Subaru Crew - Future Models II

dcm61

'68 Ford F100 360 V8 3-on-the-tree with in-bed/over cab camper.

100 (not 101) miles per tank on the HIGHWAY. :sick:

Actually, I don't think it got much better MPG/range without the camper.

rsholland

If I'm on a trip, 240 miles is plenty, as that's when "I" need a pit stop.

Bob

xwesx

Sadly, that is so very true.

On a more positive, note, though, it is not winter yet! Yesterday the weather finally cleared and it ended up being bright and sunny.

ateixeira

Remember the original Forester XT? Back then it had a 15.9 gallon tank and if you drove it as it was designed to be driven you were lucky to get 18mpg.

The low fuel light went on with 2.3 gallons left, so using those 13.6 gallons took 244 miles on a good day.

Remember that guy Jack who would not stop complaining about it? Eventually he sold it and haven't heard from him since.

You can stop, you just don't have to make every stop a gas station stop. The food sucks any way.

rsholland

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/13/2012-subaru-xv-frankfurt-2011/

http://www.subaru-global.com/about/motorshow/ms/2011frankfurt/xv/index.html

• 225/55x17 tires, same size as found on the Forester

• 8.6" ground clearance

• 1.6L & 2.0 gas engines. First application of the FB16 engine

• Updated diesel offered

• 1.6 version gets dual-range 5-speed tranny, others get 6-speed manual. All but diesel get CVT option.

• Still struggling with the grille insert design

• Start-stop engine function

• Disappointed in the "urban" CUV marketing. Was hoping for it being the sporty off-roader that the Forester never was.

Bob

rsholland

http://www.subaru-global.com/about/motorshow/ms/2011frankfurt/brzp/index.html

What a waste of effort, time and money. Just show us the damn car already!

Bob

xwesx

I can't disagree for the most part, Bob.

I like the overhead of the engine area. It shows that the engine sits MUCH farther back in the car, which I bet makes for some really impressive handling. That is a placement that just isn't possible with the AWD. Also interesting is the blip in the accompanying writeup that mentions direct injection. Huh. Why can't we get that on the other models? :confuse:

xwesx

A dual-range 5-speed? I'd take that! Make it a diesel with a dual-5, and I'd take it now!

I actually like the orange. It is raucous enough to tame the *bleh* details of the new Impreza's body design. The wheel arch moldings work, too.

With some aftermarket work (a better approach angle would be nice, too), the 1.6 with a dual-range manual would make for a competent off-roader, as long as one wasn't looking to go scaling boulders!

rsholland

I suspect the dual-range tranny can't handle the torque of the diesel. That's why the diesel hasn't been offered with an automatic. Subaru doesn't have one that can handle the torque.

Bob

robr2

Disappointed in the "urban" CUV marketing. Was hoping for it being the sporty off-roader that the Forester never was.

Perhaps because it's doesn't need to be??

Subaru has conquered the outdoorsy, fire trail drivers. Perhaps they realize not every potential customer mountain bikes.

robr2

What a waste of effort, time and money. Just show us the damn car already!

Perhaps they're embarassed about their red headed step child!!

ateixeira

It shows that the engine sits MUCH farther back in the car, which I bet makes for some really impressive handling

That plus the engine is so low it basically drags on the ground. Front-mid engine, low center of gravity, should handle well.

Still, no AWD means most people will buy the Scion version, they have more dealers anyway.

volkov

As a current Impreza lessee, I received my intro brochure last week. The Canadian FE figures are sick. 7.5/5.5 for the CVT which is about 31/42. The newer US testing will not be as generous, but still, it reflects a +/- 35% improvement. This is what I thought they should have done on the last Impreza redo - go with a smaller engine and appeal to the folks for whom FE is primary. I am looking forward to seeing how it drives. I was one of the few who liked the CVT in the Legacy.

ateixeira

It will get a 27/36 rating from the EPA for the 2.0l CVT models.

That's better than a base Kia Soul, which is smaller and has a smaller engine with DI, not to mention FWD.

Pretty amazing.

ateixeira

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/03/2012-subaru-impreza-first-drive-review/

Glad to hear they didn't mess up the steering by going electric.

colin_l

I'm not at all surprised that they complained about the engine. I wouldn't call the existing 170 HP 2.5L fast and then to lose 22 more ponies... ouch.

xwesx

Honestly, though, that isn't the point - not by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, my car has something like 110 hp and it does just fine out there. Except for pure thrill, there's never a time when it would need more power.

I'll test it out when it arrives in town. Of all the nitpicks I'm sure I'll find (many will undoubtedly be similar to those described in the article), I sincerely doubt that power will be one of them.

ateixeira

We should remember it gained something like 10mpg. A massive, massive gain.

