legacy360 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Subaru's CVT uses a chain, and the Nissan's CVT uses a belt. And to my knowledge no one with a Subaru CVT has had any serious issues similar that Nissan experience with their release. All in all, I agree the CVT doesn't belong in a WRX or STI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleeperWagon Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Are you serious? CVT's are the worst transmission ever known and to be created. The rubber band effect,and boring drone just sucks. My mom had a Murano with the CVT,it wasn't bad but,god damn that CVT just sucks theres no power delivery either and it completely saps it. CVT's aren't reliable either just look at Nissans CVTs for example. The WRX should always remain Manual and or offer a 6/7 speed DSG. If someone wants a CVT go buy a new Impreza or Legacy with the CVT. CVT's are crap and don't belong in performance cars. Just look at the Nissan maxima for a prime example it's supposedly sporty but it's fwd and is only offered in a cvt not fun at all. Have you driven a Subaru CVT? If I had to pick between a traditional automatic and a Subaru CVT I would pick the CVT every day. I wouldn't be surprised if a CVT WRX was faster then a manual WRX from a roll. Not saying they should get rid of the manual at all but why not add the option it will only increase sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fahr_side Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Have you driven a Subaru CVT? I have, and I hated it. It wasn't badly executed but I just hated the way the car drove. I'm sure it's more efficient and everything else, but I wouldn't buy a car with a CVT in it. If the WRX and STi are going away from the Impreza platform and presumably in a sportier direction, we don't need this choice. DSG or 6MT please. 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 More sharing options...
SubieDriver Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 Are you serious? CVT's are the worst transmission ever known and to be created. The rubber band effect,and boring drone just sucks. My mom had a Murano with the CVT,it wasn't bad but,god damn that CVT just sucks theres no power delivery either and it completely saps it. CVT's aren't reliable either just look at Nissans CVTs for example. The WRX should always remain Manual and or offer a 6/7 speed DSG. If someone wants a CVT go buy a new Impreza or Legacy with the CVT. CVT's are crap and don't belong in performance cars. Just look at the Nissan maxima for a prime example it's supposedly sporty but it's fwd and is only offered in a cvt not fun at all. You just explained why you believe CVTs suck - your mom owned a Murano. What you haven't clued into yet is that *Nissan* CVTs suck. Not Subaru CVTs. If you had read my post, you might have caught the fact that Subaru CVTs are better than Nissan CVTs, also other posters have noted the superiority of Subaru's CVT. I have driven the Impreza with CVT, and it is light-years ahead of Nissan's CVT. Drive one before you malign it. Subaru has programmed the Impreza CVT pretty aggressively so the new Impreza feels substantially peppier than the old one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViscousSquirrel Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 IN the continuous hunt for better numbers on paper, a cvt makes sense. In the realm of fun and or driver involvement it does not. THe WRX is a raw car meant to cater to the latter. Therefore, no CVT please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleurx Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I find it interesting Subaru is making the "marketing" choice to distance the Impreza from the WRX, STI, etc. From my perspective, I like seeing the cars features built up around the different packages knowing that the base is somewhat standard. Perhaps this is too 1990's Honda-esque though. So - Subaru wants to diversify and add 4 more vehicles to their line up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The B4 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 The WRX/STI handicap the Impreza and the Impreza handicaps the WRX/STI. Subaru now has a platform capable of making the WRX/STI more peformance oriented and the Impreza is now able to be a better people mover. I'm all for it if each car is better able to achieve their engineering purposes. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViscousSquirrel Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 The WRX/STI handicap the Impreza and the Impreza handicaps the WRX/STI. Subaru now has a platform capable of making the WRX/STI more peformance oriented and the Impreza is now able to be a better people mover. I'm all for it if each car is better able to achieve their engineering purposes. Except that this inevitably leads to higher costs which will be passed on to us, the consumer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleurx Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Agreed The B4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The B4 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Except that this inevitably leads to higher costs which will be passed on to us, the consumer. Except that Toyota already footed the bill by paying for development of the BRZ chassis. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViscousSquirrel Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Except that Toyota already footed the bill by paying for development of the BRZ chassis. I'm under the impression that the BRZ chassis is incompatible with the WRX model. It's too small for four doors and wont fit AWD due to engine location being far too low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vr4Legacy Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I'm under the impression that the BRZ chassis is incompatible with the WRX model. It's too small for four doors and wont fit AWD due to engine location being far too low. I believe the chassis can be easily extended into a 4 dr option. But it would undoubtedly sit lower and ride stiffer, making it a poor choice for the entry level, high sales Impreza, but PERFECT for the WRX/STi. Plus I think a lot of people think "boy racer punk WRX owner" when they see an Impreza, making it less popular