3.6R in 2018/19 vs 2.4T in 2019/20+

[ammcinnis]

... no compromises will be allowed ...

 

Two words: Unrealistic expectations. All good engineering design is a collection of often-difficult compromises flying in tight formation.

[Fiatz79]

Now if that 3.6R had a 7-speed geared automatic with paddle shifters, then they'd really have something worth buying as a "Performance Sedan".

 

Unfortunately the 3.6R was not designed to be a "Performance Sedan"

[Pilot1226]

Oi. My thread has been hijacked.

 

That being said I know what you mean with unrealistic expectations. While I would love my new car to last me for 20+ years, technology advances so quickly and makes jumps at key points, that I would truly be surprised if I made it 10 years with my next one. Not that the car “won’t” make it, but because I wont let it.

 

I told myself my Outback would last me forever, and here I am 6 1/2 years later

[Condor1970]

Unfortunately the 3.6R was not designed to be a "Performance Sedan"

 

It would be, if they put a decent transmission in it. It certainly wouldn't compete with an Audi, but it definitely put it at the top of the heap in this price range comparing it to Accord and Camry.

 

If the car was meant to have no performance, then they shouldn't have even bothered to have a 3.6L version. In fact, all these dreams of a 2.4T is pointless. The idea of those engines is to give it better performance. That performance is a waste of time and engine if it doesn't have a proper transmission to drive it.

 

Here's a good example of the problem. An Audi Q5 weighs 4,400lbs, which is over 700lbs more than a Forester XT. Both have a 2.0 turbo engine that puts out similar power at 250hp and 270hp respectively.

 

Yet, the Audi Q5 will easily accelerate better from 0-60 and pass on the highway better than the Forester XT. The primary reason for this is a mating a so called performance oriented engine design to a transmission that simply can't deliver.

 

If Subaru put a manual or geared automatic into the Forester XT, that thing would spank most SUV's on the market in performance. CVT's seriously inhibit the performance of these vehicles, and are only being used because of a push for efficiency. Which btw, isn't really all that efficient.

[Brisvegas]

Two words: Unrealistic expectations. All good engineering design is a collection of often-difficult compromises flying in tight formation.

 

I always enjoy your comments on the forum buddy, but I think you are being a bit harsh on me here My "no compromises" vow was not a pie in the sky search for future perfection, but merely an unwillingness next time around, to skimp on actual available options when tempted by things like run out deals, or discounts offered by the dealer on models that don't have all the available options that I wanted.

[II Kings 9201657616070]

It would be, if they put a decent transmission in it. It certainly wouldn't compete with an Audi, but it definitely put it at the top of the heap in this price range comparing it to Accord and Camry.

 

If the car was meant to have no performance, then they shouldn't have even bothered to have a 3.6L version. In fact, all these dreams of a 2.4T is pointless. The idea of those engines is to give it better performance. That performance is a waste of time and engine if it doesn't have a proper transmission to drive it.

 

Here's a good example of the problem. An Audi Q5 weighs 4,400lbs, which is over 700lbs more than a Forester XT. Both have a 2.0 turbo engine that puts out similar power at 250hp and 270hp respectively.

 

Yet, the Audi Q5 will easily accelerate better from 0-60 and pass on the highway better than the Forester XT. The primary reason for this is a mating a so called performance oriented engine design to a transmission that simply can't deliver.

 

If Subaru put a manual or geared automatic into the Forester XT, that thing would spank most SUV's on the market in performance. CVT's seriously inhibit the performance of these vehicles, and are only being used because of a push for efficiency. Which btw, isn't really all that efficient.

 

I have a CVT in my '13 Accord and it's meh. Low speed responsiveness is just so-so.

 

I'm sure a manual Forester would beat a CVT Forester at the expense of those precious MPGs each manufacturer needs.

That's true for every CVT I'm familiar with, no manual beats them on MPG.

 

Having said that, a good 6 or 8 speed can get as good MPGs as a CVT with superior performance.

 

I read a couple of years ago that the 3.6 Legacy lost 1.5 sec to 60 when it went to the CVT.

