Ask the Car People.SM


2012 Forester Transmissions

24 messages,  Last post on Dec 19, 2011 at 6:27 PM

You are in the Subaru Forester Maintenance & Repair Forum.

What is this discussion about? Subaru Forester

Messages Page 1 of 3

#1 of 24 2012 Forester Transmissions by soonersubaru1

Nov 05, 2011 (9:26 am)

Disclaimer: I am not a car person. It is fine to talk to me as if I am 3 years old when you answer my questions.
 
I have a 2003 forester (manual trans) with 116K miles. I bought it when I lived in Oklahoma, and now live in New Mexico. It's been great, and after spending the last 3 months looking at other cars, I've decided that when I replace her (probably in a year or so), I'll get another subaru.
 
I initially thought I'd get the outback with the bigger engine, but SO MANY people are complaining of problems with the outback CVT that I'm now shying away from it (the bigger engine doesn't have a manual trans option, and since the outback is a little heavier than the forester, I'm worried about the outback with the smaller engine being underpowered on mountain roads). My current forester is probably a little underpowered on mountain roads, but it's doable since I can downshift. My husband (who only gets a token vote in what car I buy) thinks the forester is horribly underpowered, but he is wrong.
 
I might consider the Turbo forester, but I notice that it does not have a manual transmission option. However, it looks like it just has a basic 4 speed automatic instead of the CVT.
 
So, these are the things I'm assuming:
 
1. The 4spd auto in the Forester is TOTALLY different than the outback's CVT, and so the problems with the CVT will not apply to the 4spd auto in the Forester.
 
2. The turbo forester is, as a rule, less reliable than the nonturbo forester, but at least the 4 spd auto transmission would be as reliable as the 4 spd transmission in the non turbo forester.
 
3. If I wait to buy a 2013 Forester, they may decide to put the CVTs in them, and then I'll only have the option of buying a nonturbo forester or the outback with the smaller engine because that will be the only manual transmission I can get.
 
4. I have to put premium gas in the Turbo. All gas sold here is 10 percent ethanol. I have no idea how turbos do with ethanol, but I know my current forester seems to like the ethanol free gas in Oklahoma better than our ethanol gas here.
 
Do all of the assumptions seem right? Any words of wisdom? I would normally just ask my husband these questions, but he is REALLY trying to push me to the Acura RDX, and so I'm not sure I can trust his input at this point.
 
Thanks so much!

#2 of 24 Re: 2012 Forester Transmissions [soonersubaru1] by rsholland

Nov 05, 2011 (10:09 am)

Replying to: soonersubaru1 (Nov 05, 2011 9:26 am)
1. The 4spd auto in the Forester is TOTALLY different than the outback's CVT, and so the problems with the CVT will not apply to the 4spd auto in the Forester.
 
Problems with the Subie CVT? None that I'm aware of. I've test-driven several CVT-equipped Subies and have nothing but praise for the CVT.
  
2. The turbo forester is, as a rule, less reliable than the nonturbo forester, but at least the 4 spd auto transmission would be as reliable as the 4 spd transmission in the non turbo forester.
 
How did you arrive at the turbo Forester being less reliable than the non-turbo model? If so, it's news to me. Yes, they require a little more maintenance, as in 3500 mile oil changes, but that's about it. I'm on my second (turbo) WRX. Between the two that I've had, I've had zero engine problems in over 100K of driving.
  
3. If I wait to buy a 2013 Forester, they may decide to put the CVTs in them, and then I'll only have the option of buying a nonturbo forester or the outback with the smaller engine because that will be the only manual transmission I can get.
 
It's quite likely the 2013 Forester will be all new, and the 4EAT will be replaced by the CVT. Other than that we know nothing about that car.
  
4. I have to put premium gas in the Turbo. All gas sold here is 10 percent ethanol. I have no idea how turbos do with ethanol, but I know my current forester seems to like the ethanol free gas in Oklahoma better than our ethanol gas here.
 
I wouldn't be too concerned about ethanol. If there was a problem I'm sure SOA would have issued some sort of warning by now.
 
