2015 Outback - Subaru drops the MT and AT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: JOD

Yep. Anyone saying the a manual transmission results in lower cost of ownership isn't all that familiar with Subarus. The going rate at indy places around here is about $1,400-1,600, and for whatever reason Subarus seem to go through clutches much more often than FWD cars (or, maybe my friends are just terrible drivers).

If this transmission lasts for 250K, it's probably a cheaper way to go even if fuel economy is a wash. At least for now, you can probably install a low-mileage salvage CVT for the same price as a clutch replacement. You can get a JDM CVT for about $700.00 right now.


I would agree. On the other hand, I've seen several Subarus in the family approaching 300K miles on it's original 4EAT.

You're not going to get 300K miles on a slave cyl, T/O bearing or clutch plate in this application.

I enjoy the 5spd manual in my new XV Crosstrek and realize a few years from now you won't be able to get one anymore.

Loosing the 6spd manual in the Outback doesn't seem like a loss to me. I've never heard a single praise/accolade of the newer 6spd EJ253/FB25 combo anyway. It's clunkier and jerkier than the 5spd. Plus you have to figure with the typical Outback buyer, they've got to sell 100 automatics for every 6spd. Keep the sticks for the smaller, cheaper models I say.
 
This just furthers the step towards throwaway cars.

Oh, your car has 100K on it and everything functions perfectly but the CVT died? That'll be $7K or send it to the scrap yard.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan

I wouldn't bet on the manual trans for taxi service(although much of the world does!), but if someone knows what they are doing, the clutch and trans should last a long long time. Like 200k miles for the clutch and longer for the trans itself. Maybe Subaru cheaps out on clutch material, or people beating the tar out of their WRX gives their trans a bad name?
I'd hope they would try to make a CVT go the same distance, but personally I will try to avoid a CVT for a few years yet.


The thing is, the guys I know are not WRX guys. 2 have Outbacks, 1 has a Brighton Wagon (the uber-stripped Legacy wagon), and one a Forester--and I've driven will all of them. None are really objectionable drivers, and one is quite good. The longest lasting clutch in the bunch was 120K miles, average is about 80-90K miles. And 2 of those guys have had major transmission repair before 150K.

I think you're right, the WRX crew is blowing up gear boxes and clutches at a way faster rate, but even in stock form I just don't think they have the best gearbox reliability. I think the transmission/differential combined unit maybe adds to the problem? Whatever the reasons though, clutches don't seem to last long on those cars and they're really expensive to replace.
 
Originally Posted By: JTK
Originally Posted By: JOD

Yep. Anyone saying the a manual transmission results in lower cost of ownership isn't all that familiar with Subarus. The going rate at indy places around here is about $1,400-1,600, and for whatever reason Subarus seem to go through clutches much more often than FWD cars (or, maybe my friends are just terrible drivers).

If this transmission lasts for 250K, it's probably a cheaper way to go even if fuel economy is a wash. At least for now, you can probably install a low-mileage salvage CVT for the same price as a clutch replacement. You can get a JDM CVT for about $700.00 right now.


I would agree. On the other hand, I've seen several Subarus in the family approaching 300K miles on it's original 4EAT.

You're not going to get 300K miles on a slave cyl, T/O bearing or clutch plate in this application.

I enjoy the 5spd manual in my new XV Crosstrek and realize a few years from now you won't be able to get one anymore.

Loosing the 6spd manual in the Outback doesn't seem like a loss to me. I've never heard a single praise/accolade of the newer 6spd EJ253/FB25 combo anyway. It's clunkier and jerkier than the 5spd. Plus you have to figure with the typical Outback buyer, they've got to sell 100 automatics for every 6spd. Keep the sticks for the smaller, cheaper models I say.


+1

As I said before, not all MT's are great. Some guys like to beat their chests and act silly about it, but there are some good AT/CVT's on the market. I prefer MT's, but I'm not anti CVT or AT.

