Impreza automatic vs manual

"!!bogus" wrote in news:Ry2Rb.2396$ snipped-for-privacy@news20.bellglobal.com:

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.

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

I picked the manual transmission in my Impreza 2004 wagon Better fuel milage More fun Better control in snow

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).

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.

"No Way" wrote in news:NHeRb.32$ snipped-for-privacy@newscontent-01.sprint.ca:

I went to

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:

You will note there are various versions of the same engine all with slightly different fuel economy numbers!

That would depend a lot on how it is driven....

The transport canada rating for the automatic is 2 mpg less than the manual transmission I have never seen an automatic have better fuel milage than a standard in the same vehicle.

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

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.

"null snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.com.net.edu.gov.de" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

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.

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,

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.

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

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

Or you can put the $800 in a money market fund so it will grow to help pay for the replacement clutch. eddie

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?

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

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