Bob

#3 of 24 Re: 2012 Forester Transmissions [soonersubaru1] by dcm61

Nov 05, 2011 (9:35 pm)

Replying to: soonersubaru1 (Nov 05, 2011 9:26 am)
I initially thought I'd get the outback with the bigger engine, but SO MANY people are complaining of problems with the outback CVT that I'm now shying away from it (the bigger engine doesn't have a manual trans option, and since the outback is a little heavier than the forester, I'm worried about the outback with the smaller engine being underpowered on mountain roads).
 
The "bigger engine" Outback is a H6 (horizontal 6) with a 5-spd automatic; it does not have a CVT.

#4 of 24 Re: 2012 Forester Transmissions [soonersubaru1] by ateixeira

Nov 07, 2011 (1:35 pm)

Replying to: soonersubaru1 (Nov 05, 2011 9:26 am)
The turbo forester is, as a rule, less reliable than the nonturbo forester
 
True, but the gap has really narrowed. Check out the brand new issue of Consumer Reports, the XT has about 20% fewer problems than the average car, among the top in its class.
 
The base model is indeed even better, but I'd say both are safe bets.
 
You'll be fine with E10 blends as long as you get high octane.

#5 of 24 Good information...thanks everyone. by soonersubaru1

Nov 10, 2011 (8:43 am)

rsholland: There is a lot of chatter about the CVTs on the outback forum here. And, while I tend to take internet complaints with a grain of salt, enough people are complaining about the same issues that I'm pretty hesitant to try the CVT.
 
My understanding about the turbos is that higher output engines get more wear and therefore don't last as long. I prefer to keep my cars for around 10 years, and so knowing that I can put well over 100K on an engine is important to me.
 
I was wondering if the larger engine outback had a different transmission...that's good to know, I guess, but now I have to research a whole new thing. If they would just offer manuals in all the models and trim levels I wouldn't even have to be stressing about this.
 
Thanks everyone for your input...it really helps.

#6 of 24 Re: 2012 Forester Transmissions [ateixeira] by soonersubaru1

Nov 10, 2011 (8:50 am)

Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 07, 2011 1:35 pm)
I did see that issue of CR, and it was reassuring. I'm still not sure how I feel about trying to eek 10 years out of the turbo, but I do feel better about it overall now.

#7 of 24 Re: Good information...thanks everyone. [soonersubaru1] by mountaindog

Dec 14, 2011 (10:08 am)

Replying to: soonersubaru1 (Nov 10, 2011 8:43 am)
People need to do more homework before they drop 25000 bucks on something which they don't understand. How long with the CVT last?
 
Transmissions/drive systems mostly use gears. The CVT uses a belt. How long will a belt last on a 3500 pound car? A belt on a 25000 - 30000 dollar car? The belt on my Harley is good for 100,000 miles but, it's not inside the transmission case and easy to replace. Now, the CVT belt is a kind of magical belt. In fact it is a metal belt. Most belts transmit power by pulling. The CVT belt transmits power by pushing. You can't push a rubber belt but, you can push a metal belt. The belt is made of many small links. When they are stacked up the become a solid bar which can be pushed. It's called a stack belt drive system and it has been around for many years. Problem is they ware out.
 
Gears transmits power when the tooth of one gear presses against another. The CVT belt transmits power by friction at the side of the belt. Just like the fan/alternator/(power steering) belt you see under the hood.
 
If want to see how this drive systems works there are good pictures on wikipedia at the following page
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission
 
If that link for some reasons does not work just enter the following words into the wikipedia search box
 
continuously variable transmission
 
So the real question is, how good are the new materials which are being used to make the metal belt? Belts ware out, how long will this Subaru CVT belt last. When it does ware out it will be thousands to replace it.
 
Would I drop 30 grand on a Subaru with this new CVT transmission? No way. If it lasts for 250,000 miles like a good old 5 speed then great but, I won't be using my 30 grand to prove it.
 
People, when you are going to drop 30 grand on a car you have got to know more then the sales people or you could get a car with a hamster wheel in it. If you ask the dealer "is the CVT a good system"? I wonder what she will say?
 