In some situations,the CVT is the preferred choice.
 
Originally Posted By: supton
A while ago I was curious, and wanted a car with better gearing for moving my camper--meaning, deeper first and reverse gearing. I found Subaru, at least in the models I was looking at, had relatively high gearing.


"Taller" gears (lower numerically) are a big work out for a clutch compared to "shorter" gears (higher numerically). Then there's the engine, which, if torquey enough, can make life easier on the clutch. If the engine is a typical small displacement one then the clutch is subjected to higher revs just to get going.

Most clutches have friction materials similar to brake linings, so their life is far from infinite. Many small economy type cars in our stable have required clutches at well under 150k miles, some under 100k.

VERY driver dependent...
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: IndyIan

I wouldn't bet on the manual trans for taxi service(although much of the world does!), but if someone knows what they are doing, the clutch and trans should last a long long time. Like 200k miles for the clutch and longer for the trans itself. Maybe Subaru cheaps out on clutch material, or people beating the tar out of their WRX gives their trans a bad name?
I'd hope they would try to make a CVT go the same distance, but personally I will try to avoid a CVT for a few years yet.


The thing is, the guys I know are not WRX guys. 2 have Outbacks, 1 has a Brighton Wagon (the uber-stripped Legacy wagon), and one a Forester--and I've driven will all of them. None are really objectionable drivers, and one is quite good. The longest lasting clutch in the bunch was 120K miles, average is about 80-90K miles. And 2 of those guys have had major transmission repair before 150K.

I think you're right, the WRX crew is blowing up gear boxes and clutches at a way faster rate, but even in stock form I just don't think they have the best gearbox reliability. I think the transmission/differential combined unit maybe adds to the problem? Whatever the reasons though, clutches don't seem to last long on those cars and they're really expensive to replace.

I guess if that's how subaru builds them, then the CVT is a better option...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: supton
A while ago I was curious, and wanted a car with better gearing for moving my camper--meaning, deeper first and reverse gearing. I found Subaru, at least in the models I was looking at, had relatively high gearing.


"Taller" gears (lower numerically) are a big work out for a clutch compared to "shorter" gears (higher numerically). Then there's the engine, which, if torquey enough, can make life easier on the clutch. If the engine is a typical small displacement one then the clutch is subjected to higher revs just to get going.

Most clutches have friction materials similar to brake linings, so their life is far from infinite. Many small economy type cars in our stable have required clutches at well under 150k miles, some under 100k.

VERY driver dependent...


Yeah...of all my 12 cars with clutches...

In the early 90s I got a 10-yr old Subu Loyale wagon with 90k miles and @ 110k it needed a clutch...that cost 1/3-as-much to replace at the car (that I got reaaaal cheap)...
My 94 Altima got sold with the OEM clutch @ 172k miles
My 99 Altima got its 2nd clutch @ 180k miles...
My 05 Camry got a 2nd clutch @ The new one is so smooth that I can only hope to get 150k miles out of it...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: supton
A while ago I was curious, and wanted a car with better gearing for moving my camper--meaning, deeper first and reverse gearing. I found Subaru, at least in the models I was looking at, had relatively high gearing.


"Taller" gears (lower numerically) are a big work out for a clutch compared to "shorter" gears (higher numerically). Then there's the engine, which, if torquey enough, can make life easier on the clutch. If the engine is a typical small displacement one then the clutch is subjected to higher revs just to get going.

Most clutches have friction materials similar to brake linings, so their life is far from infinite. Many small economy type cars in our stable have required clutches at well under 150k miles, some under 100k.

VERY driver dependent...


I could see myself getting 200K out of the clutch in my father's pickup , while towing. 4.10 rear end and 5.XX 1st gear. I have had the truck heavily loaded with a trailer before, and started out on a pretty good hill by just letting out the clutch. No slipping, giving gas needed - AND that's with the 5.4.

