2020 WRX Prototype (new pics)

[Brady]

when I was talking about gas prices and consumer confidence I was specifically taking about gt models. these factors affect consumer interest in sporty cars.

 

And you might have a point if they weren't buying bigger and bigger Outback and Legacy models at the same time, along with the Impreza line going bigger and selling a lot more Crosstreks (than they ever did Outback Sports).

 

It really is a matter that they didn't sell many of them (including the Legacy wagon, because most consumers see the wagon and think why not just get the Outback), so the models that Subaru did make (GT and Manual Gearboxes) didn't fly off the dealer lots. Meanwhile, the Outbacks and standard Legacy models were selling faster than they could build them. So from a profitability standpoint, why bother with spending more time on reconfiguration for a few special models. To satisfy the 27 nerds on this site who REALLY WANTED IT and swore they'd sell their left testicle tomorrow if they just built it?

 

You can slice it any way you want to confirm your bias, but the reality is that Subaru made the shift because they were going after the greatest demand.

[covertrussian]

No, and no.

 

Because Subuaru is looking at it's 10th consecutive record sales year, and as others have noted, the Manual is about a wash in fuel economy compared to the automatic anymore, but it's never been worse.

 

With the resurrection of the CVT, it seems like most Manuals are actually worse then "Automatics". Even in 2010 the Subaru's CVT surpassed the 6MT (this is based on original 2009 testing, not post 2017 corrections):

 

Outback:

2.5i 6MT: 19/27 mpg

2.5i CVT: 22/29 mpg

 

Legacy:

2.5i 6MT: 19/27 mpg

2.5i CVT: 23/31 mpg

 

I'm not a fan of CVT, but I gotta give credit where it's due. Though this is EPA ratings and it's much harder to get real world numbers. My 6MT 2012 Outback does between 24-33mpg depending on ambient temp, time of day (worse at night), and traffic (more helps), all with similar driving styles.

[Tronic]

Like many things that appear "Better on Paper" they are not better in the real world.

 

I have never had a manual gearbox fail on me in over 30 years of driving. Yes I'm a little different because I actually maintain my cars and change the gearbox oil. Somehow I also manage to get well over 200,000km on a clutch. For me reliability is the key.

 

The Outback and the Legacy wagons are chalk and cheese. I own both, admittedly they are at the opposite ends of the spec, the 3.0R is as good as it gets.

 

The JDM cars had a spec level in 2005 that we are still not getting in 2018 new Subarus in this country.

[ehsnils]

I agree that the paper figures for fuel consumption are tricky and varies a lot.

 

 

With a manual gearbox the variation is greater when it comes to fuel consumption figures. The data that they show are just a when driving using a certain pattern, and usually during some "ideal" situation with no AC on etc.

[covertrussian]

I agree that the paper figures for fuel consumption are tricky and varies a lot.

 

 

With a manual gearbox the variation is greater when it comes to fuel consumption figures. The data that they show are just a when driving using a certain pattern, and usually during some "ideal" situation with no AC on etc.

 

Agreed that they vary a lot, but you have to standardize and reduce variables as much as possible, otherwise you can never compare data between two tests. New (2008+) EPA tests use AC and 70mph (instead of 55mph), it was even further revised in 2017 though, lowering MPG's a few percent actually.

 

I get that real life MPG is generally worse then EPA most people, but that's because people have lead feet. My MPG's are typically higher then EPA and since I keep my driving styles consistent, my MPG's are usually within 1-2% all other factors kept consistent (like weather, time of day, traffic).

 

Point of it being, don't blame EPA numbers when the drivers of the car are actually to blame. I'm hearing 2015 WRX CVT owners are seeing 33-36mpg's (in the intelligent mode), I've not seen a turbo EJ get that high, even mine is capping out at 30mpg currently...

[Tronic]

Its all good until the CVT shits its pants and the money you saved on gas becomes insignificant.

 

I will stick to the manual as long as possible, you will have to pry that 6MT gear knob from my cold dead hand....

[covertrussian]

Its all good until the CVT shits its pants and the money you saved on gas becomes insignificant.

 

I will stick to the manual as long as possible, you will have to pry that 6MT gear knob from my cold dead hand....

 

I 100% agree with you, CVT's historically have been disposable transmissions, but what other turbo AWD options do we have nowdays? With strict emissions and fuel economy standards, OEM's are doing everything they can, but at the cost of reliability taking aback seat.

 

Now cars only being reliable for 100k benefits both the Government and OEM's:

• Government wins because these older cars get off the road sooner, due to being too expensive to fix, which in theory reduces pollution and oil demand (newer cars tend to have better MPG and produce less pollution). That, plus higher DMV and property taxes.
  
