Will they ever come out with a 5-speed automatic WRX??

[Greg]

I drive with 2 feet in cars that have auto transmissions thus I wouldn't
buy a manual trans car. I like and would probably buy a WRX if they
offered a 5-speed auto trans -- I can still shift gears manually minus
the clutch. What do others think of a WRX automatic? I can't be the
only one who prefers an automatic over a manual -- could I? Just a
thought. I really do like the WRX -- I currently own a '91 Eagle Talon
turbo (mitsubishi engine 4g63 -- same as the new lancer evolution) and
my '91 is ,well, you can probably guess what trans I got in there,
that's right, an AUTOMATIC and don't laugh too hard 'cause I know of a
guy who runs an 11.9 1/4 mi. @ 125 mph, stock crank, rods, and pistons
-- beefed up trans of course (4-speed) no nitrous and its a daily
driver! '91 talon 2.0L. Now, even though I own a close relative of
the EVO and stock the EVO IS a bit quicker than the WRX, I would still
buy the WRX over the EVO even if the price was the same because I've
driven several subarus lately and I'm very impressed with how they soak
up city (NYC) potholes and how they handle on smooth tarmac. So far
I've driven the outback, legacy, and I forgot the name of the other
model but was very impressed with the driveabiity of these cars
whatever the road conditions and if the WRX has the ability to even come
close to driving on less than perfect terrain as these other subies do
-- then I'm already sold on this car because the performance numbers are
excellent and any mods I would do would just be GRAVY!

'ADMIRING that WRX' -- Greg

 

[Phillip Weston]

I drive with 2 feet in cars that have auto transmissions thus I wouldn't
buy a manual trans car. I like and would probably buy a WRX if they
offered a 5-speed auto trans -- I can still shift gears manually minus
the clutch. What do others think of a WRX automatic? I can't be the
only one who prefers an automatic over a manual -- could I? Just a
thought. I really do like the WRX -- I currently own a '91 Eagle Talon
turbo (mitsubishi engine 4g63 -- same as the new lancer evolution) and
my '91 is ,well, you can probably guess what trans I got in there,
that's right, an AUTOMATIC and don't laugh too hard 'cause I know of a
guy who runs an 11.9 1/4 mi. @ 125 mph, stock crank, rods, and pistons
-- beefed up trans of course (4-speed) no nitrous and its a daily
driver! '91 talon 2.0L. Now, even though I own a close relative of
the EVO and stock the EVO IS a bit quicker than the WRX, I would still
buy the WRX over the EVO even if the price was the same because I've
driven several subarus lately and I'm very impressed with how they soak
up city (NYC) potholes and how they handle on smooth tarmac. So far
I've driven the outback, legacy, and I forgot the name of the other
model but was very impressed with the driveabiity of these cars
whatever the road conditions and if the WRX has the ability to even come
close to driving on less than perfect terrain as these other subies do
-- then I'm already sold on this car because the performance numbers are
excellent and any mods I would do would just be GRAVY!

'ADMIRING that WRX' -- Greg

Why ruin a good car with an automatic transmission? ;-)

Cheers,
Phil

 

[JaySee]

I drive with 2 feet in cars that have auto transmissions thus I wouldn't
buy a manual trans car. I like and would probably buy a WRX if they
offered a 5-speed auto trans -- I can still shift gears manually minus
the clutch. What do others think of a WRX automatic? I can't be the
only one who prefers an automatic over a manual -- could I? Just a
thought. I really do like the WRX -- I currently own a '91 Eagle Talon
turbo (mitsubishi engine 4g63 -- same as the new lancer evolution) and
my '91 is ,well, you can probably guess what trans I got in there,
that's right, an AUTOMATIC and don't laugh too hard 'cause I know of a
guy who runs an 11.9 1/4 mi. @ 125 mph, stock crank, rods, and pistons
-- beefed up trans of course (4-speed) no nitrous and its a daily
driver! '91 talon 2.0L. Now, even though I own a close relative of
the EVO and stock the EVO IS a bit quicker than the WRX, I would still
buy the WRX over the EVO even if the price was the same because I've
driven several subarus lately and I'm very impressed with how they soak
up city (NYC) potholes and how they handle on smooth tarmac. So far
I've driven the outback, legacy, and I forgot the name of the other
model but was very impressed with the driveabiity of these cars
whatever the road conditions and if the WRX has the ability to even come
close to driving on less than perfect terrain as these other subies do
-- then I'm already sold on this car because the performance numbers are
excellent and any mods I would do would just be GRAVY!

'ADMIRING that WRX' -- Greg

Subaru's not a fan of the auto-shifters. I don't think they put
buttons to shift or a manumatic lever on their automatics. If they
do, they certainly don't advertise it. In other words, I doubt a
5-speed auto anytime soon.

Question: Why would you use 2 feet for an automatic transmission other
than to launch 0-60 or quarter miles?

 

[someone]

Question: Why would you use 2 feet for an automatic transmission other
than to launch 0-60 or quarter miles?