[ammcinnis]

... I think you are being a bit harsh on me here ...

 

Harshness not intended.

 

My "no compromises" vow was ... merely an unwillingness next time around, to skimp on actual available options ...

Fair enough! Sounds reasonable to me.

 

FWIW, our 2015 was a factory order, so we ordered everything we wanted that was available in Subaru's option matrix, but we still had to compromise because some combinations simply weren't available (e.g. Premium trim with HID headlights or 3.6 engine).

[Brisvegas]

Oi. My thread has been hijacked.

 

Sorry Pilot, I'm probably guilty of being one of the hijackers:redface:

I just reread your initial post and I share your positive thoughts on the 3.6lt and the "unknowns" on a possible shift to a 2.4T. I'm in about the opposite situation to you .... as I would like to move from the sedan to the Outback. But I'm wary of the 2.4T and I will probably play the waiting (and "googling game") until 2020 and see what is actually on the table at that time.

[upstater]

None of these engines mean a darn, as long as they keep installing CVT's that take 9 seconds to go from 0-60mph.

 

Now if that 3.6R had a 7-speed geared automatic with paddle shifters, then they'd really have something worth buying as a "Performance Sedan".

 

The Legacy, if equipped with a 2.0 DIT (I still see them putting a 2.4 DIT in the Legacy as pure fantasy) would probably get the WRX CVT, perhaps configured a bit differently.

 

 

(These are 2015 numbers) https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/subaru-0-60-mph-times/

 

WRX (manual) 0-60 5.1 seconds

WRX (CVT/SI Drive) 0-60 5.2 seconds

 

Forester 2.5 CVT 0-60 8.5 seconds

Forester XT CVT/SI Drive 0-60 6.3 seconds

 

The CVT with the SI drive isn't the issue, looking at the WRX for example, a professional driver would need to shift perfectly to get the 5.1 second time, while a casual WRX CVT owner just has to accelerate.

 

For the Forester, the slowness is probably due to a differently programmed (less aggressive SI drive), and the gearing of the differentials.

 

If the Legacy gets the WRX drivetrain, expect it not to compete directly with the WRX, i.e., similar power and less aggressive SI drive programming.

 

I bet if you want a 2.4 DIT in a sedan, you will be shopping for a next gen STI...

[Condor1970]

The Forster CVT and the WRX in stock form do not go that fast 0-60. I have watched an awful lot of videos and talked to guys at the local dealership who all agree with me. The WRX w/CVT can get 0-60 in around 6.0 seconds. Maybe 5.8 at best. Most actual drivers are getting around 6.5-7 seconds in the real world. That's just terrible results for this car. Some are using 87 octane gas, but most use premium, and the results are marginally better.

Yet the manual gets you to the low 5's. Show me anyone who has gotten 5.2 seconds with a CVT in stock form. You can't, because that stat is a complete fabrication. The fact that a guy with a manual transmission can best a CVT is a perfect example of how terrible CVT's really are when it comes to performance driving.

 

A geared automatic transmission today that has been programmed properly, should easily be faster than the best a human can do using a manual transmission. If the WRX had a 7-spd automatic geared transmission, it would easily go 0-60 in under 5.0 seconds.

 

Everyone needs to stop drinking the Kool-Aid when it comes to CVT's. The CVT is a fabulous transmission for efficiency, cost, and ease of maintenance. But the amount of slippage from the contact pads on the drive chain is proof in that it doesn't transfer power nearly as well as a geared transmission. PERIOD.

 

I can tell you with absolute certainty, my Legacy goes 0-60 in about 9 seconds. If it was tuned, it would get maybe 8 seconds at best in stock form. Yet, every other car with a geared transmission with similar power ratings easily accelerates faster. Why? Because CVT's have too much loss of power due to chain slip between the pulleys. It's the exact same way with the WRX and Foresters. If those vehicles had normal geared transmissions, they would accelerate a good 1-2 seconds faster going 0-60.