My Focus is like starting out in 3rd gear in that truck ... and every Jeep I have ever driven. Even with 3.07 gears, I have never needed to slip the clutch or ride it to take off in a 4.0 5 speed XJ or TJ with stock sized tires. I have figured out how to take off in the car without really riding the clutch or giving it much gas, and that is why the car has a bad motor mount. I don't see the clutch making it to 100K. The first 20K miles on the car were all city miles.

Something like a Spark or Mirage would probably never need a clutch with my driving. They are so shortly geared (for city driving) that you don't need to slip the clutch or give it gas. Same as the truck; just let the clutch out and it goes.
 
Yep, that is why I'm not sure why people are so enamored with my Jetta as a tow vehicle. While moving it's great. Making it move with a load while on a hill... not so great. It's geared awesome, assuming one isn't near GVWR and on a hill. Still managed 249kmiles on the clutch, that was replaced when the flywheel went bad. Lots of material life left, but I knew it wouldn't hold up to future mods either.
 
^^^

Going with that it is the exact reason my previous Forester XT would beat a WRX in the 0-60mph mark, gearing.

Subaru knew at some point people would tow with it so an extremely short first gear would be good for that. They made the rest taller than the non-turbo for fuel economy and well you didn't need high rpm to make trq.

Also a 4.444 final drive helped.

1st lasted til maybe 30mph, 2nd touched 55mph, and the gap widened after that. It certainly would have been a good tow vehicle based on that. It took off like a rocket.
 
Quote:

But I bet the 6 speed will be available in the RoW, especially in Europe


I'm sorry, what is RoW? "Rest of World?" "Republic of Wisconsin?"
 
Originally Posted By: Boomer
15 years ago our friends had a Subie wagon. When the clutch went out a new clutch, resurfaced pressure plate and throw out bearing was over $2000 at the Subaru dealer!!!! I had a Cavalier done around the same time at a Chevy dealer and it was just a tad over $500 for the same stuff. it is one of the reasons I never bought a Subaru. And my Cavalier went for almost 11 yeasrs. The clutch went because I taught my 16 year old son to drive on it. I think we had well over 125,000 miles on it when we decided we wanted a new vehicle.

So, in my friend's experience, a stick shift Subaru was not an inexpensive car to maintain, at least from the perspective of the tranny.


Replacing a clutch in a 4WD/AWD car is almost always going to be more expensive than replacing one in an FWD car. That isn't a very fair comparison. If you want to make a fair comparison, find an AWD car from GM that also has a manual transmission.

Anyway, I don't mind the idea of the newer turbo Subarus with CVT transmissions. When searching for my car, the Subaru missed a few of the rules I had. Those rules were that the automatic version would use no torque converter, and the engine would use a timing chain. If someone crashed into me, and I got a good settlement, I would put a Subaru in 2nd place on my list.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8


"Taller" gears (lower numerically) are a big work out for a clutch compared to "shorter" gears (higher numerically). Then there's the engine, which, if torquey enough, can make life easier on the clutch. If the engine is a typical small displacement one then the clutch is subjected to higher revs just to get going.

Most clutches have friction materials similar to brake linings, so their life is far from infinite. Many small economy type cars in our stable have required clutches at well under 150k miles, some under 100k.

VERY driver dependent...


Interesting. My brother and I both learned on my BMW and it still has its original clutch working great at near 170k miles. And its a mere 1.8L engine. Now, the MT in my wife's integra, while beautiful in terms of shifting feel was HORRIBLE because the car had zero torque at fast idle, and a bad location for the clutch point. In my BMW, I routinely put it in first in traffic with no throttle at all.

A well designed MT system can be cheaper to acquire, repair (note the comments about AWD vs RWD systems) and if geared properly (which many are not) can still yield superior MPGs.

My biggest gripe about AT/CVT/DCTs is the lack of a straightforward neutral that I can get easily at any time.
 
