By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
But the Aisin IS SIX SPEED! However, there are AFIK Toyota models that use four speed autos also. Let's hope they let Subaru get the good ones.
Overall, I was okay with the looks of the new car, except for the tail-lights and the grill. If the brakes are the Legacy GT brakes, then those should be fine with me too, even though they went back to a 2-piston/1-piston setup, as opposed to the current 4-piston/2-piston setup. The narrower tires (205mm vs the 215mm of the 07) probably will aid in improving the mileage numbers and hence those are not deal-breakers for me.
No doubt you have to drive the car and I certainly will but I think Edmunds review of the new WRX was a downer in many aspects. I'm unimpressed with the looks and yes the performance is there but pretty much the same as the 2007 model so no difference there. Cheaper and less capable brakes and the narrow tires will be the first to go if I buy one.
The car looks unattractive and as to how it will handle and feel driving it we will have to wait until it hits the showrooms. I'm a big fan of Subaru and my family owned a few of them as well.
But this new design just doesn't motivate me at all.
Maybe when i drive one in person it will but I will say the diesel option would be exciting and what with all the other manufacturers coming out with diesels that's good. The 5EAT should be replaced by a CVT anyway. Even a Honda Fit has one and it's a good tranny for an automatic. Subaru could really use a CVT, even tho I will only own a manual. Subaru would sell a lot of CVT's to the Forester and Outback crowd.
But this new WRX so far doesn't light a fire under me and with the new BMW 1 series coming out with possibly a 135i that would light a fire under me for $2k more. Yes less reliable but good looking and Fun. Oh I've driven the 1 series already as I'm overseas. The hatch would pull away a lot of performance hatch owners out of their cars and into the 1 series.
On one hand, loyalists would not like it, they'd say Subaru is getting too soft.
On the other hand, anything with an X in it seems to appeal to Gen X or even Gen Y, and might be alienating more mature buyers.
They could hedge their bets. Have an Impreza 2.5i and GT model, but then keep the WRX STI name for that model only. That way you still please the hard core fans, but don't alienate anyone over 35.
No, the $14K Honda Fit does not have a CVT. It has a true 5EAT, as does all other Hondas that are equipped with an Automatic.
I believe their natural gas Civic version comes in CVT and so did some of the past Civics (HX etc).
My mistake the Honda Fit does not have a CVT tranny but Honda does make one as does Toyota. The Subaru should have a CVT in it and it's probably doable, but that's probably decided on by the bean counters.
Bob
________________________
There was an article on nikkan.co.jp that seems to have disappeared fromt he website, but here is my summary:
FHI - To Introduce Its Next-Gen Direct Injection Engine As Early as 2009
In as early as 2009, FHI plans to introduce its direct injection gasoline engine in the FMC Legacy.
One merit of direct injection engines is fuel consumption efficiency.
The issues being worked out now are injector costs and NOX counter measures related to lean burn.
FHI's goal is to improve fuel efficiency and increase power output simultaneously and become the flagship for environmental engineering.
On the topic of stricter fuel consumption regulations in Japan, America, and Europe, one FHI executive stated: "It's imperative that we get the direct injection engine out to market."
FHI will use Piexometric devices in the next-gen engine to precisely manage the injectors and is also reviewing the usage of an EGR cooler.
www.nikkan.co.jp/hln/nkx0220070614013beao.html
Edit: found the article on Yahoo Japan- http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20...000007-nkn-ind
My Sienna has it, and it's the best way to get a good balance of efficiency and power.
That would be huge for the 2.5l engine, in fact it would probably give it the power boost most people seem to want at the same time. Imagine 190hp and high 20s mpg.
Altima is a good application of a CVT, IMO. In the last C&D test it was quicker and more fuel efficient than similar automatics.
Realistically it may cost too much to do both, so work on DI first.
My Legacy's rated @175hp and 30MPG hwy. (Of course, both of those ratings are probably lower now with the new standards, but still... high 20s is too low!)
-mike
-mike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection
Bob
-mike
And what car wouldn't benefit from that? C'mon Subaru...
