Jump to content
LegacyGT.com

2017 Legacy News and Rumors


dgoodhue

Recommended Posts

DIT = Direct Injection Turbo. Nothing to do with diesel.
Obligatory '[URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/2008-gh8-238668.html?t=238668"]build thread[/URL]' Increased capacity to 2.7 liters, still turbo, but no longer need spark plugs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 379
  • Created
  • Last Reply
DIT = Direct Injection Turbo. Nothing to do with diesel.

 

hahaha DOY! I immediately thought of the 2.0L diesels because that's what I really want to see hit the shores of the US. the diesels are DIT too right?

make no mistake about it there will be a DIT in every Subaru in the next 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although that would be awesome to have an EE20 (diesel) or better in an outback or legacy. Mmmm, toooooorque and better M-P-G :wub:

After the VW thing, I doubt you will see them in the US.

Obligatory '[URL="http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php/2008-gh8-238668.html?t=238668"]build thread[/URL]' Increased capacity to 2.7 liters, still turbo, but no longer need spark plugs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the VW thing, I doubt you will see them in the US.

 

it's so sad really. i would for mazda's diesels to come this way too, but its gonna be a lot of convincing of the american public, which doesn't really happen unless your selling hamburgers or are a corrupt politician

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although that would be awesome to have an EE20 (diesel) or better in an outback or legacy. Mmmm, toooooorque and better M-P-G :wub:

Torque and acceleration is good - as long as you keep up to about 50 mph, then it slacks off. And I traded in my today after almost 72000 km... Replaced with a 2.5i instead.

453747.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

After reviewing the 2017 Impreza notes and model pricing schemes I am still scratching my head as to why SOA thinks potential Impreza sedan owners would buy a 5MT variant but potential Legacy owners wouldnt buy a 6MT variant? Foresters, XV, BRZ, Impreza have more of a demand for MT than the OB/Legacy ?

 

I guess they want to challenge the mid/sub/somewhat/smaller-large compact rivals and the MT option is attractive ?

 

Have they determined that the Legacy is the soccer mom/dad mobile?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the primary problem is that the volumes for MT gearboxes on the Legacy/Outback are a lot lower and that the emissions certifications for them will eat up any cost save a manual gearbox would save in production.
453747.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the primary problem is that the volumes for MT gearboxes on the Legacy/Outback are a lot lower and that the emissions certifications for them will eat up any cost save a manual gearbox would save in production.

 

is their fuel economy really that much worse than the auto's or does the EPA just not know how to drive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is their fuel economy really that much worse than the auto's or does the EPA just not know how to drive?

 

For years and years, the EPA rated manual gear boxes significantly higher than Auto boxes. For years and years, auto magazines showed the same. For years and years Auto magazines showed faster 0-60 times with Manuals, but now they pretty consistently get better times with auto gearboxes.

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For years and years, the EPA rated manual gear boxes significantly higher than Auto boxes. For years and years, auto magazines showed the same. For years and years Auto magazines showed faster 0-60 times with Manuals, but now they pretty consistently get better times with auto gearboxes.

 

What do you think?

Modern auto gearboxes have caught up with the manual gearboxes when it comes to fuel economy.

 

Early auto gearboxes didn't even have lock-up so they wasted a lot in the torque converter. And they weren't very good either.

 

People here complains about the 4EAT but it's not that bad - especially compared to the 3AT which was a real slushy horrorbox. I had an XT with the 3AT and it did at full throttle change from 2:nd to 3rd at about 120km/h but the turbo didn't start to give boost until 135km/h so there was a huge valley of death in performance. And a fuel economy that did suck.

 

The CVT isn't bad at all - even though I think it could be smarter sometimes and utilize torque more than rev before lowering the gear.

 

Yeah. In a few years, a robot will essentially drive for us :rolleyes:. Sad thing is lots of people will say yes to that...

 

In a few years politicians will require cars to be robotized on major roads and in cities "for the sake of safety and environment".

453747.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I should clarify: If the EPA and Auto Magazines were able to drive Manuals better than Automatics before, do you really think the difference is that the testers simply forgot how to drive a manual transmission? Or just maybe while the technology behind manual transmissions has remained relatively unchanged, the automatics have changed significantly and that might well explain why automatics are now more efficient than manual gearboxes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should also realize with the ecu doing the thinking it will and does force the engine into its most efficient range as quickly as possible.

