2012 Outback Transmission Gear-Selector/CVT Talk:

[TheLoyale]

What is the deal with this gear selector in the new Outback? Has P R N D M. What is M? I sat in one of these today, man is smelled nice!

Edited July 22, 2012 by TheLoyale

[fishy]

I think you pop it over to M to run it in "manual" mode and use shifter paddles on the wheel to shift the slushbox.

[TheLoyale]

I think you pop it over to M to run it in "manual" mode and use shifter paddles on the wheel to shift the slushbox.

 

That is kinda what I was thinking, but I don't recall seeing shifter paddles on the steering wheel, maybe I didn't look hard enough.

 

[Subaru_dude]

Yeah that's one of the big things about the CVT people like. You can put it in manual and use the "gears" to help keep your speed down going downhill. Heard it helps with pulling trailers too to keep speed down.

[GeneralDisorder]

It's not a slushbox either. It's a CVT using a chain drive system. The chain drives on adjustable size "sprockets". It's a variant of a Reeves Drive or Variable Diameter Pulley (VDP) drive. It's a very old concept dating back to 1940's machine tool speed controls.

 

GD

[fishy]

It's not a slushbox either. It's a CVT using a chain drive system. The chain drives on adjustable size "sprockets". It's a variant of a Reeves Drive or Variable Diameter Pulley (VDP) drive. It's a very old concept dating back to 1940's machine tool speed controls.

 

GD

 

I stand corrected, it's not a slushbox. It's a snowmobile transmission

 

Kidding aside I think I'd like to try out a Subaru CVT sometime because they look like they'd be half decent fun with the paddles and still be automatic for the Mrs. or relaxed cruising.

[john40iowa]

Defiantly helps the brakes to gear down on the declines.

I look forward to get one someday.

http://www.subaru.com/engineering/transmission.html

[TheLoyale]

I thought there were some horror stories with the new CVTs, won't reverse up an incline or something?

 

I dunno if I could really enjoy driving a CVT, it just revs up and you go. I wonder how/what it does for over-taking?

[Caboobaroo]

My boss recently bought a '12 Outback 3.6R and it's a blast to drive. I was skeptical at first due to the CVT as I have some experience with the Justy CVT but after driving his and other customer cars, they're pretty sweet. I also have not heard of any issues with them yet from customers, just the little I have found online.

They also have an electronic parking brake instead of a mechanical handle.

[TheLoyale]

They also have an electronic parking brake instead of a mechanical handle.

 

This must be the new fad, Hyundai has an Electronic Parking brake aswell.

 

Noting is mechanical anymore, Drive-by-wire, Electronic Gear Selector, Electronic Parking brake, Magnetic suspension. Pretty soon we'll have Magnetic supported wheels and brakes! :cool:

[cmill189]

The 3.6 does NOT come with a CVT, only the 2.5.

 

You can also run them in a temporary manual mode with just the paddle shifters. The only difference is it will automatically "shift" back to a normal rpm range once the load is removed. I drove one for three months and thought the paddles were a gimmick till I figured that out.

 

The only thing about the new Outback that I really enjoyed was the absence of wind noise and the CVT. It is much better suited to the 2.5 powerband than the 4EAT. Other than that they handle like crap and the seats are sized for how large humans currently are, not how big we should be. I could fit one and a half of me in a seat and I'm 5'9".

[Subaru_dude]

I thought there were some horror stories with the new CVTs, won't reverse up an incline or something?

 

I dunno if I could really enjoy driving a CVT, it just revs up and you go. I wonder how/what it does for over-taking?

 

Maybe you should watch some youtube reviews before talking smack about the CVTs. This is a good way to start bs rumors.

[TheLoyale]

Maybe you should watch some youtube reviews before talking smack about the CVTs. This is a good way to start bs rumors.

 

Don't have to get so butthurt over it.

[Fairtax4me]

If you haven't driven one you should. They're actually really fun! People think they feel slow, but that's only because the engine never has to spin over ~4000 rpm.

The manual mode doesn't deliver quite the same feel as a normal automagic, but you get 6 "gears" to run through and they make great use of the 2.5 powerband.

[Subaru_dude]

Don't have to get so butthurt over it.

 

Who's butthurt? The reversal problem seems to be pretty darn rare... and there's always the possibility it's the drivers not having balls enough to use a little momentum with full throttle. Hardly a "nightmare".

 

If you haven't driven one you should. They're actually really fun! People think they feel slow, but that's only because the engine never has to spin over ~4000 rpm.

The manual mode doesn't deliver quite the same feel as a normal automagic, but you get 6 "gears" to run through and they make great use of the 2.5 powerband.

 

I test drove one back in 2010 and really loved the way the CVT worked. Car felt a bit soft for my liking, definitely preferred the 5spd Forester by far.

[bulwnkl]

We drove an '11 Outback with a CVT a year-and-a-half ago (getting close to two now). It felt _very_ slow, although I'm not certain whether it actually _was_ slow or not. Compared it against a Jetta TDI wagon and a Hyundai Sonata. We bought the Sonata. I love the concept behind CVTs. I _don't_ like the reality of them in automobiles.

 

Will the Subaru CVTs live a long, looooong life if you tow a trailer regularly with them?

[Subaru_dude]

We drove an '11 Outback with a CVT a year-and-a-half ago (getting close to two now). It felt _very_ slow, although I'm not certain whether it actually _was_ slow or not. Compared it against a Jetta TDI wagon and a Hyundai Sonata. We bought the Sonata. I love the concept behind CVTs. I _don't_ like the reality of them in automobiles.