I have to say I am not very happy with our 2011 Subaru forester. It has the 4 speed auto NOT THE CVT. I still hate automatics. Give me a good old 5 or 6 speed manual but, my wife wanted the auto.
 
I remember the day when a Subaru was a good solid car which would run for years and yeas and need almost no repairs. My 1994 Impreza went 300,000 miles before it rusted out. It was still running fine. Will our 2011 Forester got 300,000 miles? I really doubt it.

#8 of 24 Re: Good information...thanks everyone. [mountaindog] by xwesx

Dec 14, 2011 (3:41 pm)

Replying to: mountaindog (Dec 14, 2011 10:08 am)
I respect your opinions, mountaindog; you generally write thoughtful posts. While I cannot say whether your Forester is likely to last 300,000 miles or not, I do know that the defeatist attitude presented in the last sentence of your post may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
That said, the engine in your car has much going for it (aside from the fact that it is a first-year run)and is coupled to the rock-solid reliability of the 4EAT. Cars in general these days have all sorts of electronic who-hah that is likely to fail as the car ages, but whether that affects the reliability of the vehicle is a separate question.
 
I know that my Forester will take me 200,000 miles and beyond, and I also know that it is likely to develop those "charming" old-car quirks that come with that mileage. I know these things, I accept them, and I enjoy the drive.
 
-Wes-

#9 of 24 Re: Good information...thanks everyone. [xwesx] by mountaindog

Dec 14, 2011 (5:45 pm)

Replying to: xwesx (Dec 14, 2011 3:41 pm)
Defeatist attitude? That does not come into play. I only work on what I see as durability. Our 1994 and 1995 Impreza models were great cars. One is in the hands of a friend and is now over 250,000 and my 1994 rusted out at 300,000. When the 1995 was sold my wife got a new 2007. Plastic everything and at 83000 it has many problems that none of my previous 7 Suburas had going all the way back to 1977.
 
I agree that the new engine is okay so far and looks like a good design. Will the timing chain go 200,000??????? The timing belts are very good these days and not too expensive to replace but, in general I would prefer a chain inside the case which gets oil. We will see.
 
I will admit that many of the annoyances of the 2011 Forester are related to our Congress interfering with private affairs that should be a matter for the states. Like those stupid TPMS transmitters on each wheel. I run snows here in the Mountains of Utah and have a second set of wheels. I won't buy a second set of those things. So until I rip the dash appart and remove that silly tire light, I have tape over it. I can check a tire and can feel when they are low.
 
Now, on point. I will admit I am being critical about the CVS transmission. Is it your opinion that the Subaru CVS friction drive system will hold up? If so that would be good news. Would you risk your 30,000?
 
For those who can handle a manual transmission they are almost always a better bet then any 4 or 5 speed planetary automatic with a torque converter which is unlocked much of the time. Too, heavy and too expensive. The torque coveter on my 2007 Impreza only locks in 4th gear. Any time you press the gas it unlocks and the engine RPP goes up a few hundred RPM and power is then being wasted in the converter.
 
Any way do you have positive things to add about the CVS which I don't know about. I am always looking for good information. If it's a great transmission then props to Subaru.
 
Nothing defeatist here, just the facts. My 2007 is not a durable car and while I like many things about the 2011 Forester it is kind of weak and light underneath. I will congratulate Subaru for finally putting an oil filter in a place where it's easy to get at. But,,,,,,, why another new filter???? Subarus have been around for 40 years plus. Did we really need another filter? I am now stuck with 3 of them from the 1995 models.
 
L

#10 of 24 Re: Good information...thanks everyone. [mountaindog] by ateixeira

Dec 15, 2011 (9:07 am)

Replying to: mountaindog (Dec 14, 2011 5:45 pm)
We should compare durability to current competitors. If we look back that isn't really fair, mostly because older engines didn't have to meet the strict emissions regulations.
 
Honestly, I think a vehicle today is more likely to be retired due to failing emissions or safety tests vs. an oil leak.

Messages Page 1 of 3

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement