Last post on Jun 14, 2013 at 11:22 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views
What is this discussion about?
Aug 13, 2012 (7:27 pm)
Just read the initial specs on Subaru's new XV Crosstrek (Soob's attempt to disguise an Impreza wagon as something else in order to gain additional sales from the same car), and feel betrayed!
The manual will only be available in the base model (called Premium trim in this case), and you can't get the optional moonroof and NAV that are available on all automatic-equipped Crosstreks. Boo!
Not to mention that the manual offered is still the crappy old 5-speed, with 10% worse fuel economy (EPA rating) than the automatic. Double boo! And from an automaker that I rely on to be one of the last defenders of the manual when all the big guys have dropped out of the manual business.
#9263 of 9950 Re: harrumph [nippononly]
Aug 13, 2012 (7:31 pm)
Lame. I'm not surprised about the 5-speed, but I was sure they'd offer this one on both trim levels since they don't have three levels on this one.
Oh well. I'm about ready to cross Subaru off my list for this next car.
#9264 of 9950 Re: harrumph [steve_]
Aug 13, 2012 (7:36 pm)
Subaru offers the XV with a 2.0-liter diesel and six-speed manual just an ocean away.
#9265 of 9950 Re: harrumph [xwesx]
Aug 13, 2012 (7:39 pm)
The thing is mad underpowered. Heck, the regular Impreza is a bit underpowered, so how is the heavier XV gonna not be?
#9266 of 9950 Re: harrumph [steve_]
Aug 13, 2012 (11:19 pm)
Even with foot to floor on a short, sharp climb, the CVT noisily takes you nowhere in a hurry.
I don't know which is worse, the stone-age 4-speed auto they had in the Impreza before, or the CVT they replaced it with! And the point is well made that power is seriously lacking for a vehicle this high and heavy.
Of course, a 6-speed manual with well-sorted ratios could be just the ticket for abating the worst impacts of that little engine's lack of oomph, but noooooo. And once again, we see an automaker treating the manual-shift buyer as the cheapskate - bare-bones base model only, and no ability to add options, even ones that are available IN THE SAME TRIM with an automatic.
#9267 of 9950 Re: harrumph [nippononly]
Aug 14, 2012 (7:10 am)
Well nobody buys manuals if they arent looking for the lowest cost ( so goes the saying, we all say it isn't true, and ford found out it wasn't true with the focus). Of course that is the excuse. I have a feeling that for some automakers, especially some like Subaru whose cars aren't the most fuel efficient, the problem is the CAFE numbers, if they offered the cars with manual irish all the options people might buy more, and then their numbers for CAFE would be lower ( due to the u realistic EPA fuel economy numbers, and the fact they don't gear the manual for fuel efficiency). And of course their is also the profit thing, if they can sell automatics instead of manuals hey get an extra $ amount profit per car.
Aug 14, 2012 (9:48 am)
Hit the nail on the head. They make more money on automatics and therefore prefer to sell them. Exception being the luxury cars that offer manuals as a no cost option.
#9269 of 9950 Re: - [dudleyr]
Aug 15, 2012 (7:51 am)
They make more money on automatics and therefore prefer to sell them.
I have a feeling that automatics are now probably less expensive to make than manuals due to quantity efficiency
#9270 of 9950 Re: - [robr2]
Aug 15, 2012 (9:05 am)
Possibly, but then again given the R&D costs on recent automatic offerings versus the very long running 5-speed manual, that extra $1,000 may still be helping to offset costs....
Were they still using the 4-speed auto across their lineup (assuming we're still speaking of Subaru?), that wouldn't be the case by any means. That transmission had an exceptionally long run.