as a family car. They are simply trying to keep the images seperate. I'm sure keeping the WRX/STi as a different car than the Impreza can only help insurance costs too. To all the CVT naysayers... go drive a Subaru CVT, then drive a Subaru 4EAT.... I agree, a MT cannot be matched in terms of driving fun and driver involvment. BUT now that I have a CVT OB, I would be hard pressed to buy a EAT AT again. Personally I want a MT for my next DD, but for my wife's DD, the CVT is great. It revs up when you hit it and gives you quick power, but gets better mileage than my much smaller 4EAT Hyundai.... As far as AUTOMATIC transmissions go, Subaru nailed it with the CVT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViscousSquirrel Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I really didnt like teh CVT I missed the shifting of the slushbox 5eat. This is simply a matter of taste however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subies4Life Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I have a better idea,and solution why not use the same exact gearbox set up from their WRC race cars? semi auto box? instant shifts on the fly/go. With paddle shifters. Subaru said they're developing the new WRX from the ground up to win motorsports,events,so why not put a race car gear box in a street legal race car? semi auto box where you have to manual shift it with paddles for up and down shifts. Like a manual but with steering wheel pedals. Didn't the WRC cars have a 3 pedal setup? gear indicator on the gauge cluster. You'd be shifting and changing gears using the paddles so no console shifter. Using the paddles to get into 1st to 6th gear and neutral and reverse. It's a no brainier. Instant direct engagement gearbox. It will be driver controlled/computer controlled,for instance it won't automatically shift into gear if you don't,you must and have to shift it like a manual into gear ,the computer will only compensate at the fraction of a second to protect the engine from over revving. The system is entirely driver controlled and can be controlled by a dash switch for computer/manual control. I love to see that gear box type in the next generation car it will have a clutch type pack and flywheel and a clutch pedal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 That gearbox probably costs more than the car itself.. What do I know though, I could be talking out of my behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanjk3 Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 That gearbox probably costs more than the car itself.. What do I know though, I could be talking out of my behind. IIRC sometime during a WRC broadcast they said the gearbox was ~50-60K. Though that was back in the early-mid 200's when they had 3 active & adjustable differentials. I'd imagine they're a bit less now that they aren't as complex. Friends don't let friends drink cheap beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subies4Life Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 IIRC sometime during a WRC broadcast they said the gearbox was ~50-60K. Though that was back in the early-mid 200's when they had 3 active & adjustable differentials. I'd imagine they're a bit less now that they aren't as complex. If they could get around the high cost of it it would be one hell of an awesome transmission and set up in a production car. It would be awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPU1 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 10ish years ago BMW charged an extra $2500 for their SMG Gearbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dga Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 CVTs are a good thing for high performance enthusiasts...in a roundabout way. Subaru needs to hit EPA fleet MPG requirements and more CVTs in Subaru's there are the easier this gets, since that transmission is really good for economy, which in turn leaves more room under the umbrella for high horsepower, manual gearbox, cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsnils Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Add to it that you can always re-program the CVT for best utilization of the engine. And with a CVT you can optimize the engine even more since you can have a narrower torque band. Usually engines are designed for a wide band torque since they are easier to drive, but the CVT will not need a wide torque range of the engine and therefore you get the possibility to tune the engine even more. That's why Williams made the FW15C with CVT - which was instantly banned before it got a chance to race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartman Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 WRX and STI with Evo twin clutch auto would be awesome IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GEE-OTTO Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 The EVO MR gearbox is a winner but the enthusiasts still prefer a MT gearbox. Ive driven the MR hard and that TC gearbox wont let you be as "race car" as you would like. Still a TC gearbox option is popular Germany , Italy and Japan have been producing some nice cars with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubieDriver Posted April 16, 2012 Author Share Posted April 16, 2012 I wonder if the industry moving to CVTs would open up the engine possibilities. Turbines are really weak at low RPM, but powerful at high RPM... Spool up the turbine, then engage the clutch. I'm sure other engine types would benefit. It makes sense to have a CVT with a diesel, as the powerband is much narrower than gas engines. Any other engine types that would benefit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mega Users paintpollz Posted April 16, 2012 Mega Users Share Posted April 16, 2012 :lol:30+ mpg:lol: "Remember Danny - Two wrongs don't make a right but three rights make a left." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
94legacy22 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I have the 2012 legacy with the cvt, I like it but i'm getting the same gas millage now as my 09 legacy was getting. Idk maybe it hasto break in a little bit first. also wish it had a sport mode. not just a manual mode. would make spirted driving better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.