B
!!bogus
I am considering buying an impreza TS sedan (apparently designed for Canada)
which one is more fun to drive? The automatic or manual?
which one is more fun to drive? The automatic or manual?
S
Snowcatcher
I don't think you'll find too many arguments that auto's are "more fun" to
drive. Where auto's can be a consideration is if you do a ton of commuting
in high density traffic or similar situations where constant shifting may
make you wish you'd chosen an auto.
If you're looking at used manuals always make sure to check their
service/parts record and a good amount of test driving. I know here in the
US that there's a good amount of STi's that are being turned back into
dealers or put up for lease swaps because the buyers weren't ready to
handle a 300HP vehicle. Whereas i don't think you'll find this exact reason
for the TS, you may be able to find manual's at dealers for similar reasons
where the car wasn't drive hard.
E
Edward Hayes
I like manuals but, I tire of it in heavy stop and go traffic so it's not
fun or even enjoyable. I now drive a AT and find it enjoyable for 95 % of my
daily driving. The gas mileage is the same as the manual(same vehicle). Less
prone to malfunction either due to the driver or basic design and yes I do
shift my AT to have some fun. eddie
fun or even enjoyable. I now drive a AT and find it enjoyable for 95 % of my
daily driving. The gas mileage is the same as the manual(same vehicle). Less
prone to malfunction either due to the driver or basic design and yes I do
shift my AT to have some fun. eddie
N
No Way
I picked the manual transmission in my Impreza 2004 wagon!!bogus said:
Better fuel milage
More fun
Better control in snow
@
\@@bogus\
Actually the brochure says that the automatic is more fuel efficient
(something that i find a bit odd compared to the rest of the cars in the
universe).
(something that i find a bit odd compared to the rest of the cars in the
universe).
D
David
"@@bogus" said:
At least for the Impreza-derived Forester, the automatic has a lower ratio (i.e. higher gear)
top gear, which could give it better highway efficiency. The numbers are estimates,
and I'm sure I've read various "EPA estimates" for the Forester, some giving the nod
to the automatic, and some to the manual.
Either one can be more fun, depending on your driving conditions (stop & go,
highway, etc).
I expect that's true. Don't think I've ever driven a Sube automatic, but the AWD
systems with center diffs make more sense to me. These are found on MT subes,
as well as WRX autos (VTC), and others, but I don't think the basic Impreza auto
has one.
F
Fuzzy Logic
I went to www.fueleconomy.gov and looked up the 2004 Impreza. The 2.5L
Auto got 22 City 28 Hwy, the manual got 21 City and 28 Hwy! This is
supposed to be the EPA numbers.
Then if you go here:
http://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/E-SUBARU-Impreza-04.htm
You will note there are various versions of the same engine all with
slightly different fuel economy numbers!
N
null_pointer
The transport canada rating for the automatic is 2 mpg less than the manual
That would depend a lot on how it is driven....
N
No Way
The transport canada rating for the automatic is 2 mpg less than the manualEdward Hayes said:
transmission
I have never seen an automatic have better fuel milage than a standard in
the same vehicle.
E
Edward Hayes
Look at EPA rating for US. Forester AT is same for highway miles/gal and 1
mpg better with the AT for city. My 2000 Forester. eddie
mpg better with the AT for city. My 2000 Forester. eddie
E
Edward Hayes
I think it's fairly common to get better mpg with modern computer controlled
automatic transmissions that tailor shift points based on the type of load
the vehicle is put under. My 900 Saabs and Volvos were the same.
automatic transmissions that tailor shift points based on the type of load
the vehicle is put under. My 900 Saabs and Volvos were the same.
