Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think I've finally decided to purchase a new Subaru Impreza. However, now I'm stuck on whether to get the CVT w/manual paddle shifters or a good ol' manual. I've only ever driven a stick shift and its not because I'm a "sporty" driver it was/is just cheaper. The new CVT is suppose to get better gas mileage than the manual, so I'm inclined to go with the CVT. Although, I guess I do take a sense of pride in being able to drive a stick shift, and I would anticipate future repair costs to be less with a manual. (although the Saturn manual I've had for the past 15yrs has never had any transmission or clutch issues). Just wondering if people have an opinion about future maintenance costs for a CVT and whether it will maintain better gas mileage for the long haul.
Better gas mileage, yes. Maintenance and reliability, who knows. IMO, if you are looking to keep this car for 15 years, or even just beyond the warranty period, then I would personally go with the manual. The long term reliability of CVT's has not been proven. Nissan had massive issues with theirs and most of the others who are using them have stopped. I think it's a good option for a leased car or one owned during the warranty period, but it's just not proven enough and the replacement costs are simply too high to be something I would be comfortable having for the long haul.
Better gas mileage, yes. Maintenance and reliability, who knows. IMO, if you are looking to keep this car for 15 years, or even just beyond the warranty period, then I would personally go with the manual. The long term reliability of CVT's has not been proven. Nissan had massive issues with theirs and most of the others who are using them have stopped. I think it's a good option for a leased car or one owned during the warranty period, but it's just not proven enough and the replacement costs are simply too high to be something I would be comfortable having for the long haul.
This is a joke right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rational1
On some other cars reviews complain of a CVT "drone." I wouldn't like that.
I actually looked at one of the Subaru models. It would be nice to have paddle shifters...but what point is there with a CVT?
Endless gearing and can maintain the same rpm throughout. Unlike a manual or even an auto you can't feel it switch gears since it has none. It's a smooth ride from a stop to flooring it. There's no jerk of when the car switches gears or having to release the gas and depress the clutch to switch gears in a manual.
Will adjust to the highest efficiency of the engine for mpg or for maximum power.
My wife had one in her Chevy Silverado and I loved it.
Our Sube Legacy w CVT is fine once you get used to it. It didn't take me long since I once owned a '54 Buick with the, then famous, Dynaflow tranny (few here will understand this ).
My wife drives the Sube mostly and has no complaints. When I drive it I kinda think it is almost 'fun' and a change. As claimed, the mileage is very good.
I do think that if the objective is 100-150k miles+, then the stick shift may be a better bet. CVTs (for Sube especially) are still somewhat 'unproven'. (Of course you must drive the stick well to avoid repairs and replacements too ).
I'm considering getting a new car and have been looking at Subaru's too. Last weekend I test drove two new Subarus back to back-- the 2012 Impreza and the 2012 Legacy-- both with CVT's. I was disappointed with both cars. The engine in the Impreza is extremely noisy, and yet it's pretty slow. The ride is bumpy and rough, and the seats (even in the fully loaded Limited trim w/ leather, ~$25k MSRP) are not very comfortable-- even with leather seats, it's not a power seat-- can't adjust thigh support. The Legacy was much more comfortable of a ride, much more comfortable seats, and quieter (although still pretty loud engine noise compared to most of the other midsized cars I've driven), but just as sluggish feeling, even with a bigger engine compared to the Impreza.
The worst part of both cars, though, is the combination of the CVT and the electric steering. Both cars were some of the most un-fun cars I've ever driven. In comparison, the Toyota Camry is downright fun to drive. When you step on the gas with a CVT car, it just doesn't have that "fun" feeling. It doesn't feel like you're accelerating even if you are. It feels like a car that wants to be driven slow. The steering in both cars is awkward feeling. It's like you can't feel what the wheels are doing at all. Feels like you're playing a video game rather than driving a real car.
In comparison, last year when I was car shopping I test drove a used 2009 Legacy, which was actually one of the most fun cars I've even driven (although the seats were pretty bad) which had excellent road feel and "balanced" feeling. Subaru completely ruined their cars from the last generation to the current offerings.
Subaru is a brand I really want to like. I like the idea of what their cars stand for, I like the way they look, I would love to have AWD. Just one little problem-- the way it drives sucks.
As far as I know, there are different types of CVTs. My 2006 Toyota Prius has a CVT that I have seen referred to in a number of ways: CVT, e-CVT (electronically-controlled CVT), PST (power split transmission), and HSD (hybrid synergy drive). Whatever it's called, I like it, and my understanding is that Toyota started using this CVT in 1997, so they've had 15 years of experience with it.
I've had vehicles with manual transmissions and other with automatics - this is my first experience with a CVT. With just under 100K miles on it, we've had zero problems with the CVT (just like the rest of the car).
I think I've finally decided to purchase a new Subaru Impreza. However, now I'm stuck on whether to get the CVT w/manual paddle shifters or a good ol' manual. I've only ever driven a stick shift and its not because I'm a "sporty" driver it was/is just cheaper. The new CVT is suppose to get better gas mileage than the manual, so I'm inclined to go with the CVT. Although, I guess I do take a sense of pride in being able to drive a stick shift, and I would anticipate future repair costs to be less with a manual. (although the Saturn manual I've had for the past 15yrs has never had any transmission or clutch issues). Just wondering if people have an opinion about future maintenance costs for a CVT and whether it will maintain better gas mileage for the long haul.
My opinion: Go with the manual. I'm biased toward manual transmissions anyway, but I agree that the long term durability of that CVT unit is not known for 10-15 years. If you plan on holding on to the car for that length of time, the manual might be a good choice.
On top of that, I can't stand driving CVTs. I just find them irksome. While I understand that some people love them, and aren't bothered by them, but I am not one of those people.
For those reasons I'd choose a manual.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). 
).
