Topic: Second opinion: 2012 Subaru Impreza

[dirtyjeffer]

Seriously, numerous reports and reviews of this car have been critical of the CVT. No suprise there, as most CVTs draw criticism from auto writers, generally for good reason. They seem to be designed to maximize fuel economy at the expense of the driving experience and noise. The Subaru version has received criticism from a number of reviewers. Unless you believe they have an axe to grind, one can only take such criticism at face value.

CVTs do get a little more criticism than a conventional automatic transmission from reviewers and most posters in here, because most of us are "enthusiasts"...however, from what i have read, the CVT in this car, while still a CVT, gets decent reviews...in fact, i have read that these CVTs are among the best available.

[johngenx]

So, if you don't own a _______________, don't bash it.

You are, from this point forward, mandated to only comment on 2011 Outbacks equipped with the 2.5L/CVT driveline.

Maybe they've refined things, but I test drove one of the first 2010 CVT Outbacks to hit my dealers lot, and I found the CVT coarse and intrusive and a step backward from the decent five speed AT.

The 4AT you experienced in the 2011 Forester is an old design, lacks refinement, but what has going for it is longevity.  For people that plan on keeping their car, it's a super durable unit that will easily last 350K or more with minor services alone.  I'm wary of the CVT thanks to the lack of history and the fact that most other makes struggle with making a reliable one.  But, Toyota makes the strongest and smoothest CVT's, so maybe the Toyota/Subaru alliance is helping?

[2JDM]

MOST people who will buy this, won't even know it is a CVT....they'll know it as a "automatic". If I let my mom drive this, she won't even notice the difference between a CVT and a traditional automatic.

...

Which makes this Impreza a good candidate for my mom's next vehicle. AWD, good fuel economy and safety ratings. For me? No thanks.

[dirtyjeffer]

Maybe they've refined things, but I test drove one of the first 2010 CVT Outbacks to hit my dealers lot, and I found the CVT coarse and intrusive and a step backward from the decent five speed AT.

the CVT used in the new Impreza is a completely new unit.  It is not the same one you experienced before.

[johngenx]

the CVT used in the new Impreza is a completely new unit.  It is not the same one you experienced before.

I know.  I was responding to the poster raving about the CVT in his 2011 Outback.  I haven't tried the Impreza CVT.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Maybe they've refined things, but I test drove one of the first 2010 CVT Outbacks to hit my dealers lot, and I found the CVT coarse and intrusive and a step backward from the decent five speed AT.

 

[dirtyjeffer]

i suppose if subaru offers an alternative for the impreza, as vw has done with the jetta (ie the gli or the passat with the cc) then it might be a good move.

they do, that is what the WRX and STi models are for.

does producing a cvt save them money over a traditional automatic?

CVTs are supposed to be less complicated so perhaps some weight and cost savings are there, but their main reason to use them is fuel economy...don't forget, fuel economy ratings become increasingly important as CAFE ratings will get tougher and tougher in the years to come.

[nlm]

You're really working way too hard to try and find some possible advantage for the Subaru. While AWD might be a deal-maker if you live in the wilds of snow country, for most people it is totally unnecessary and merely adds complexity and weight. Meanwhile you are comparing an unattractively designed Subaru with a questionable powertrain versus a Mazda that is generally considered a most satisfying car to drive and which looks pretty cool. It is no contest.

You see what happens when 170hp goes to 148hp?!?

AWD adds weight and complexity, yet the 2012 Impreza weighs less than the 3 without. Sure it adds complexity but so does a telescoping steering wheel or a independent rear suspension. Complexity is the wrong measure here, I think durability/reliability of a component better gets to the real consumer issue and I think as far as AWD goes Subaru does good here.

I of course agree the 3 vs Impreza is no contest, but in Subaru's favour after alternating between a previous gen Impreza and a 2010 3 GS for daily commuting duty 120km round trip for one year. Feature-wise both are similar. The 3 had radio controls in the steering wheel which was handy ( ), had a better radio and more up-to-date interior but I found the red lighting to be extremely annoying and contrary to many a test, more difficult to see at night. The Sube felt more substantial though and gives better road feel, something specs will never tell you. Maybe the latter is more tire differences but the Sube had CdnTire issue Tiger Paws and the 3 had Michelin XMV Primacys! The 3's fuel economy was also similar as the Sube, but this is comparing a 2.0L w/4-spd auto vs the 2.5L w/5-spd stick. The 3 had a louder whine at highway speeds and the Sube just kept a subtle burble that the downpipe is known for. Between the two, the 6 year newer 3 has had more problems, big and small, than the Sube but that's just a sample of one between the two. In my experience, the Sube is the better vehicle.