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.
Mrs5150’s 2002 Subaru, with 200k miles was in need of replacement. It ran ok, but was not cost effective to keep. We wanted to replace her vehicle with a newSubaru. The problem (I thought) was the only AT option was a CVT. I thought, well how bad can a CVT be? Well not bad at all! It performs well. We live in the mountains and uphill the CVT adjusts the RPMs to the steepness of the grade so the 2 liter motor actually out performs my 2.5 liter Forester. Downhill, the virtual gearing set by the paddle shifters is very effective for engine braking. On the flats the CVT felt almost ( very close) as solid as a standard AT.
After all the negatives I have heard about CVTs I am pleasantly surprised!
Impreza with CVT is darn near Prius levels of slow and doesn't handle any better either. I mean, we're talking about a Subaru that's not a WRX or BRZ though so the utter lack of anything resembling sportiness isn't relevant as people buying them just don't care.
It gets the job done going A to B just like a Prius does, not much else needs to be said about that. The only Forester I've driven was really old, late '90s. Slower than a dog, horrible body roll, uncomfortable seats, and I think they made the interior out of recycled Rubbermaid containers. I wasn't a fan. My sister loved that thing though. Absolutely no reason she needs AWD but she drove the last car into a tree and blamed it on being FWD so the Forester made some sense then. There weren't a lot of reasonably priced cars of similar size with AWD back then.
Just change the fluid every 30k miles or so regardless of what the manual says. Overheated fluid seems to be what causes most people problems, and since you’re in a mountainous area, that may be especially true in your case.
Just change the fluid every 30k miles or so regardless of what the manual says. Overheated fluid seems to be what causes most people problems, and since you’re in a mountainous area, that may be especially true in your case.
Why would he it’s under warranty still to 36,000 miles.
Probably because they plan on keeping it past 36,000 miles. It's not like it's going to fail at 36,000 from cooked transmission fluid. It might fail prematurely at 120,000 instead of lasting until 200,000+ when misc. other stuff makes the vehicle no longer worth keeping. I'd call 36,000 a bit excessive but I'm not towing or driving up steep gradients. I did a drain/fill on my car at 60k. Allegedly the oil is lifetime but I'm skeptical of that. With the Prius just don't overtighten the drain bolt as the bellhousing is easy to crack and if it does you're either off to pick and pull or buying a new transmission if the crack is bad enough you can't plate it.
Probably because they plan on keeping it past 36,000 miles. It's not like it's going to fail at 36,000 from cooked transmission fluid. It might fail prematurely at 120,000 instead of lasting until 200,000+ when misc. other stuff makes the vehicle no longer worth keeping. I'd call 36,000 a bit excessive but I'm not towing or driving up steep gradients. I did a drain/fill on my car at 60k. Allegedly the oil is lifetime but I'm skeptical of that. With the Prius just don't overtighten the drain bolt as the bellhousing is easy to crack and if it does you're either off to pick and pull or buying a new transmission if the crack is bad enough you can't plate it.
That’s nuts go ahead and waste your money, better take it to the dealer though because it’s still going to be under warranty and if it gets messed up by another shop the dealer will not repair under warranty.
Impreza with CVT is darn near Prius levels of slow and doesn't handle any better either. I mean, we're talking about a Subaru that's not a WRX or BRZ though so the utter lack of anything resembling sportiness isn't relevant as people buying them just don't care.
It gets the job done going A to B just like a Prius does, not much else needs to be said about that. The only Forester I've driven was really old, late '90s. Slower than a dog, horrible body roll, uncomfortable seats, and I think they made the interior out of recycled Rubbermaid containers. I wasn't a fan. My sister loved that thing though. Absolutely no reason she needs AWD but she drove the last car into a tree and blamed it on being FWD so the Forester made some sense then. There weren't a lot of reasonably priced cars of similar size with AWD back then.
A lot of people don’t want or need a WRX. The Impreza does the job well enough for Mrs5150. My 2012 Forester and her Impreza will outperform any Porsche on the way to our local ski resort. Three inches of snow on the the road and that Porsche will be in the ditch on the first turn. And you do realize that all cars, Subaru include have come a long way since 1990
Quote:
Originally Posted by easy62
Why would he it’s under warranty still to 36,000 miles.
Probably because they plan on keeping it past 36,000 miles. It's not like it's going to fail at 36,000 from cooked transmission fluid. It might fail prematurely at 120,000 instead of lasting until 200,000+ when misc. other stuff makes the vehicle no longer worth keeping. I'd call 36,000 a bit excessive but I'm not towing or driving up steep gradients. I did a drain/fill on my car at 60k. Allegedly the oil is lifetime but I'm skeptical of that. With the Prius just don't overtighten the drain bolt as the bellhousing is easy to crack and if it does you're either off to pick and pull or buying a new transmission if the crack is bad enough you can't plate it.
Normally, the anti-CVT contingent, who by the way have never driven one, would have come out in force by now. Looks like it's dissipated. BTW, I am driving a Frontier now and it feels no different. I don't even know if it has a CVT or not.
Mrs5150’s 2002 Subaru, with 200k miles was in need of replacement. It ran ok, but was not cost effective to keep. We wanted to replace her vehicle with a newSubaru. The problem (I thought) was the only AT option was a CVT. I thought, well how bad can a CVT be? Well not bad at all! It performs well. We live in the mountains and uphill the CVT adjusts the RPMs to the steepness of the grade so the 2 liter motor actually out performs my 2.5 liter Forester. Downhill, the virtual gearing set by the paddle shifters is very effective for engine braking. On the flats the CVT felt almost ( very close) as solid as a standard AT.
After all the negatives I have heard about CVTs I am pleasantly surprised!
I am with you. Have had two vehicles with CVTs - a 2013 Honda Accord I put 125K trouble free miles on before trading it in, and now a 2019 Subaru Forester which is also working fine by me so far (only 6500 mi). I had a slight preference for the way the Honda was programmed, but both have been fine and returned good mpgs and provided quiet operation.
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.
