doesn't mean that they can't. Like I said, and you missed the point on, it's annoying to have to row through the gears to just maintain a constant speed. I remember back in the good old days when small, underpowered cars only had manual transmissions, and you had to work the hell out of them anytime the terrain turned slightly uphill. It's not engaging, exciting, or much of anything else other than annoying. Been there, done that, had enough of it. You think it's fun now? You'll get tired of it.

The transmission has a five year warrantee, and the reality is that automatic transmissions are usually just as trouble free as manuals. A torque converter is a simple device, much more so than a clutch, and with the CVT being chain driven, there's also some pretty good stoutness built into that. But, if something goes wrong, I'll take it to the dealer and get a loaner, just like if somehow something happened to a manual. Except I probably won't get accused of beating on it in order to get out of paying for the repairs. BTW, the CVT has been out for two years now, where are those horror stories?

So, we've got the 10% savings in fuel costs, plus 80% of the value of the $1000 CVT option cost...and you're easily looking at breaking even on it. Plus I don't have to work it over like it was an old Ford Fiesta. IMO, it just feels cheap when you have to do that, or when a traditional auto makes one of those sudden dramatic, jerky downshifts. The CVT doesn't have that problem.
richde is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 06:01 PM   #1790
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
It doesn't matter how the EPA estimates relate to real world driving,
Sure it does. As has been shown many times, EPA numbers don't always match up with real world driving. Didn't realize you drove your car to work and home on a dyno every day in a building. I'll take real world driving data over EPA. I put more trust in Fuelly than I do the EPA testing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
NASIOC in general needs to get off of it's collective perceived high horse when it comes to the manual vs automatic debate. Just because someone doesn't want to do something, it doesn't mean that they can't. Like I said, and you missed the point on, it's annoying to have to row through the gears to just maintain a constant speed. I remember back in the good old days when small, underpowered cars only had manual transmissions, and you had to work the hell out of them anytime the terrain turned slightly uphill. It's not engaging, exciting, or much of anything else other than annoying. Been there, done that, had enough of it. You think it's fun now? You'll get tired of it.
Dude, I'm in my 30s and have driven manual cars since I got my license. Down shifting isn't a big deal nor is driving in traffic with a manual. I have commuted in rush hour traffic when I lived in Chicago and DC/Baltimore area without issues. Hey, sounds like to was too much for you too deal with so it is good you moved on to an auto. Doesn't mean the rest of us 3 pedal guys will do the same. We are perfectly fine just as we are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
The transmission has a five year warrantee, and the reality is that automatic transmissions are usually just as trouble free as manuals. A torque converter is a simple device, much more so than a clutch, and with the CVT being chain driven, there's also some pretty good stoutness built into that. But, if something goes wrong, I'll take it to the dealer and get a loaner, just like if somehow something happened to a manual. Except I probably won't get accused of beating on it in order to get out of paying for the repairs. BTW, the CVT has been out for two years now, where are those horror stories?
You think you would get accused of beating on a 5MT XV? Oh please, stop the comedy.

Hey, the CVT could very well be just as reliable as a manual. My hypothetical wasn't under warranty (who cares about that as it is covered) but rather after the warranty ends. If anything happened to my transmission out of warranty, I would rather be the owner of a MT than a CVT car. Because it would be cheaper to deal with a MT issue than a CVT issue. I tend to keep my cars a long time, so that is important to me. If I was trading in my car after 3 years, then it wouldn't matter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
So, we've got the 10% savings in fuel costs, plus 80% of the value of the $1000 CVT option cost...and you're easily looking at breaking even on it. Plus I don't have to work it over like it was an old Ford Fiesta. IMO, it just feels cheap when you have to do that, or when a traditional auto makes one of those sudden dramatic, jerky downshifts. The CVT doesn't have that problem.