[upstater]

Sounds like you will need to shop for another manufacturer, then, because you sound exactly like every WRX fan who saw the new gen WRX (2015+) came equipped with a CVT , and proceeded to rend their garments...

 

And Subaru just keeps making them. Don't expect something else, they aren't going to reverse course after multiple years of R&D, not to mention hundreds of thousands of CVT equipped Subaru's out on the roads.

 

It is probably the cost of competing on MPG's while keeping AWD standard (BRX, excluded).

 

You would love NASIOC, the people that hated the WRX CVT there included pretty much everyone except those who owned them, wait till they release the STI with a CVT...

 

PS: I would put the odds of a 2.4 DIT, dual-clutch or manual transmission equipped Subaru Legacy at about 0.0%, but I don't work for Subaru.

[Yoda_One]

[emoji445][emoji341]The Internet forums are for complaining. La la la[emoji445]

 

Laughing at oneself and with others is good for the Soul![emoji2]

[ammcinnis]

... CVT's have too much loss of power due to chain slip between the pulleys.

 

And you know this ... how? Source?

[Condor1970]

And you know this ... how? Source?

 

By talking to the mechanics at the dealership, and also my personal mechanic that has actually rebuilt some of these. I went through the whole journey of learning about CVT's when we were looking at buying a Legacy (which we now own). You guys are totally misunderstanding me.

It's a fantastic little transmission, and full of new technology that makes it very efficient and durable for the long term of an assumed 300,000 mile lifespan of the vehicle. However, every single mechanic I have talked to about the design was very adamant about saying that you don't go into buying a Subaru with CVT if you are looking for performance. If you want the best performance, get a manual transmission since the geared automatics are no longer available.

The WRX still performs quite adequately with a CVT, but that is in the eye of the beholder, and in what you personally want. My only point, is that the geared automatic is far superior when it comes achieving real track performance.

A perfect example, is you don't see anyone on a drag strip winning races with cars using CVT's, and you certainly don't see them winning any type if autocross with CVT's either.

If CVT's were so great for performance racing, then all the cars on the professional circuits would have them. NONE of them do. What do they have instead? Essentially automatics now with paddle shifters.

However, you do regularly see races being won by drivers now using geared automatics, because the computer controlled shifting and transfer of power to the wheels is far superior to anything CVT, and also faster shifting than a manual due to computer control.

Proof of this is in cars like the Honda Civic SI. It has a naturally aspirated engine that puts out only 200HP, and yet easily matches a 256hp WRX CVT in a race. This is pretty sad. Yet a WRX with a manual, will easily take down a Civic SI in almost every case of drag or autocross.

 

I'm not saying Subaru is going to shift to a geared automatic. I know they won't. They've gone full in on CVT's. My only point, is if you want a true performance car, don't get one with a CVT, because no matter how hard you try, it will always be a step down from everything else. And, putting super high performance engines into these cars is a waste, when the biggest factor in the WRX now losing performance is the CVT, not the engine. Subaru has a stable of fantastic engines. All of them are hindered by poor CVT performance.

In fact the new 2018 WRX's have dropped in performance across the board, which has already put me off to buying one. If I decided to get another Legacy, I won't even bother with the H-6 anymore, and just stick with a 2.5 Sport or something, for a nice smooth ride. They are excellent cars, just not if you want to really enjoy something with serious performance.

[hkshooter]

By talking to the mechanics at the dealership, and also my personal mechanic that has actually rebuilt some of these. I went through the whole journey of learning about CVT's when we were looking at buying a Legacy (which we now own). You guys are totally misunderstanding me.

It's a fantastic little transmission, and full of new technology that makes it very efficient and durable for the long term of an assumed 300,000 mile lifespan of the vehicle. However, every single mechanic I have talked to about the design was very adamant about saying that you don't go into buying a Subaru with CVT if you are looking for performance. If you want the best performance, get a manual transmission since the geared automatics are no longer available.

The WRX still performs quite adequately with a CVT, but that is in the eye of the beholder, and in what you personally want. My only point, is that the geared automatic is far superior when it comes achieving real track performance.