It's 27/36, right? The old auto was 20/26!

So it uses about half the gas for that 22hp sacrifice, and it weighs less. Hopefully the CVT puts it up near peak torque quickly to compensate for the loss in displacement.

xwesx

Indeed, it is a massive gain. Direct injection should give it even more of a gain, should it not? I don't know how significant it would be, but I can imagine another couple mpg... ?

ateixeira

Hopefully that makes up for some of those 22 ponies.

If Hyundai can get 200hp from 2.4 liters, 83.3 hp/liter, Subaru should be able to make roughly 167 ponies from the FB20.

With the weight loss it would be a wash, maybe even quicker than the heavier EJ25 was.

colin_l

I think I'd be in pure hell with 110 HP unless the vehicle only had 2 wheels.

The old 170 HP 2.5L was pretty doggy. My wife's 2.7L V6 Suzuki does a lot better and it only has 185 HP. So, like Autoblog, I'm kind of expecting to be utterly underwhelmed when I get around to driving the 148 HP 2.0L.

rsholland

I recently read somewhere that Subaru wants to increase the gas mileage of all their engines by 30 percent. I would love to see a 30 percent increase in my WRX.

BTW, on my recent 1,400-mile trip to New England, I averaged 27.3 mpg (according to the dash readout). It's probably closer to an actual 26 mpg. Still, not too shabby for a 265 hp turbo, and with much of the driving through mountains.

Bob

ateixeira

That Zook probably has decent torque, though.

colin_l

185HP @ 6000 rpm, 184lb-ft @ 4500 rpm. It does have a 5 speed slushbox, high tech in Subaru-land.

ateixeira

Wow, less than I thought, and 4500rpm so you gotta keep the revs up there.

It must not weight much more than an Impreza, then.

rsholland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzjirVah7I4&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FCe3GymZ9c&feature=player_embedded

FWIW, Todd Hill, the young looking guy in the second video, I met at the Subaru NY pre-show unveiling.

Bob

xwesx

Thanks for sharing, Bob!

While I really like the headrest on our '10 Forester, my wife would jump at the new design on the Impreza. She hates how the top of the rest juts forward. If those posts use the same specs as previous models, I might just look into swapping out the ones on our car. I bet I could score some points on that one. :shades:

One thing these drivers all seem to have in common is that they are working under this misconception that the car should be responsive without shifting gears. Fellas, you're driving a manual... enjoy it!

rsholland

I like that headrest too, as it's smart engineering. I suspect it will make onto other Subarus as well.

Bob

xwesx

The funny thing is that these "smart" designs come around in cycles. Both the 1985 and 1992 Camry owned by my parents included the spring-loaded tilt mechanisms... and that was over 25 years ago now (well, for the '85 anyway)!

robr2

BTW, on my recent 1,400-mile trip to New England, I averaged 27.3 mpg (according to the dash readout). It's probably closer to an actual 26 mpg. Still, not too shabby for a 265 hp turbo, and with much of the driving through mountains.

The down hills make up for the up hills. Last year I managed to get an indicated average 41 MPG on an 8 mile drive/coast back from Wildcat Mountain to house we were staying in. I probably got 18 mpg on the way up.

ateixeira

He's really critical of the in-car tech, comparing it unfavorably with Hyundai. Just give up and use Toyota's Entune, already.

May as well get SOMETHING from that partnership.

He likes the suspension a lot, which is promising. The engine not so much.

There might be a large gap between this and the next WRX, wonder if they'll offer an intermediate engine? Maybe in the XV or whatever they call it?

The 2nd review actually likes the CVT model better, even calling it sportier. Interesting.

ateixeira

The rear head rests on my 1998 Forester would tilt, though it had no detents.

Here's the funny thing - a few of us (myself, Ken) would swap the headrests front to rear and vice-versa, so we could use that feature to get the position just right. I liked it and my wife liked it, too. I was a head rest, not just an anti-whiplash visual obstacle like many are built nowadays.

volkov

Pulling out the whip to beat my favourite dead horse...
I think that this is exactly what Subaru needed to do. FE is moving back to the forefront of a buyer's mind especially in this segment and it no longer made sense for their compact to be running a mid-size engine.
Compacts are not supposed to be fast and most of them aren't. I don't really get all the criticism on the power here. You get the same gas mileage as a Civic plus AWD. If anyone expected it to be faster as well, then I have a perpetual motion machine I am willing to sell you...
THe 1.8l Honda mill puts out 140hp, but only 128ft/lbs of torque. Yes the Civic is lighter, but only 250lbs so torque per pound is pretty even. I am never a fan of comparing peak HP because a vehicle isn't run at the 6500 rpm that many of them are derived from.

rsholland

I agree. "Usable" power is far more meaningful than "peak" power.