Where is the 10% savings in fuel cost? At most it would be ~7.7% based off the EPA numbers (28 vs 26). Fuelly doesn't have a lot of XV's up yet (22), but so far the cars listed as auto vs manual show minimal difference in their reported numbers.

I don't get your issue with the car feeling "cheap" when you have to work the car over? What does that even mean?
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 06:58 PM   #1791
richde
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 79498
Join Date: Jan 2005
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: SCIC's trashy neighbor
Vehicle:
2013 XV

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post
Sure it does. As has been shown many times, EPA numbers don't always match up with real world driving. Didn't realize you drove your car to work and home on a dyno every day in a building. I'll take real world driving data over EPA. I put more trust in Fuelly than I do the EPA testing.
It doesn't matter because everybody's driving style is different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post
Dude, I'm in my 30s and have driven manual cars since I got my license. Down shifting isn't a big deal nor is driving in traffic with a manual. I have commuted in rush hour traffic when I lived in Chicago and DC/Baltimore area without issues. Hey, sounds like to was too much for you too deal with so it is good you moved on to an auto. Doesn't mean the rest of us 3 pedal guys will do the same. We are perfectly fine just as we are.
There you go again thinking that you're a special snowflake because you choose to drive a manual. Notice I said "choose" while you make it out like you have some arcane knowledge. It's not tough, plenty of old pensioners in Europe do it every day.

If you want to measure our respective manual transmission e-peens, you can always try driving an old 911 with the archaic 915 transmission...like I do sometimes. In comparison, everything else feels like they're designed for housewives.

BTW, I'm in my 40's, have owned many manual transmission equipped cars, and motorcycles....so you need to put that little e-peen away before someone starts laughing at it.

There are many things I can do, but I don't need to do them every day to somehow brag of my mundane skills as if everybody is watching in awe or to feel as if I'm in an exclusive club that can walk and chew gum at the same time. I'm sure the housewives and retirees are very impressed that you can do the same thing as them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post
Hey, the CVT could very well be just as reliable as a manual. My hypothetical wasn't under warranty (who cares about that as it is covered) but rather after the warranty ends. If anything happened to my transmission out of warranty, I would rather be the owner of a MT than a CVT car. Because it would be cheaper to deal with a MT issue than a CVT issue. I tend to keep my cars a long time, so that is important to me. If I was trading in my car after 3 years, then it wouldn't matter.
You mean five years, and if it lasts that long, it's probably not going to have any problems at all. Besides, regardless of type, if your transmission has to be split, it's going to cost a lot of money.

What CVT issue? You're just making up things to justify your position at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post
Where is the 10% savings in fuel cost? At most it would be ~7.7% based off the EPA numbers (28 vs 26). Fuelly doesn't have a lot of XV's up yet (22), but so far the cars listed as auto vs manual show minimal difference in their reported numbers.
It still ends up as a wash between the cost of the CVT option, fuel savings and additional trade-in/resale value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53x12 View Post
I don't get your issue with the car feeling "cheap" when you have to work the car over? What does that even mean?
Maybe you haven't driven enough ****ty little cars to notice or perceive a difference. Downshifting merely to make it up a hill is annoying, and I defy you to claim it to be exciting. If you do think it's exciting, I suggest you buy a VW Bus/Vanagan or whatever they're called, you won't be able to contain yourself with all the excitement.

This is a stupid argument, reply if you want, but rest assured you're wrong.
richde is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 07:19 PM   #1792
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
It doesn't matter because everybody's driving style is different.
The EPA method is flawed. Regardless of different driving styles, once you have a large enough sample size, you can start getting an idea of what the true mpg is as the outliers don't affect the mean. That is why I like Fuelly in general. No, I won't claim Fuelly is perfect, but it sure gives me a better idea than EPA numbers.

I would personally place more faith in real world experience over EPA numbers.