• OEM's win because you are forced to buy another car sooner, or buying a new transmission.
  

 

With that said, traditional automatics are not perfect either. If driven hard they start slipping over 100k miles too. Manuals are not perfect too, look at all the 2002-2003 WRX failures . Also the 6+ speed Auto's are a big unknown still too, to fit so many gears they probably had to make them smaller and have more moving parts = reliability issues down the road.

 

In the end transmissions tend to be the weakest links in most cars, while I hate CVT's, I understand the appeal of them to manufacturers.

[TwoTone]

Its all good until the CVT shits its pants and the money you saved on gas becomes insignificant.

 

I will stick to the manual as long as possible, you will have to pry that 6MT gear knob from my cold dead hand....

 

How much do you think the new 8+ speed slushboxes cost?

[Tronic]

Don't understand the question.

 

The manual is always cheaper than autos in our market, its not the reason I buy a manual however but its a bonus.

[covertrussian]

Don't understand the question.

 

The manual is always cheaper than autos in our market, its not the reason I buy a manual however but its a bonus.

 

I think what they meant is, how much would a replacement 8 speed cost. Answer is, about the same, but since traditional slushboxes are a more vetted design they should hopefully last more then 150k.

 

Now are you able to get newer Legacy/Outback or even Ascent equivalents in manual in Auckland?

[Tronic]

No Subaru have screwed the pooch with only the WRX and the WRX Sti still available in the manual.

 

Other cars that still are available in manual is the Ford Focus RS and the Honda Civic Type R along with plenty of Porsche's. The available options are starting to look really limited or expensive.

[TwoTone]

I think what they meant is, how much would a replacement 8 speed cost. Answer is, about the same, but since traditional slushboxes are a more vetted design they should hopefully last more then 150k.

 

Now are you able to get newer Legacy/Outback or even Ascent equivalents in manual in Auckland?

 

You know CVT have been around a long time.

[covertrussian]

At least here in the US we still have MT Impreza and crosstreks.

 

You know CVT have been around a long time.

 

Yes it was invented over a hundred years ago, but since it wasn't widely adopted, due to slipping issues. The technology it self never really matured until last two decades, but even then it's still fairly young.

[TwoTone]

I think what they meant is, how much would a replacement 8 speed cost. Answer is, about the same, but since traditional slushboxes are a more vetted design they should hopefully last more then 150k.

 

Now are you able to get newer Legacy/Outback or even Ascent equivalents in manual in Auckland?

 

You know CVT have been around a long time.

[Tronic]

You know CVT have been around a long time.

 

Yes it works great on a Lathe but I don't want it in my car sorry. Too many potential problems when transferring high power and torque.

 

Will give the CVT a miss and run the manual right through until they start making some decent electric cars that I would want to buy.

 

Good quick read here.

 

https://certifiedtransmissionrepair.com/cvt-transmissions-pros-cons/

 

They don't go the distance which means your used car will become worthless and end up on the scrap heap in 6 to 10 years.

[dgoodhue]

They don't go the distance which means your used car will become worthless and end up on the scrap heap in 6 to 10 years.

 

The vast majority of Subaru CVTs aren't failing in 6-10 year or 100k miles as you or the article suggest. With the early 5th Gen Legacy and corresponding Outback now up to 9 years old, one would see epidemic of vehicle needing transmissions if that was true. (Subaru even had problems with the 2010 CVT Torque Converter lock up function.) I look at the craigslist for these and I don't see them advertised as needing CVTs and I see quite a few FS with 150k and 200k + miles.

 

I am not even a CVT fan, I have to have at least one MT car to drive and will probably have a MT until I can no longer physical drive one. I always hate the rental cars I got with CVT's. I have driven Subaru's CVT, they are better than most of the rental I have driven. They aren't my preference, but neither is a traditional automatic either.

[covertrussian]

I wish Subaru would make the CVT belt a user replaceable part at say 100k miles like timing belts used to be. I would do it meant it wont grenade at 130k miles. This is one of the main things shying me away from higher torque CVT applications in the WRX and Ascent.

[dgoodhue]

I wish Subaru would make the CVT belt a user replaceable part at say 100k miles like timing belts used to be. I would do it meant it wont grenade at 130k miles. This is one of the main things shying me away from higher torque CVT applications in the WRX and Ascent.

 

One of the issues, I read about rebuilding CVT is that they need to done in clean environment. I believe its on the reasons why CVT usually are just replaced as an unit.