S
Snowcatcher
"(e-mail address removed)"
exactly, and this goes for manual as well as automatic. I would suggest to
the original poster that they compare the mpg they actually get out of
their present vehicle versus what the epa numbers(or equivalent canadian
standards) are and then transpose that upon what you could expect from any
future vehicle. I wouldn't listen to us for mpg because we all drive our
vehicles differently and everyone's response is only a mirror of their own
driving.
exactly, and this goes for manual as well as automatic. I would suggest to
the original poster that they compare the mpg they actually get out of
their present vehicle versus what the epa numbers(or equivalent canadian
standards) are and then transpose that upon what you could expect from any
future vehicle. I wouldn't listen to us for mpg because we all drive our
vehicles differently and everyone's response is only a mirror of their own
driving.
J
Jiz
I'm glad we got AT instead of MT. I have always prefered MT, but after
driving this car for a while, I have gone the other way
. Unless it was a
WRX (to squeeze every inch out of it) I wouldn't bother. Though I do live
in Sydney and traffic here in rush hour never exceeds 50km/hr - it's a real
pain drivning in with manual.
My only argument for MT is it costs less and usually car is a bit lighter.
Regards,
Joe.
driving this car for a while, I have gone the other way
. Unless it was aWRX (to squeeze every inch out of it) I wouldn't bother. Though I do live
in Sydney and traffic here in rush hour never exceeds 50km/hr - it's a real
pain drivning in with manual.
My only argument for MT is it costs less and usually car is a bit lighter.
Regards,
Joe.
B
!!bogus
I guess the only way to know is to test drive them both. I test drove the
manual impreza outback sport and noticed that in an area full of stop signs
and traffic lights it could potentially be annoying, but I am more likely to
drive it on the highway.
manual impreza outback sport and noticed that in an area full of stop signs
and traffic lights it could potentially be annoying, but I am more likely to
drive it on the highway.
T
T
!!bogus said:
As you know it depends. My standard answer is 'Of _course_ the MANUAL
is more fun'... but having driven an AT WRX (wagon btw) on some mountain
roads and finding the fun limiting factor being the OEM _tires_ I'd say
fun isn't your only criteria in the decision.
Drop the auto selector down a gear or two and concentrate on steering
wheel & pedals and have all the fun you want.
TBerk
D
Dan Duncan
!!bogus said:
If you buy the manual instead of the automatic you can use the
_$800_ you'll save to make the car a lot more fun.
-DanD
E
Edward Hayes
Or you can put the $800 in a money market fund so it will grow to help pay
for the replacement clutch. eddie
for the replacement clutch. eddie
D
David
Edward Hayes said:
A friend just spent a lot less than that for her OBW clutch. Maybe at the dealer you could spend
more.
I've only had one manual trans fail, at around 310k miles. The car I just sold had had the
torque converter replaced, and the trans rebuilt twice before I sold it at around 132k miles.
Clutch problems are infrequent (in general; from this group it looks like they may be common
among Subes), inexpensive compared to transmission problems, and something someone with
ordinary skills can deal with themselves, unlike (AFAIK) auto transmissions.
I really like automatics for cars with bigger engines. For smaller engined cars they often
seem like a poor match: excessive vibration at idle (at least when older), insufficient
power.
Not so sure about the clutch in my '03 Forester though: it's relatively difficult to engage
smoothly. I wonder if this is the clutch chatter problem they issued a TSB for. Same
clutch/TSB as Impreza?
B
Bruce Hoult
David said:
To me it seems more as if they are a better match for engine with
relatively large amounts of low down torque, and not suited to revvy
peaky ones. So boxer+auto is good, turbo+auto is bad.
boxer+turbo+auto? I haven't tried the combination.
-- Bruce
D
Dan Duncan
Edward Hayes said:
Wow, who replaces your clutches? I bet he has a nice boat.
Yes, the clutch is a friction-wearing part just like brakes and tires.
I've only ever replaced clutches (and I tend not to keep
cars past 150k miles or so) on 2 vehicles. One was because
I was replacing the transmission (previously abused vehicle with a
broken fork and I figured I should do the clutch to be safe) and the
other was a 35YO vehicle that had sat unused for a while and the clutch
rusted. My other vehicles have never needed a new clutch before 150k
miles.
Are you especially hard on clutches?
-DanD