WRX CVT is 60:40...
6MT is still 50/50 with up to 80% sent to axle with most traction.
Seems pretty solid. Does well on the roller test too.
2015 WRX - No oil burned.
Outback 2.5 CVT 80/20, you're not AWD anything at 80/20. That's a FWD car, which is all well and good cause that is where the traction is. But their AWD is no longer anything special. Jeep for example is pushing an AWD system that's getting just as good of reviews. They also tow 4000lbs instead of 1500, and don't overheat their PTU's when pulling that weight. Ford's newer AWD systems are doing better as well. Honda's still sucks pretty bad.
That's funny since Subaru themselves reports the highest profit margin in the industry:Over at the Outback forums, one guy put it pretty succinctly:
Subaru makes less money per vehicle than Honda or Toyota. Toyota makes as much as $2000 per car, but that's only certain models. Subaru makes way less, and it costs them at least $3000 to change out the short blocks... and they are having to replace a lot of short blocks. They are loosing alot of money.
The power split is constantly changing. It can send close to all of the power to the back if needed.
I'll trust a Jeep or Ford AWD system as soon as they are shown to perform well on a roller test.
Looks good. The domestic manufacturers don't seem to have a good handle on AWD fuel economy though.
Well, you will probably always find something wrong if it's not a Subaru.
Subarus had poor fuel economy until recently, as I'm sure you know.
Jeep has also improved a lot with the new V6, diesel, and 8 speed transmissions.
Considering the percentage of owners that tow they designed one (yes, it's a Subaru designed unit) that best suited their customer base.
That's my take on it anyway.
And how is the Patriot some great comparison? The max tow rating on the Compass, Patriot and Cherokee (4 cylinder models) is 2k.
Well, you will probably always find something wrong if it's not a Subaru.
Subarus had poor fuel economy until recently, as I'm sure you know.
Jeep has also improved a lot with the new V6, diesel, and 8 speed transmissions.
It would be nice to have viable options in addition to Subaru. Other manufacturers just aren't producing vehicles with a capable AWD system, good ground clearance, top IIHS and NHTSA ratings, and fuel economy around 25/33.
Well, that's just your opinion. You like Subaru. We get it.
Anyway, almost no one needs good ground clearance and AWD.
How much less would a Subaru cost to build and maintain, and how much better fuel economy would it have, without those two mostly unnecessary features?
They are great features to have when there is a foot or two of new snow on the ground.
I basically gave up checking oil years ago. Just can't remember/be bothered. My late model cars never need a top up, even going for a 10k interval.
Yeah, I agree, seems like most died between 60 and 100K. I was also lucky I found it the day after I bought my Forester and made the dealer give me a really good deal on the replacement, since I had 3 days to return the Forester .
Heh, unless they burn oil!
Then, it appears, you find yourself in this position....
http://www.subaruoutback.org/forums...-t-conduct-oil-consumption-test-properly.html
Why would the dealer be so crooked, though?
It's money making warranty work for them.
Why cheat?
Not to aid in a revived dead thread, but it's probably worth mentioning Toyota is abandoning their joint-partnership with Subaru and investing a controlling stake in Mazda.
IMHO Subaru didn't benefit from the Toyota partnership...or at least not yet. They can't make cars fast enough so they must be doing something right.
Not to aid in a revived dead thread, but it's probably worth mentioning Toyota is abandoning their joint-partnership with Subaru and investing a controlling stake in Mazda.
This is significant because it shows how let down\one sided the partnership with Subaru was. Arguably the CVT technology was the only area Toyota benefited because their AWD technology was already excellent as proven with many 90's all-trac products, as is Toyota's engine technology which they did not appear to cross license since no engines other than the joint-developed FRS\BRZ were shared between the two companies.
Mazda, on the other hand, has a lot to offer Toyota with their Skyactiv platform. Mazda also has technology agreements with BMW, like Toyota does for the MkV Supra. Mazda also successfully leased its new MX5 platform to Fiat, I believe.
Toyota, however, offers Mazda something they dearly need after Ford had to divest their stake in the company during the Financial Crisis. I'm not sure a lot of people are actually aware WHY Ford didn't need a government bailout when GM and Chrysler needed billions. One of the primary reasons was Ford had billions invested in Mazda, which Mazda was fortunately able to buy back. This, however, left Mazda with no cash reserves and in a dangerous position, such as not able to survive financial fallout of a possible future recall. Toyota gives them this much needed security in order to avoid possible bankruptcy. Mazda is a tiny company compared to everyone else mentioned here. They make less than a million cars a year. Toyota makes more cars than that in a month.