 

I am willing to bet Subaru is selling lots of the manual Imprezas to people who don't commute or travel a lot that is probably the reasoning for the 5 spd over a 6mt. Most commuters are probably choosing the cvt anyway or going with the larger but not much more expensive Legacy which is probably on par withe MPG and has a lot more room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I should clarify: If the EPA and Auto Magazines were able to drive Manuals better than Automatics before, do you really think the difference is that the testers simply forgot how to drive a manual transmission? Or just maybe while the technology behind manual transmissions has remained relatively unchanged, the automatics have changed significantly and that might well explain why automatics are now more efficient than manual gearboxes.

 

Essentially the same thing as I stated.

 

The manual gearboxes are easy to get low-loss than automatics and the potential for improvement is lower. A manual gearbox from the 60's is not much different from a manual gearbox today.

 

Automatic gearboxes have seen a lot improvements since the 70's and 80's. It was in the 80's the automatic gearboxes started to get lock-up functionality and more gears. In the 70's a 4-stepped slushbox was almost a unicorn, and lock-up was a WTF is that.

453747.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. I just realized that my initial comment could be interpreted by some as meaning "of course the EPA can't drive".

 

Not only have the automatic gearboxes caught up, but when you start looking at the 8 and 9 speed gear boxes out there, you'll see few manuals with so many gears. No one would really WANT to row through so many gears to try to eek an extra couple MPG, nor would they likely really know how to most efficiently do so. The ECU/TCU marriage in Automatics (or CVT) is simply something that can't really be beat by a normal driver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially the same thing as I stated.

 

The manual gearboxes are easy to get low-loss than automatics and the potential for improvement is lower. A manual gearbox from the 60's is not much different from a manual gearbox today.

 

Automatic gearboxes have seen a lot improvements since the 70's and 80's. It was in the 80's the automatic gearboxes started to get lock-up functionality and more gears. In the 70's a 4-stepped slushbox was almost a unicorn, and lock-up was a WTF is that.

 

not only that, stuff was made out of CAST IRON and weighed a lot... automatics can trace their roots back to the late 20's and thirties with things like Dodges fluid drive...

 

the CVT is really the pinnacle for the automatic transmission as it is now able to return BETTER fuel economy than a manual...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is their fuel economy really that much worse than the auto's or does the EPA just not know how to drive?

 

I think the EPA has parameters for how MT is driven (shift points) that isn't the most fuel efficient. My 2012 6MT 2.5i has a factory rated 19/27mpg and it seems to get the the same reported fuel economy (here and on fuelly) as the CVT which were rated a 23/31mpg. My current fuelly average is 29.2mpg over 30k miles of actual fill ups. My fuel economy would actually be better if I didn't have 235mm summer tires as my car gets noticeably better mpg with 205mm stock All seasons and snow tires. My wife has 6MT TDI VW and the MT get a good 5mpg better than the ratings, while the DSG basically get rated FE. I have other example of car I have owned where the MT models are much easier to beat the EPA ratings than automatics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the EPA has parameters for how MT is driven (shift points) that isn't the most fuel efficient. My 2012 6MT 2.5i has a factory rated 19/27mpg and it seems to get the the same reported fuel economy (here and on fuelly) as the CVT which were rated a 23/31mpg. My current fuelly average is 29.2mpg over 30k miles of actual fill ups.

 

I think your city driving has better conditions then EPA's tests. At best I've gotten 21mpg City on my 2012 6MT 2.5i. My average speed is 20mph and I do about 8m a day :lol:. Highway wise I was getting 27-28 until I upped the tire pressure by 10psi, only then I started to see 30-32mpg.

 

EPA ratings seem to be a bit more on par with what I'm seeing personally. But they also test very differently then what we do, they usually will see something like 22-36mpg then average out the numbres to be 28mpg and that's what they list.

 

My fuel economy would actually be better if I didn't have 235mm summer tires as my car gets noticeably better mpg with 205mm stock All seasons and snow tires. My wife has 6MT TDI VW and the MT get a good 5mpg better than the ratings, while the DSG basically get rated FE. I have other example of car I have owned where the MT models are much easier to beat the EPA ratings than automatics.

 

Do you adjust your odometer readings to the smaller sized tires? If you don't your actually getting the same MPG as before, it's just your odometer is thinking you traveled more miles :lol:.

 

I'll agree with you though, all of the Japanese cars that I've owned always got higher Highway MPG then EPA, city it's where I'm usually at or below EPA though.

05 LGT 16G 14psi 290whp/30mpg (SOLD)

12 OBP Stock 130whp/27mpg@87 Oct

00 G20t GT28r 10psi 250whp/36mpg

22 Ascent STOCK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use