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/...a-ratings.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
There you go again thinking that you're a special snowflake because you choose to drive a manual. Notice I said "choose" while you make it out like you have some arcane knowledge. It's not tough, plenty of old pensioners in Europe do it every day.
Dude settle down, this isn't OT. For some reason you have some pent up anger against NASIOC and the "collective perceived high horse" of those that enjoy 3 pedals. Settle down. If you enjoy a CVT great. No reason I can't enjoy a MT. Did I bash your CVT XV or something?


Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
If you want to measure our respective manual transmission e-peens, you can always try driving an old 911 with the archaic 915 transmission...like I do sometimes. In comparison, everything else feels like they're designed for housewives.
I am so proud that you have an "e-peens."


Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
BTW, I'm in my 40's, have owned many manual transmission equipped cars, and motorcycles....so you need to put that little e-peen away before someone starts laughing at it.

There are many things I can do, but I don't need to do them every day to somehow brag of my mundane skills as if everybody is watching in awe or to feel as if I'm in an exclusive club that can walk and chew gum at the same time. I'm sure the housewives and retirees are very impressed that you can do the same thing as them.

Cool story.



Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
You mean five years, and if it lasts that long, it's probably not going to have any problems at all. Besides, regardless of type, if your transmission has to be split, it's going to cost a lot of money.
No, I meant 3 years as the was the time frame I mentioned in a theoretical trade in. I know about Subaru's powertrain warranty. You don't need to repeat yourself. My 3 year comment was not in regard to any warranty. It was about a "theoretical" trade in and nothing about a warranty. Please follow along.



Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
What CVT issue? You're just making up things to justify your position at this point.
Where did I say there was a CVT issue? I didn't make up anything. If you actually read my post I spoke about a "hypothetical" issue. I would rather have a "hypothetical" issue with a MT than have a "hypothetical" with a CVT. I never said a XV CVT would develop an issue in the future.


Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
It still ends up as a wash between the cost of the CVT option, fuel savings and additional trade-in/resale value.
Yet you were the one wagging your "e-peen" about how the CVT is a better economical choice because of MPG and trade in/resale value. So it is wash?



Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
Maybe you haven't driven enough ****ty little cars to notice or perceive a difference. Downshifting merely to make it up a hill is annoying, and I defy you to claim it to be exciting.
So a XV is a "****ty" car? Then why did you buy one?


Quote:
Originally Posted by richde View Post
This is a stupid argument, reply if you want, but rest assured you're wrong.
What argument? You are the one that replied to me. I was just making an observation that maybe the CVT doesn't really get much better MPG than a MT based on what some people have experienced in real life on the Impreza forum + what a website like Fuelly shows. Then all of a sudden you got all personal. Settle down. You are the one that called your XV ****ty. Not me.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 08:28 PM   #1793
gathermewool
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 143624
Join Date: Mar 2007
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: New England
Vehicle:
14 FXTT (hers)
15 Legacy 2.5i Prem (his)

Default

I'm on Team 53x12. With that said, please stop replying to richde. I understand your argument, and don't perceive any e-peening, so can we move along?

Just to clarify, and back you up, you're pretty much saying, "to each his or her own," but that your opinion is X because of Y. THAT is easy enough to understand, and your X and Y align with how I see the situation. I have zero faith in the recent EPA numbers, and typically use Fuelly to see how others are doing, realizing, as you've stated many times, that it is NOT the end all, be all for determining what MPG I/YOU/HE/SHE will achieve.

Back on topic: I've seen a couple of XV's around here lately, and I REALLY like them. Unfortunately, they don't offer ANYTHING, other than looks, for me over an Impreza. I won't be light-off-roading, and I have confidence that a regular old Impreza can handle any snow I might encounter, with the proper shoes on. Looks and a lift, to put it simply, aren't enough to make me buy...an XV with the '14 FXT's DIT on the other hand...
gathermewool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:40 PM   #1794
staryoshi
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 299690
Join Date: Nov 2011
Chapter/Region: RMIC
Location: Colorado
Vehicle:
2014 Subaru Forester
Jasmine Green Metallic

Default

I love the look of the Crosstrek, but the Forester offers a more spacious, more powerful package with what should be similar fuel economy for a similar price (or premium depending on the trim and configuration) and it's difficult for me to justify getting a Crosstrek when this car needs to accommodate my lifestyle for 5+ years.