To get on/off the gas/brake faster. You can do it more quickly using both
feet than moving one foot from one pedal to the other.

 

[Orienteer]

There is a new auto 5 speed on the upcoming Legacy model.

 

[Ian Firth]

I drive with 2 feet in cars that have auto transmissions thus I...

Learn to drive correctly.

 

[Ken Gilbert]

To get on/off the gas/brake faster. You can do it more quickly using both
feet than moving one foot from one pedal to the other.

also, for the same reason one would left-foot brake in a MT car... to
keep the turbo spooled up by working against the load of the brakes.
this is generally done in the start/middle of a corner.

ken

 

[Alan Dana]

I drive with 2 feet in cars that have auto transmissions thus I wouldn't
buy a manual trans car. I like and would probably buy a WRX if they
offered a 5-speed auto trans -- I can still shift gears manually minus
the clutch. What do others think of a WRX automatic? I can't be the
only one who prefers an automatic over a manual -- could I?

It would be nice if Subaru would offer a 5-spd autostick, like those offered
by Acura, Mazda, Volkswagen, Audi, and more. These are still fun to drive,
while allowing the manual-shift-challenged to still take them for a spin.

I don't have a lot of hope for this happening anytime soon. Automatic
transmissions are a weakness for Subaru. Even the current 4 speeds are
poorly implemented, if you look at performance time differences between
manual and automatic, the gaps for Subaru are much wider than for many other
cars. They tend to be very slow on downshifting to a lower gear when trying
to pass.

So they are late to the game on standard 5 speeds, even later on autosticks,
and trailing the pack on 4 speed performance.

Alan

 

[Ian Firth]

also, for the same reason one would left-foot brake in a MT car... to
keep the turbo spooled up by working against the load of the brakes.
this is generally done in the start/middle of a corner.

So as you're slowing the car, and accelerating at the same time, where
does the energy dissipate ?

You can't rev the engine in gear as you are decelerating unless the
clucth is slipping.

 

[Ken Gilbert]

So as you're slowing the car, and accelerating at the same time, where
does the energy dissipate ?

You can't rev the engine in gear as you are decelerating unless the
clucth is slipping.

ian, the car is still moving at this point. you're slowing down, but
the engine is still rotating, right? the drivetrain is solidly locked
with no slippage.

you're working the brakes extra hard, since they're not only slowing
down the car, but also working against the power of the engine. but
it keeps exhaust gasses hot and flowing, which is what the turbo likes
to see to remain spooled.

ken

 

[Ian Firth]

ian, the car is still moving at this point. you're slowing down, but
the engine is still rotating, right? the drivetrain is solidly locked
with no slippage.

Yes, which is why if the engine RPMs increase, so will the vehicle
speed.

you're working the brakes extra hard, since they're not only slowing
down the car, but also working against the power of the engine. but
it keeps exhaust gasses hot and flowing, which is what the turbo likes
to see to remain spooled.

Sorry. It can't possibly work that way.

If a car is decelerating (entire drivetrain slowing down), the engine
RPM cannot increase (as the original poster stated, keeping the turbo
spooled), without the clutch slipping, being engaged, or the car not
being in gear.

 

[Ian Firth]

The engine doesn't necessarily have to rev higher, it just needs more
air running thru it by keeping the throttle open.

That makes sense, but doesn't sound like what the guy above was
explaining.

 

[Dominic Richens]

To put it simply, because you are putting more fuel and air into the engine,
more exhaust is produced, which keeps the turbo spinning, even though the
engine is still reving at the same rate, because you have the brakes on (to
stop from flying off the corner!).

 

[Ken Gilbert]

Yes, which is why if the engine RPMs increase, so will the vehicle
speed.

ian, who the hell said anything about engine rpms increasing? it
surely wasn't me, or anybody in the thread leading up to my posts. i
said you left-foot brake to keep the TURBO SPOOLED.

Sorry. It can't possibly work that way.

If a car is decelerating (entire drivetrain slowing down), the engine
RPM cannot increase (as the original poster stated, keeping the turbo
spooled), without the clutch slipping, being engaged, or the car not
being in gear.

see comment above, and go back and read my posts. engine rpms are
either steady or decreasing while left-foot braking under throttle.
you are not accelerating, or trying to accelerate--you are getting
ready to.

this isn't rocket science!

ken gilbert

 

[Carl 1 Lucky Texan]

Ian, think of this scenario, 'lugging' the engine up a grade in X gear
at Q RPM versus a flat run in X gear at Q rpm. You need more throttle to
do the former. This creates more heat and more exhaust. The 'racer' is
effectively 'lugging' the engine around the corner. I never considered
this before, not being a racer and having never owned a turbo equipped
car - but it does make sense to me now. I wonder if a capacitive
discharge powered electric drive or some other type of 'intermittent
use' motor could be used to maintain turbo RPMs in these conditions?
fun to think about

Carl
1 Lucky Texan