I passed 1000 miles and haven't pushed it hard yet, but if I want to be the first to get across an intersection, well, let's just say I've been able to control that every single time so far. This van is quick.
Dumb as it might sound coming from a WRX driver, that is one of the knocks I have against the Sienna. Applies to other top drawer mini-vans too but the Sienna is the best/worst case. Why does it need the power to do 0-60 in 7 seconds? It's a mini-van! Friends traded in their 98 Sienna for an 06 and noticed both the extra power and the extra trips to the gas station. I never found the first generation slow in any way. They could easily have designed things to give decent acceleration but better fuel economy. It's what I would want.
Especially when traveling up hill, and wanting to pass a Semi.
All that power is not needed 99% of the time, but you'll be glad you have it the 1% of the time when you do need it.
I guess you could always just crawl behind that Semi belching out toxic diesel fumes for miles and miles traveling up a long hill and never pass in a slower car.
I'm glad I wouldn't have to, though.
extra trips to the gas station
Not true at all - the new vans get 26 mpg EPA highway, and with a 21 gallon tank the range is phenomenal - 546 miles!
I have 1100 miles so far and I've only had to get gas twice.
The 190hp version of the van wasn't any more efficient.
4545 lbs for the heaviest model (AWD Limited), plus 1200 lbs of payload, plus a 3500 lb trailer, for a grand total of 9245 lbs.
Now, would you rather have 190hp, or 266?
Plus, it's geared TALL, seriously tall, so it doesn't use any more gas. Some times when I'm cruising the engine is idling along at just 1200 rpms and I'm over 30 mpg. :shades:
Just checked the EPA site and you are correct sir, test numbers are the same for new AWD and the old Sienna. My friend does calculate those things and said the real world numbers are worse with the new van. Course if Lorann (his DW) is inspired to engage in stop-light drags maybe that's where their poorer mileage comes from.
As to your other comment you are being silly. I don't want a Yugo minivan. The old Sienna was plenty fast. Fully loaded and towing a utility trailer full of camping gear I didn't hesitate to pass anything on the highway. I truly had no desire for a faster family vehicle any time, any situation. They could have maintained performance with the new engine and heavier chassis and returned stellar MPG imho.
Not Toyota's fault, just a carryover of what I like to call the Horsepower Wars of the late 90's into the new millenium. Most development and marketing went into HP bragging rights first and fuel economy second. I'll admit it's seductive and elicits an inner whoo-hoo when you punch that happy pedal and think "This is a minivan?!?' I just don't remember complaints that cars and trucks were dangerously slow 10 years ago. Just think where we'd be if the emphasis had remained on fuel efficiency with more power a secondary development. Great mileage cars and the price of gas would be lower due to reduced demand.
We've disintegrated into discussing how "fast" minivans are!!!! ROFL!!!!! You guys need to get out more.
Or is it the other way around?
The last-generation Sienna was a smaller van. The new one is IMHO significantly bigger. There's the temptation to fill up all that space.
If you do truly fill it up, the extra power comes in handy. Most of the time it's at such low rpm that you're really not making any trade-offs, so I welcome the extra power (when needed).
I'm re-doing my deck. I hauled 5 sheets of 4'x8' lattice and 2 sheets of 4'x8' drywall inside, hatch closed, without removing the 2nd and 3rd rows. Remove them and it's even easier - they lay flat on the floor.
On a later run, I carried home 16' long Trex decking, 6 pieces. Put them in the passenger foot well, over all 3 rows, and out the hatch slightly. Sixteen feet long! I also had two 100" long 4x4 PVC covering, 3 stair rail kits, and a bunch of other little stuff. I didn't have to remove any seats at all, in fact I even forgot to take out the kids' booster seats.
This van is huge. If you really load it up you need power, trust me.
If so, that is impressive!
Bob
Come to think of it, though, I did have to slide the front seats forward a bit.