[ehsnils]

You know CVT have been around a long time.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAF_600

[Tronic]

Yeah probably great when you have 40Hp but a really bad idea if you have 400Hp.

 

If CVT was that great it would have gone mainstream years ago. The only reason they are pushing on with it now is because of fuel economy which translates into emissions or they never would have bothered with it.

 

Like I said, great on a Lathe you can see the rubber V-Belt and the steel pulleys. The belt finally goes and you just replace it. The CVT goes in your car and the gearbox eats itself.

 

Cannot beat a bunch of steel gears submerged in oil.

[covertrussian]

One of the issues, I read about rebuilding CVT is that they need to done in clean environment. I believe its on the reasons why CVT usually are just replaced as an unit.

 

I heard that too, but I see people changing fluids in them in shops/at home. If clean room was a must that wouldn't be possible.

 

What bugs me is how complicated the oil galleys are on a Subaru CVT, see at 1:54 in this video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0LYCRMvyMg]Subaru CVT Transmission - Internals and Modifications - YouTube[/ame]

 

Little bit of sludge and your SOL.

[Tronic]

More likely its replaced as a unit because its beyond economical repair.

 

By the time you pay for parts and labour its just not worth it and you have to remember whoever repairs it then has to offer a warranty.

 

What it boils down to is its just not worth repairing 9 times out of 10 so they fit a new one.

 

Google CVT Failure, its not pretty when it gets its own website.

 

http://www.nissancvtfail.com/?p=reports

[dgoodhue]

More likely its replaced as a unit because its beyond economical repair.

 

By the time you pay for parts and labour its just not worth it and you have to remember whoever repairs it then has to offer a warranty.

 

What it boils down to is its just not worth repairing 9 times out of 10 so they fit a new one.

 

Google CVT Failure, its not pretty when it gets its own website.

 

http://www.nissancvtfail.com/?p=reports

 

Nissan has made some of the worst CVT in the industry, the early one were horrible to drive and they had poor reliability, it is unfair to lump them all as one.

[dgoodhue]

I heard that too, but I see people changing fluids in them in shops/at home. If clean room was a must that wouldn't be possible.

 

What bugs me is how complicated the oil galleys are on a Subaru CVT, see at 1:54 in this video:

 

Little bit of sludge and your SOL.

 

Good video, I have never bother looking up CVT before.

 

This doesn't seem to have any more or smaller passages than an automatic transmission valve body. With a CVT you don't have the clutch material that you would have running through an automatic. To me it actually look less complicated than the automatic (I have experience rebuild the GM's 4 speed auto)

 

I actually wouldn't be surprise if a CVT was noticeably cheaper to make than automatic transmission especially the 6, 7, 8 + speed autos, which also maybe another factor in manufacturers adopting CVT to help their bottom line.

[covertrussian]

Nissan has made some of the worst CVT in the industry, the early one were horrible to drive and they had poor reliability, it is unfair to lump them all as one.

 

To be fair, I am finding a lot of users complain about CVT failures even on newer Subarus.

 

There does seem to be a big difference in Nissan belts and Subaru ones though:

 

Nissan one is a smooth belt:

 

Subaru one has teeth and is more of a chain:

http://newsfeatures.autotrader.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/21-Subaru-CVT-Chain-620x448.jpg

 

 

Good video, I have never bother looking up CVT before.

 

This doesn't seem to have any more or smaller passages than an automatic transmission valve body. With a CVT you don't have the clutch material that you would have running through an automatic. To me it actually look less complicated than the automatic (I have experience rebuild the GM's 4 speed auto)

 

I actually wouldn't be surprise if a CVT was noticeably cheaper to make than automatic transmission especially the 6, 7, 8 + speed autos, which also maybe another factor in manufacturers adopting CVT to help their bottom line.

 

You know that's a good point, I'm very ignorant of automatics, but just looked up their valve bodies and it looks exactly the same.

 

CVT IS much simpler and cheaper to build for the manufacturers, sadly the savings are not passed on to us since they still cost $5-7k to buy new.

 

Since CVT is here to stay, I think Toyota's direct shift CVT is the best of both worlds. Since most slipping will happen when you start the car (same way a worn clutch slips from dead stop typically). Toyota designed a gear for low gears, which would relief the belt of all that stress:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-MLyKjYqSw]Direct Shift-CVT: A New Type of Continuously Variable Transmission - YouTube[/ame]

 

Engineering Explained does a much deeper dive into it:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HanImTejIVM]Toyota's New CVT Has A Launch Gear - YouTube[/ame]

 

More details on Toyota's Japan site

 

Why on earth doesn't Subaru WRX and Ascent not have this, IMO it's worth the license cost to your sister company