Also, there IS a bias toward M/Ts on this site :P What does that have to do with the merits of the Crosstrek? Not much
staryoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:44 PM   #1795
KC
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 442
Join Date: Oct 1999
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: RI/SE Mass
Vehicle:
17 Imp Spurt
00 S2k | 14 BRZ (SSC)

Default

I have an automatic and a manual.

However, after having a couple automatic Subaurs, never again. Not as responsive on the slick stuff. I really love the simple 50/50 AWD in the Subaru MTs, understanding the differences of the like 5-6-7 different ones they have.

And I can't imagine hills where one has to constantly shift/row vs finding a lower gear and leaving it there for a bit. One shift.

--kC
KC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:57 PM   #1796
G-Omaha
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 209172
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Omaha, NE
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza CLL
BL2

Default

One Shift - or really no shift for the CVT. Can't drive a MT anymore (bad knee that "pops out at the wort times"). Even after having said that the MT was always a bit more fun to drive (except in bumper to bumper traffic) and it made you feel as if "Whee, it's got power" even when it didn't ('72 Honda Coupe with a whole 36 HP) years ago.
G-Omaha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 10:00 PM   #1797
JustyWRC
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 153088
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Arlington, TN
Vehicle:
2005 Baja Turbo
06/04 For 18 Imp 4dr Sprt

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Omaha View Post
Can't drive a MT anymore (bad knee that "pops out at the wort times").

Man, that's got to be a big wort!!!
JustyWRC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 10:44 PM   #1798
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KC View Post
I have an automatic and a manual.

However, after having a couple automatic Subaurs, never again. Not as responsive on the slick stuff. I really love the simple 50/50 AWD in the Subaru MTs, understanding the differences of the like 5-6-7 different ones they have.

And I can't imagine hills where one has to constantly shift/row vs finding a lower gear and leaving it there for a bit. One shift.

--kC
I think the 50/50 AWD of the manual is another interesting aspect. I also prefer the continuous vs active AWD. But I hate to talk about that as things always seem to hit derp mode when that topic is raised.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Omaha View Post
One Shift - or really no shift for the CVT. Can't drive a MT anymore (bad knee that "pops out at the wort times"). Even after having said that the MT was always a bit more fun to drive (except in bumper to bumper traffic) and it made you feel as if "Whee, it's got power" even when it didn't ('72 Honda Coupe with a whole 36 HP) years ago.
Maybe you should see a orthopedic surgeon regarding the knee. Doesn't sound comfortable.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 10:45 PM   #1799
KC
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 442
Join Date: Oct 1999
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: RI/SE Mass
Vehicle:
17 Imp Spurt
00 S2k | 14 BRZ (SSC)

Default

Wicked light clutches in these things.
KC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2013, 01:33 AM   #1800
Calamity Jesus
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 44501
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Yeah, well, you know
Vehicle:
that 's, like, your
alternate facts, man.

Default

Extended tedt drive or did you buy it?
Calamity Jesus 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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Subaru XV confirmed for production rsholland News & Rumors 15 07-18-2011 02:52 PM
Subaru XV Concept Confirmed For 2011 AIMS AVANTI R5 News & Rumors 17 06-07-2011 06:48 PM
Subaru XV and Coupe 'to double UK sales' AVANTI R5 News & Rumors 0 05-31-2011 01:17 PM
Subaru XV Concept teased ahead of Auto Shanghai debut SoDealer News & Rumors 214 04-21-2011 03:58 PM
Subaru SUV debut next month in Tokyo NYCshopper News & Rumors 26 10-03-2003 05:19 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2018 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2017, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.