Sienna has a lot of things over the Odyssey that are important, most I didn't realize when I bought, this is LE3 vs. Ody EX:
* 3rd row power vented windows (Ody does not even open)
* trans oil cooler standard (Ody extra $$$ towing package)
* 2nd row tumbles forward (Ody has to be removed)
* plays MP3s and WMAs
* includes roof rack cross bars (already used them, too)
* steering wheel telescopes
I said it before, it was deja-vu, like comparing the Forester to the CR-V. The Subaru simply had a lot more content.
If we didn't have the truck, there would already be an AWD Sienna in our driveway.
What disappoints in the Sienna vs the Odyssey is the fact that when the Odyssey uses a 4-wheel Independent suspension with Double wishbones in the rear, the Sienna uses archaic non-independent Torsion beam suspension in the rear. Serious cost cutting there !
The Odyssey also has the available Cylinder deactivation feature for exceptional mileage (although only in the top tier models), while the Sienna does not.
So Honda doesn't have any fuel economy advantage at all, in fact Toyota has the edge all the way up to about the $30,000 price level.
Torsion beam is indeed cheaper but the real reason they use it is because it is extremely compact. It is only semi-independent and surely part of the reason the Odyssey handles better, but also the reason the Sienna can squeeze the spare under the vehicle and squeeze out a couple of extra cubic feet of space.
For a car with sporting intentions, I'd agree with you and pick the 'bones, but for a minivan the torsion beam is acceptable, if not ideal.
Now, on the "really cool ideas" front, I could see a Mazda5 competitor, Subaru-style, with lowered suspension and the turbo 2.5 (with the NA 2.5 as the base engine and fold-flat seats for six inside). What a neat idea. I guess nobody except me would buy one, though....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
With both our cars paid off, we're not in any rush to get back into a new car payment, so we're waiting for a perfect blend of space, AWD, and fuel efficiency to show up in showrooms for our next purchase. I'm really hoping that it's a Subaru because I've loved both of my previous 'Roos...
B
I wouldn't call it autocrossing but at least I can have a little fun in our Odyssey on the ramps and twisties!!
When I drive my in-laws Windstar or my neighbor's Sienna I'm suprised at how less capable they are. I realize they're minivans but that doesn't mean they shouldn't handle better than a box on wheels.
The Sienna is more quiet and a bit smoother, though, I found.
We spent about 4 days in Tucson and some friends had an EX-L. They let me drive it for one of those days, too.
I prefer driving the Ody, but both me and my wife preferred riding in the Sienna.
Keep in mind I commute in a Miata, so the driving experience was not really high on my list of priorities, in fact the cushy and quiet ride was far more important for this "trip car". It's for those 3 hours trips to the beach every weekend, and the 7+ hour trips to grandma's house.
Also, while much better, I still wouldn't call the Ody fun. The Tribeca was fun. The Ody was nimble for its size, but stab the gas and you still feel significant torque steer, and the body lean (worse in the Sienna) discourages that type of driving anyway.
Windstar is very trucky, no comparison to either the Sienna or the Ody at all. Freestar too. We had one as a loaner for a couple of days when the Legacy had some body work done.
The Mazda5 is quite fun, I agree! :shades:
At Zoom Zoom Live I commented that without the turbo lag of the CX7 is was actually more fun to drive the Mazda5. I wish it were a little bigger, came with power sliding doors, and came with more than 6 seats.
Subaru - your opportunity awaits in this segment.
Do not forget about those trips to the lumber yard! :P
That's where a van shines. Just this week in the Ody I've carried plywood, mdf, casing and prehung doors. I've hauled 12' pieces of vinyl siding with the doors closed. 2 weeks ago was 16' lengths of mdf baseboard of which 4' stuck out the back. I've had 2x10x12's in the back and on the roof racks.
This weekend, it's going camping.
And I can take a corner without feeling like I'm piloting the QE2!!
Haha... I did not want to keep them; I did not want them to litter the road!
I'd buy one in a heartbeat. The Mazda5 was the prime candidate when I first considered a second, "urban" family vehicle which could take 6. Inexpensive, good Mazda reliability, great gas mileage. Put on the back burner due to lack of AWD, very low ground clearance and partly due to no Mazda dealer for 300 miles.
