Jump to content
LegacyGT.com

A guy can hope - Subaru are you listening?


SBT

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Yeah, and not really interested in those, either. Autos I bought are definitely old school. A 5-speed in the Tacoma, and a 6-speed in the Cruiser. Sought a 2015 Cruiser specifically, because 2016 has an 8-speed now.

 

Don't see the problem with 8 or 10 speed, the difference is cost and if its still as rugged as a 5 speed its better.

 

My brother ran an old school V8 Holden with like 400Hp via one of their 3 speed autos. So ok it works in theory, the engine has enough power and torque to pull between the large gearing changes, the problems start when you try and thrash it. The Auto just shreads itself.

 

Some car maker have pursued CVT for one reason and that is cost.

 

At low power levels it is very very simple and a brilliant design to use on a Lathe with a rubber belt.

 

I think you will see the gradual phase out of the CVT. The directive will not come from the car makers, it will come from the consumers when they stop buying them.

 

Given the choice of a conventional 8 speed Auto and some paddle shifters or a CVT its a no brainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't see the problem with 8 or 10 speed, the difference is cost and if its still as rugged as a 5 speed its better.

 

Ruggedness need yet to be proven. With the Land Cruiser example, the 6-speed is tried and true (10+ year in this model) and can run forever, an 8-speed we don't know yet. There is something to be said about more gears in the same space, which does not give a warm fuzzy feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruggedness need yet to be proven. With the Land Cruiser example, the 6-speed is tried and true (10+ year in this model) and can run forever, an 8-speed we don't know yet. There is something to be said about more gears in the same space, which does not give a warm fuzzy feeling.

 

Its all about cost. You can make anything work as long as you throw enough money at it.

 

It was mentioned on here that CVT was used in F1, that is a really bad comparison to make.

 

1. F1 has unlimited budget. The cost of that F1 CVT gearbox probably cost the same as 10 new Subarus, I'm talking the whole car not just their gearboxes !!!!!

 

2. F1 cars only need to everything to last 1 to 2 races, then they can bin it. You want the gearbox to last 20 years, preferably a lifetime if given a choice.

 

3. A F1 car has totally different engine characteristics and vehicle mass. Your better off comparing the CVT in an F1 to putting a CVT in a performance motorcycle. CVT's are appearing in bikes for those people too uncoordinated with their feet to use the 6 speed manual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its all about cost. You can make anything work as long as you throw enough money at it.

 

It was mentioned on here that CVT was used in F1, that is a really bad comparison to make.

 

1. F1 has unlimited budget. The cost of that F1 CVT gearbox probably cost the same as 10 new Subarus, I'm talking the whole car not just their gearboxes !!!!!

 

2. F1 cars only need to everything to last 1 to 2 races, then they can bin it. You want the gearbox to last 20 years, preferably a lifetime if given a choice.

 

3. A F1 car has totally different engine characteristics and vehicle mass. Your better off comparing the CVT in an F1 to putting a CVT in a performance motorcycle. CVT's are appearing in bikes for those people too uncoordinated with their feet to use the 6 speed manual.

 

 

Damm you have this all figured out. Who are you an engineer for again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CVT is not just all about the cost. the CVT is also about meeting ever tightening emissions standards. a CVT allows emissions management at all RPM and all load conditions as there is no unloading/reloading of the engine during gear changes during normal driving as their would be with an automatic stepped gear transmission.

 

For daily driving in my legacy, I couldn't care less about what transmission is in the car. I care about fuel economy and the CVT shines in this area...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CVT is not just all about the cost. the CVT is also about meeting ever tightening emissions standards. a CVT allows emissions management at all RPM and all load conditions as there is no unloading/reloading of the engine during gear changes during normal driving as their would be with an automatic stepped gear transmission.

 

For daily driving in my legacy, I couldn't care less about what transmission is in the car. I care about fuel economy and the CVT shines in this area...

 

Spoken truly like a person who drives an appliance. That's not a bad thing just boring....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its all about cost. You can make anything work as long as you throw enough money at it.

 

It was mentioned on here that CVT was used in F1, that is a really bad comparison to make.

 

2. F1 cars only need to everything to last 1 to 2 races, then they can bin it. You

 

This was true back then, but not anymore. Now it's 3 power units (ICE + KERS components) and transmissions per 21 race season.

 

F1 races are only 305km (190 miles), so even adding in practice and qualifying it's <500 miles a race weekend. I'm sure they could have designed a CVT to last 1 or 2 race distances. Williams did test a CVT transmission in 1993, don't know how many miles it ran.

Friends don't let friends drink cheap beer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what most daily drivers are.

 

When I want something that's not I'll buy that was built before 1970.

 

Which is also fine, but to each his own. Muscle cars and/or jalopies from pre-1970 era might be fun, but objectively they got nothing on 2000+ cars. Despite the deluge of boring SUVs/CUVs we do live in the golden area of cars. Even though I lament the demise of manual transmissions, there are still plenty of cars (even manual) that are fun to drive and offer amazing power and handling for the money... not to mention safety, comfort and reliability. Yes, simplicity is not one of these (I'd say easier to find in some cars before 2010), but overall - a tremendous progress has been made. Pre 1970s cars belong to museums and antique car shows IMO.

 

Finally life is too short to drive a boring car every day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is also fine, but to each his own. Muscle cars and/or galopies from pre-1970 era might be fun, but objectively they got nothing on 2000+ cars. Despite the deluge of boring SUVs/CUVs we do live in the golden area of cars. Even though I lament the demise of manual transmissions, there are still plenty of cars (even manual) that are fun to drive and offer amazing power and handling for the money... not to mention safety, comfort and reliability. Yes, simplicity is not one of these (I'd say easier to find in some cars before 2010), but overall - a tremendous progress has been made. Pre 1970s cars belong to museums and antique car shows IMO.

 

Finally life is too short to drive a boring car every day...

 

have to agree to disagree.

 

69 convertible was my daily driver and my wife had a 65 convertible.

 

Only sold them when we had kids- at that point they weren't practical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

get in an accident with either of those 2 60's cars and you might not live to tell us about it. No safety structure, no crumple zones, no airbags, collapsible steering columns, etc....seen first hand what happens when a non collapsible steering column goes up into someone's chest/face...they do not survive...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

get in an accident with either of those 2 60's cars and you might not live to tell us about it. No safety structure, no crumple zones, no airbags, collapsible steering columns, etc....seen first hand what happens when a non collapsible steering column goes up into someone's chest/face...they do not survive...

 

You don't worry about having a crash of dying in an older car your thinking about living the dream.

 

From memory everything we have pre-1996 over here has no crash standards in print, you don't worry about it.

 

Your not living if all you do is worry about dying.

 

I often think of Michael Schumacher. Years and years of high speed and relatively dangerous F1 racing and then he gets for all intents and purposes, killed in a skiing accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

get in an accident with either of those 2 60's cars and you might not live to tell us about it. No safety structure, no crumple zones, no airbags, collapsible steering columns, etc....seen first hand what happens when a non collapsible steering column goes up into someone's chest/face...they do not survive...

 

 

I had to rebuild the front clip after I rear ended someone and broke the wooden steering wheel with my face.

 

A certain amount of risk is acceptable in life or what's the point.

 

I have a better chance of really getting hurt when my on my mountain bike than I do in a car accident. Something happens when I get on there and my mind rides like I'm a kid again and the body pay dearly for it.

 

I used to ride motorcycles- but as the more and more morons decided they can text and drive, the risk outweighed the fun and sold the bike.

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