Good points ^.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8


"Taller" gears (lower numerically) are a big work out for a clutch compared to "shorter" gears (higher numerically). Then there's the engine, which, if torquey enough, can make life easier on the clutch. If the engine is a typical small displacement one then the clutch is subjected to higher revs just to get going.

Most clutches have friction materials similar to brake linings, so their life is far from infinite. Many small economy type cars in our stable have required clutches at well under 150k miles, some under 100k.

VERY driver dependent...


Interesting. My brother and I both learned on my BMW and it still has its original clutch working great at near 170k miles. And its a mere 1.8L engine. Now, the MT in my wife's integra, while beautiful in terms of shifting feel was HORRIBLE because the car had zero torque at fast idle, and a bad location for the clutch point. In my BMW, I routinely put it in first in traffic with no throttle at all.

A well designed MT system can be cheaper to acquire, repair (note the comments about AWD vs RWD systems) and if geared properly (which many are not) can still yield superior MPGs.

My biggest gripe about AT/CVT/DCTs is the lack of a straightforward neutral that I can get easily at any time.


That's the case with my Focus also. There's just no torque at idle. Before the Focus, I was used to V8s and AMC I6 engines.
 
Interesting to note I once bought a GTO with a 400/4speed and a nice suite of mods that allowed it to run a mid 11 quarter mile.

The car had 60k miles on the original clutch when I got it and I drove it over 100k miles and NEVER needed a clutch. This despite a hundred plus strip passes and lots of weekend warrior action.

IIRC that car had a pretty 'tall' first gear...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Interesting to note I once bought a GTO with a 400/4speed and a nice suite of mods that allowed it to run a mid 11 quarter mile.

The car had 60k miles on the original clutch when I got it and I drove it over 100k miles and NEVER needed a clutch. This despite a hundred plus strip passes and lots of weekend warrior action.

IIRC that car had a pretty 'tall' first gear...



It probably made more torque at idle than my Focus makes at its peak. Even the 2012 Focus with the Ti-VCT (variable cam timing) engine are a lot better.

My clutch is still good. I took some hilly roads and more than once spent at least a minute in 3rd and 4th gear in the higher revs with my foot on the floor. Still wasn't able to maintain 45 on the hills! If it was bad it would have slipped.

I'll have to get a video of what I mean

Wish there was a way to inspect the material left.

The other issue I have is the bad motor mount makes it interesting to take off
 
Your trans is the same as mine but just with a 10% lower final drive right?
I find for a quick launch from a stop, some slippage is needed, but just for a regular start, I don't use much slippage.
I think the ECU has some sort of weird torque management though at low rpms in first, sometimes it will bog if you get on the gas hard at low rpm(sub 2k), but do the same thing in 2nd or 3rd and it pulls fine...
Other than that, I really like the trans and motor, pulls nice from 1600 to 6000 rpm and with my small amount of city driving, I don't anticipate putting in a clutch ever.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Your trans is the same as mine but just with a 10% lower final drive right?
I find for a quick launch from a stop, some slippage is needed, but just for a regular start, I don't use much slippage.
I think the ECU has some sort of weird torque management though at low rpms in first, sometimes it will bog if you get on the gas hard at low rpm(sub 2k), but do the same thing in 2nd or 3rd and it pulls fine...
Other than that, I really like the trans and motor, pulls nice from 1600 to 6000 rpm and with my small amount of city driving, I don't anticipate putting in a clutch ever.


Mine is 3.56:1 final drive. I believe yours would have 3.86 - which would make it a bit easier to take off.

I'll try to grab a video after work./
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ZeeOSix
KIA Forte and KIA Optima
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Wrenchturner44
A
Please help sort my thoughts about buying a new car.
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
8K
wpod
Delta
More of Delta's Vehicle Shenanigans
Replies
12
Views
2K
Delta
Ausfahrt
Grinding when going into fifth gear MT
2
Replies
20
Views
603
benjy
Nick1994
2022 Hyundai Tucson SEL Review
Replies
17
Views
1K
dishdude
Back
Top