Bob

ateixeira

Well, the FB20 reaches peak torque above 4000rpm, so that may be why the reviewer above liked the CVT better. It puts the engine near peak torque and keeps it there.

With a manual, no matter how good the driver, torque drops off significantly with each shift. You're never at ideal rpms.

All that is theory, of course, but the favorable review of the CVT he drove hopefully means Subaru tuned their CVT properly.

rsholland

http://www.cars101.com/subaru/impreza/impreza2012.html

Click on the exterior photos and interior photos links for more images.

Bob

ateixeira

I prefer the darker colors outside. The fog light surround mis-matches the lighter colors.

Inside looks much improved. They Forester-ized a lot of stuff, like the rear arm rest.

Ivory looks like it will stain easily, they should have done a light gray like our Platinum leather interior.

xwesx

I think you're right on the ivory leather, though I really like the look of it. The problem is, they only offer the leather on the limited, and they don't offer the limited with a real transmission. :sick:

ateixeira

Well, the press did like the CVT...

I gotta go drive it. For me it's pass/fail. I was OK with an Altima, but not with a few other CVTs I've sampled.

xwesx

I don't have any problem with the CVT. Heck, I haven't even tried it, but I'd like to.

The simple fact is that I prefer manual vs. any form of automatic enough that I would not buy a new car without a manual transmission. That is one of the most important features of any car I own. So, while I think I might like leather seating, I won't sacrifice my transmission preference to get it.

ateixeira

I'd need to try both. That Impreza is not targeted at sporty customers, and for me it would be a city car, so I *might* be OK with it. Depends on how it feels in normal use.

In Puerto Rico I rented a Lancer with a CVT, it was OK until you floored the throttle, then it kinda screamed and begged you to stop.

xwesx

Well, I've never owned a "sporty" car, so I guess I wouldn't know. I do want to try out the CVT just to get a feel for it. I often make vehicle suggestions to others who are "in the market," and most of them aren't looking for a manual anything.

rsholland

You and AJ really should drive a new Subaru CVT. Go to the dealer and drive the Legacy or Outback, keeping in mind that you're dealing with a 2.5 engine with greater mid-range power than the new 2.0 Impreza. When the 2.0 Impreza becomes available, go drive one of those too.

I'm sure the larger 2.5 will feel more powerful—but that's the engine and not the transmission you're feeling.

I think you'll be impressed.

Bob

ateixeira

I'll wait to try the Impreza, and maybe later a Forester when it gets one.

volkov

I never understood this widespread aversion to the CVT that gets expressed so often here at Edmund's. Some seem to consider it the second sign or something. I had no issue at all with the Legacy CVT, it was merely different. The big plus is the lack of a shift down delay when hitting the accelerator. It is not a manual, but to me it is the top choice amongst autos.

dino001

Basically, a sentence "it's different" is a death penalty for 90% of the people. There were some problems with first CVT introductions (mostly longevity of the belts), so people now are repeating opinions from those failed attempts 20 or 30 years. Sort of like "all plazma TVs develop burn-in and drop dead after 3 years" just because first ones did.

rsholland

It's not just CVTs. "Anything" that's different most people will reject. People HATE change. You see it every day, in every walk of life. I'm convinced it's one of our human (and animals too) survival instincts; fear anything you don't understand or know. Better to be safe than sorry; yadda, yadda...

Bob

ateixeira

Funny 'cause I just installed a new Plasma on Saturday. No tech aversion here.

I'll admit I prefer manuals, but between a CVT and a conventional automatic, I'll take whatever performs better overall.

xwesx

Same here; I don't think it much matters for automatics as long as they perform well (which includes reliability!). I was happy with the 4EAT on the two Subaru vehicles I owned that had that transmission. Actually, the '08 Outback was quite fun to drive - especially on slick roads with that rear LSD!

xwesx

Okay, Bob, I took your advice and took a Legacy CVT for a spin today. As it happens, it was a jet black, leather trimmed 2.5i Limited - fully decked out. Truly a beautiful car on the inside, and darn-near cavernous! I didn't get that impression at all when I was in the Outback two years ago, but it did seem bigger than its predecessor. Maybe that's because I have been looking strictly at tiny cars lately!

Anyhow, I was in this car solely to experience the transmission. That was the absolute best, smoothest, automatic I have driven. Seriously, it was like silk - actually, better, because it was as if there was no transmission at all. I don't know what people are talking about with the lack of shifting. Man, that was great. I tried out the paddles as well, which were also silky smooth. The best part of that was using the downshift option when slowing to a stop - nice.

So, I like it. Definitely another point of recommendation for Subaru. It was also a peppy bugger.