A perfect example, is you don't see anyone on a drag strip winning races with cars using CVT's, and you certainly don't see them winning any type if autocross with CVT's either.

If CVT's were so great for performance racing, then all the cars on the professional circuits would have them. NONE of them do. What do they have instead? Essentially automatics now with paddle shifters.

However, you do regularly see races being won by drivers now using geared automatics, because the computer controlled shifting and transfer of power to the wheels is far superior to anything CVT, and also faster shifting than a manual due to computer control.

Proof of this is in cars like the Honda Civic SI. It has a naturally aspirated engine that puts out only 200HP, and yet easily matches a 256hp WRX CVT in a race. This is pretty sad. Yet a WRX with a manual, will easily take down a Civic SI in almost every case of drag or autocross.

 

I'm not saying Subaru is going to shift to a geared automatic. I know they won't. They've gone full in on CVT's. My only point, is if you want a true performance car, don't get one with a CVT, because no matter how hard you try, it will always be a step down from everything else. And, putting super high performance engines into these cars is a waste, when the biggest factor in the WRX now losing performance is the CVT, not the engine. Subaru has a stable of fantastic engines. All of them are hindered by poor CVT performance.

In fact the new 2018 WRX's have dropped in performance across the board, which has already put me off to buying one. If I decided to get another Legacy, I won't even bother with the H-6 anymore, and just stick with a 2.5 Sport or something, for a nice smooth ride. They are excellent cars, just not if you want to really enjoy something with serious performance.

The CVT sucks not because of slippage, warranty claims would be tremendous and longevity would be out the window. The CVT sucks because the nanny computer is tuned to protect it. So it won't slip and kill itself. So one can get good longevity from them. And less warranty claims.

 

I agree with your premise on the reason the performance sucks on these cars being the CVT. But the computer is the reason, not slippage.

 

I drive a 3.6 and can really feel 1) there is plenty of power potential there, and 2) the engine is very limited by the computer.

 

I certainly wish Subaru would ditch the CVT but as said above, not going to happen.

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[upstater]

Another reason there are no CVT's in race cars?

 

Formula 1 banned them...

 

https://www.auto123.com/en/news/f1-technique-williams-tested-a-cvt-transmission-back-in-1993-video/34642/

 

Yup, CVT's are too slow for race cars...

 

PS: performance for 2018 WRX is lower than in the past, but this also applies to the manual transmission equipped WRX's...

[Condor1970]

Another reason there are no CVT's in race cars?

 

Formula 1 banned them...

 

https://www.auto123.com/en/news/f1-technique-williams-tested-a-cvt-transmission-back-in-1993-video/34642/

 

Yup, CVT's are too slow for race cars...

 

PS: performance for 2018 WRX is lower than in the past, but this also applies to the manual transmission equipped WRX's...

 

You do realize that in order to get the power transfer needed for that car, the pulley compression and tension is so high, that the wear on the belts and pulleys becomes exponential after a certain point. Such a transmission can be an incredible performer with 100% lock up, but when you have to dial down the tension for a daily driving car that needs to last 300,000 miles, there is an enormous amount of power loss.

When testing those transmissions, they literally have to rebuild them after every race. No big deal for Formula 1, but not much fun for the average person if you have to rebuild your transmission every 6 months.

There is a reason CVT transmissions are not found in "civilian" performance cars. It's because in order to get the equivalent level of performance needed, the transmissions simply don't last. If that was not the case, Lamborghini, Porsche, and Ferrari would have adopted them 20 years ago for all of their high end performance cars.

[dgoodhue]

I am with Condor1970 on the CVT's. From looking at the dyno' reported on NASOIC WRX CVT are about 15-20whp short of the 6MT. They are also a good 1/2 to 3/4 slower in the 1/4 mile as well.

 

For the Formula 1 argument, the CVT were banned but those CVT were tuned for racing and far from what is considered streetable or acceptable for a daily driver. Automatic transmission are often faster than MT in a dedicated drag racing environment, but no one want to drive around on the street with 5000rpm stall converter to maximize the drag launch.