Make a similar vehicle with the Subie 2.5 and drivetrain and that would smoke, but it would also be more expensive and get poorer gas mileage so maybe the bloom might be off the rose for most consumers (not me) at that point. A better idea for Mazda North America would have been a limited version with bigger engine - possible old 3L and maybe even AWD like the 6 had. Mileage for bigger engine might have barely changed if geared properly. The fuel economy of the 5 is great for a 6 seater, but quite poor for such a small engine, possibly because it's working too hard.
See, but then you're turning it into a maxivan like Sienna/Odyssey/Grand Caravan. I like the idea of microvans - they are great urban vans in the sense that you can fit lots of people for short/medium trips but can't fit 6 and the luggage for 6, which means they are the perfect size for a family of 4. Also, around town in lots of short, low-acceleration trips, the 4-cylinder will have more than enough power and yet will produce significantly better fuel economy than if you put the big V-6s in today's "minivans" to the same use.
Now of course what I was thinking about originally was an mpg-be-darned sport microvan, which goes to Subaru's natural abilities. Make it too big, power doors and whatnot adding weight, and you will suck a lot of the fun out of it. As it is it will have AWD which will add 200-300 pounds.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If you want an example of the size I'm talking about, check out the photo below.
It's an imported JDM Odyssey, even RHD. The size is just right, though. Small enough to be nimble, yet much roomier than the Mazda5 on the inside.
It seats 3 across in the middle row, Mazda5s in the USA only seat 2. And it has the magic folding 3rd row.
Remembered reading you were in BC, so when you said 300 miles it piqued my curiosity and I checked your profile to see where you were exactly. Prince George?! Not sure if you're a hockey fan, but your darn Cougars upset my hometown Everett Silvertips in the WHL playoffs. :mad:
Prior to Honda introducing their V6 equipped Odyssey minivans in the US, the "Odyssey" available in the US was the JDM version with the 4-cyl Accord engine. Unfortunately from a sales perspective, in the US it was a total failure, mainly due to the relatively weak 4-cyl and smallish proportions.
The sales of the "Odyssey" brand-name took off when they introduced the large minivan with the V6, the second generation of which is running now.
In exchange for the above, Honda which lacked an SUV at that time, was allowed to rebadge the Isuzu Rodeo into the Honda Passport.
A reverse situation applied to the Pontiac Vibe (rebadged Toyota Matrix), which sold better, because it was a Toyota with the Chevy dealers actually stressing the point.
Nicholas
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
About 30 minutes south of PG, it was her turn to drive. I was a little leery about stopping then because we had to change highways, but she was confident she could do it. I explained to her that she would cross several lighted, minor minor intersections before coming to a huge crossroads. She was to turn left here and listed the road names, towns that should be on the signs, landmarks, blah blah. I go to sleep.
Two hours later I wake up (about 2300) and there is darkness all around. I lovingly ask her, "How is it going?" She replies, "Great! We are about 90 miles from Dawson Creek!" ....Long pause.... I say, "What?! You are going the wrong way!!"
Flustered, she pulls over and tells me to drive. I turn around (as it was still shorter to backtrack 50 miles than take the Alaska Highway) and, a few minutes later, start laughing. I said, "if you were headed to Dawson Creek, there is no way you took a left turn." She responds with, "Well, no, but I was not sure which intersection you meant and I saw Dawson Creek signs, recognized that name, and figured you meant for us to go that way."
It ended up taking us 52 hours to get home.
But...that engine makes 160-200hp nowadays. Adequate.
Back then the original Ody was here it had I think 130-140hp. A bit lacking.
I just got my new BMW Magazine this month and they have some Diesel news listed for the '09 Model Year in North America. The details are as follows
M57 3.0- liter Twin-Turbo Diesel
282hp
428 lb-ft torque.
Currently in 335D in Europe.
BMW is planning on this engine variant going into both the 3 and 5 series cars as well as X3 and X5 SAV's. Come on Subaru, let's get the ball rolling on diesel technology!!! I'm pulling for ya! I'm betting Subaru would sell alot more Tribeca's if they were rated over 30 MPG highway.