 

Will the Subaru CVTs live a long, looooong life if you tow a trailer regularly with them?

 

Jatco built the transmissions, same company that built the Dodge Caliber transmissions and those trannys are holding up very well. I've heard alot of stories of Outbacks towing popups on long roadtrips and doing extremely well. Only time will tell if they'll hold up. As for slow, just look at the 0-60 numbers and 1/4 mile times. They're average, might just be the effect of the engine droaning at a constant rpm.

[bulwnkl]

Thanks for the tranny info.

 

As for slow, just look at the 0-60 numbers and 1/4 mile times. They're average, might just be the effect of the engine droaning at a constant rpm.

 

Right, I had seen the numbers before we drove it. That's why I was careful to remark on how it _felt_ regardless of how it _was_. It felt very slow, and I had no way to determine whether the feeling was real and that actual car was just a lot slower than 'normal' or what the magazines have tested, or the feeling was just a matter of there being absolutely zero increase in acceleration over time, as with a normal transmission.

 

You know how, with a normal tranny, the engine speeds up as you go through the gears? Well, that causes power to increase and acceleration rate (generally) to increase as the engine speeds up. Then it drops as you shift, and increases again as the engine speeds up through its power band.

 

With a CVT, you don't get that. You get constant power. That translates into a lack of that feeling of increasing acceleration rate. That may be the thing which causes a _feeling_ of molasses-like sloth.

 

IDK.

[ShawnW]

If you take the money the CVT saves you in gas and put it in a savings account I bet it would save you enough to replace the trans by the time it fails. If it doesn't fail you have a nice down payment for the next car if you are so inclined.

 

The reverse issue was a recalled/bulletined item and is solved thru a trip to the dealer. Known issue and not all are affected.

 

They are really quite nice to drive and I wouldn't even blink to have one if I could afford one.

[bulwnkl]

I might be inclined to take that bet, Shawn. How much fuel do you think the CVT saves, vs. a conventional A/T, or even an M/T (assuming you gear it appropriately and for the same purpose, which Subaru does not, IMO/E)?

 

I have often wondered whether a CVT is similar to 0W- and 5W-20 oil. It saves 'the group' a bunch of fuel, at least based upon statistical projections of engine-stand modeling, but an individual user simply cannot pick the savings out of random variation in mpg. Perhaps Subaru's CVT implementation is not that way, at least vs. their conventional A/Ts?

 

I've also wondered how the comparison would be against my Baja's 'slapstick' A/T if I just force it to upshift sooner than it wants to at wider throttle openings. That's one of the things the CVTs are essentially programmed to do; keep the engine at a lower rev rate than it would be with a conventional transmission, thus improving mpg (at the expense of doing what you're asking the car to do by opening the throttle wider).

Edited July 24, 2012 by bulwnkl

[porcupine73]

It looks nice. In about 10 years maybe I can get one :-p.

 

There was a TSB about for some models for the reversing problem. I think it basically said the gearing was too tall in reverse, so they would flash it to bring the reverse gearing down if you had the problem. It said something about they used a tall gearing in reverse to keep it from being too 'jumpy', you know from taking off too quickly in reverse. Of course that would be better than not being able to reverse out of a sloped parking spot.

 

The new car smells are interesting. It's not nice, however, what causes 'new car smell'. Chemically sensitive people can't tolerate it and often have to purchase cars at least five years old. It's actually the offgassing of all the plastic and carpeting and stuff in the interior, like if you get new carpet in your home. It usually offgasses formaldehyde (which the body metabolizes to methanol) and a host of other things. Usually it's pretty well done offgassing after about 10 years.

[Subaru_dude]

I might be inclined to take that bet, Shawn. How much fuel do you think the CVT saves, vs. a conventional A/T, or even an M/T (assuming you gear it appropriately and for the same purpose, which Subaru does not, IMO/E)?

 

I have often wondered whether a CVT is similar to 0W- and 5W-20 oil. It saves 'the group' a bunch of fuel, at least based upon statistical projections of engine-stand modeling, but an individual user simply cannot pick the savings out of random variation in mpg. Perhaps Subaru's CVT implementation is not that way, at least vs. their conventional A/Ts?

 

I've also wondered how the comparison would be against my Baja's 'slapstick' A/T if I just force it to upshift sooner than it wants to at wider throttle openings. That's one of the things the CVTs are essentially programmed to do; keep the engine at a lower rev rate than it would be with a conventional transmission, thus improving mpg (at the expense of doing what you're asking the car to do by opening the throttle wider).

 

I know the 6spd and CVT get pretty darn close fuel mileage wise, I think the CVT gets 1mpg better around town (I don't feel like googleing it). But look at the advantages of towing with the CVT and also offroad use, you'll probably be going through clutches trying to tow with the 6spd. I've also heard stories of people getting mid to upper 30s really close to sea level on flat ground with the CVT (that could very well be possible with the 6spd as well). I do believe the 6spd could provide better mpgs in hilly terrain because you could downshift. Most people don't do that, but I nearly always downshift if it's a fuel injected car (saves fuel AND brakes).

[ShawnW]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2012_Subaru_Outback.shtml

 

Estimated $200/year savings.

Your mileage may vary.

How you drive affects it.

But for the most part I think its pretty accurate. I did the one for my 2006 Outback and it came out like my wife and I tend to get. I drive aggressive on the highway and she does in the city but otherwise passive one or the other for each of us.