 

I will go out on limb and say that all factory CVT are going to be the slower than their counterparts as hkshooter has mentioned above. If you look at the 2.5i 6th Gen tuning thread, much of the gains they are getting are from tweaking the CVT shifting characteristics.

 

In the real world driving where everyone doesn't treat every stop light like a drag race start the difference of CVT is much less as driver. [i definitely don't normally drive in away to extract maximum performance from vehicles at every stop light.]

[upstater]

I am with Condor1970 on the CVT's. From looking at the dyno' reported on NASOIC WRX CVT are about 15-20whp short of the 6MT. They are also a good 1/2 to 3/4 slower in the 1/4 mile as well.

 

For the Formula 1 argument, the CVT were banned but those CVT were tuned for racing and far from what is considered streetable or acceptable for a daily driver. Automatic transmission are often faster than MT in a dedicated drag racing environment, but no one want to drive around on the street with 5000rpm stall converter to maximize the drag launch.

 

I will go out on limb and say that all factory CVT are going to be the slower than their counterparts as hkshooter has mentioned above. If you look at the 2.5i 6th Gen tuning thread, much of the gains they are getting are from tweaking the CVT shifting characteristics.

 

In the real world driving where everyone doesn't treat every stop light like a drag race start the difference of CVT is much less as driver. [i definitely don't normally drive in away to extract maximum performance from vehicles at every stop light.]

 

Probably all true-ish, as is the likelihood that a CVT is the automatic transmission that any new automatic Subaru will come equipped with, for a long time into the foreseeable future.

 

Still, you can dream of a dual clutch, or regular automatic gearbox, or even a manual transmission in a USA Legacy, just like you can dream of a 2.4 DIT in a Legacy...

[ammcinnis]

... when you have to dial down the tension for a daily driving car that needs to last 300,000 miles, there is an enormous amount of power loss.

 

Another dubious claim! Source?

 

Where does that "enormous amount of power" go? It doesn't just disappear.

 

FWIW, the published chain-to-pulley contact pressure in current Subaru CVTs is ~150,000 psi. That's one of the reasons that the CVT fluids are so specific: Subaru tech literature is insistent that metal-to-metal contact between the chain and pulleys is never allowed to occur, even at those pressures.

[Condor1970]

Another dubious claim! Source?

 

Where does that "enormous amount of power" go? It doesn't just disappear.

 

FWIW, the published chain-to-pulley contact pressure in current Subaru CVTs is ~150,000 psi. That's one of the reasons that the CVT fluids are so specific: Subaru tech literature is insistent that metal-to-metal contact between the chain and pulleys is never allowed to occur, even at those pressures.

 

You are correct that metal to metal contact never occurs. The special fluids create an actual point of contact between the two during compression, to prevent it from eating itself. When compressed, the fluid actually solidifies under pressure to a point, in order prevent it from slipping like it would with plain transmission fluid, and the car would not even move. This special fluid used gets more solidified under more pressure. But, eventually that ability to transfer power reaches its limit, as the fluid still provides a lubricating surface to prevent wear.

 

Since the fluid never solidifies completely, it does not provide 100% transfer of rotational power from the pulleys to the chain. That is simply impossible with current CVT's. There is a lot of slipping between the two, causing a very noticeable loss of power, and the semi-hardened fluid prevents the surface to surface wear. If they were able to make actual contact in order to get perfect transfer of power, then it would easily outperform any other transmission.

The problem is, you'd be replacing transmissions every week. You could theoretically get away with it in racing, since they could simply pull the transmission and replace it every race like they do complete engine rebuilds, but certainly not for a civilian cars.

[ammcinnis]

Since the fluid never solidifies completely, it does not provide 100% transfer of rotational power from the pulleys to the chain. That is simply impossible with current CVT's. There is a lot of slipping between the two, causing a very noticeable loss of power ...

 

Source?

 

Again ... Where does this "lost power" go?

 

I get it that you don't like CVTs in general, and Subaru's CVTs in particular. That's perfectly OK. But it doesn't automatically make them "terrible" transmissions.

[Condor1970]

Source?

 

Again ... Where does this "lost power" go?

 

I get it that you don't like CVTs in general, and Subaru's CVTs in particular. That's perfectly OK. But it doesn't automatically make them "terrible" transmissions.

 

Why are you saying I hate CVT's? Nor did I say I hate Subaru CVT's. You make an awful lot of assumptions.

 

I said, Subaru makes a fantastic CVT. In fact, their CVT is IMO, the best on the market right now, as they have solved a lot of performance issues by developing the chain drive with contact pads, instead of using a belt design. The chain drive also allows it to be a little smaller.

 

The loss of power is the same principal as loss of power in an automatic transmission with a torque converter. Some fluid leaks/swirls around edges of the impellers, and some power is converted to thermal energy though friction and compression/retraction of the fluid. Much of that thermal energy does not get converted back into mechanical energy and lost simply through the casing of the transmission, along with transmission coolers. This is why HP at the wheels is much lower than HP directly off the rear shaft of the engine. There is host of thermal and mechanical energy losses throughout the whole drive train from point A to B.

The same thing, only "much greater" occurs in CVT's. The CVT transfers "up to" 20% less mechanical energy to the wheels than a very tightly built and tuned geared transmission. The primary reason CVT's tend to be more efficient is not through its ability to transfer mechanical energy better, but by having no loss of power through momentary losses during shifting between gears, and maintaining constant engine RPM at it's most efficient power band. As there are no gears to lose power while shifting, that constant transfer of energy makes up greater for the loss of energy than a geared transmission. This is how they get better gas mileage.

However, when the transmission is in gear with a regular geared automatic, the total transfer of mechanical energy to the wheels is much greater than a CVT, and the system has less losses while in gear. Newer geared automatics with more gears, like 7-10 speed transmissions are able to accelerate far better than a CVT. They have tuned new geared transmissions to shift so much faster and have short changes in gear ratio, that new geared transmissions are becoming just as or more efficient than CVT's.

 

CVT's definitely have their place in the automotive industry, and the technology is getting better. But, until they can figure out a way to get a 100% transfer of mechanical energy from the belt to the pulleys without eating itself, then the CVT will always be a step down in performance compared to a very tight and tuned geared transmission.

The CVT is a great transmission for obtaining efficiency. Not very good for trying to achieve any notable performance. In order to get the same performance as a car with a geared transmission, you would need a bigger and more powerful engine to compensate. This is counter-productive, and becomes even more cost prohibitive, as now you are affecting overall efficiency once again. If you want performance, you can use the same engine, but simply use a better transmission to achieve that goal. Subaru chose CVT's for the sole purpose of achieving efficiency, and gave up on the idea of performance. With gas prices being high, their sales model has proven the decision was good for business, but not good for enthusiasts.

 

My whole argument revolves around the fact that newer geared transmissions are achieving amazing efficiencies as well, yet they are much better for performance. I personally would be more than willing to pay an extra $500 to the total cost of the car if they used a quality 7-speed automatic with paddle shifters vs the CVT.

I bought my wife a wonderful Legacy, that is super safe, efficient, comfortable to drive, and perfect for her needs. I would love the same car, but the only thing lacking is its performance. If they would solve that issue by using a better transmission, I would buy one for me in a heart beat.

[Pilot1226]

Eh, my “fun car” will be a stick if I can figure out a way how to fit another car in my driveway. For now I need something practical. when you don’t have a say in the matter, the choice is made. For me, it’s CVT or High Torque CVT

[Pilot1226]

Interestingly enough, for info I look at the new Accord touring trim. While they don't offer a V6 anymore, they do offer a 2.0T with a 10-speed transmission (the other engine has the CVT)

 

The Clarity car is interesting. 89 miles of range is not that great, though. I like the idea of instant torque. They make a plug in hybrid model, but I'm not sure if it's like a Chevy Volt in the sense that the engine is a "generator" and therefore you're still only powered by the electric motor.

 

When I go electric, I'll probably go all in and make it a pure electric, but I'm not going to be able to do that soon.