Topic: Test Drive: 2013 Subaru Impreza Sport Package

[greengs]

BTW, good article. I've always liked the Impreza and would put it on my shopping list if buying a new car.

Noticed Subie has "Other Fees" when doing a build and price but doesn't explain what those fees are, or I just can't find them. Anybody know?

Other Fees $332.45

The monthly finance estimate includes freight, pre-delivery inspection, taxes, and other fees and levies. Dealer administration and documentation fees are also included where applicable. Please contact your Subaru dealer for full details. Cash down payments are due upon vehicle delivery. All applicable taxes are calculated on the total vehicle amount prior to deduction of the down payment. Amounts shown do not include license fees, registration fees, insurance and certain other fees (for example, any additional products or services that may be made available to you through your selected Subaru dealership). Estimates are based upon a representative transaction and actual dealer price and monthly payments may vary. Dealer may sell for less. A Subaru dealer is free to set its own selling price. Contact your dealer for current details, including details of any special programs.

In Alberta this fee is $545 and it comprises of Admin fee and air and tire tax.  At my dealer they give you a 3 year tire warranty with the admin fee so you at least get something for it.  I applaud Subaru for putting this up front on their site.  Other than Toyota which has by far the best site where the price shown is the price you pay every other manufacturer hides the admin fees.

[sailor723]

So if you didn't  drive a car equipped with xenon lights how do you actually know that........

"In low light the Xenon HID headlights and fog lights give great visibility and make sure nobody misses you rolling towards them out of the mist."

 

   Sorry, couldn't resist    Good review other than that little slip. I'm encouraged to hear how "not awful" the CVT is.

[cruzzer]

"They (CVT's) never work for fuel efficiency like they should, they’re loud, they feel horrible, just no. " Well at least some of that seems to be true. The author states that the CVT noises are still there. Fuel figures are about the same or maybe a little lower than real world numbers (not the dream world TC numbers that the CVT helps attain) with a manual (fuelly.com). And then there's the life expectancy issue. Stories I hear seem to cast concern on how long a CVT lasts and what it costs to replace it ($3500 to $4000+). So when a car gets to be about 15 years old and is worth about $4-6k or, that CVT would be the end of the vehicles lifespan most times. Maybe this helps explain car companies love of them?

[Blueprint]

Haven't driven the new Impreza yet, but I did test a 2013 Legacy sedan with the CVT and hated it with passion. Add spongy brakes and steering that reminded me of my old 225$ Mazda GLC, and the Subie finished 10th out of 11 cars in the comparo (just to show I wasn't the only one who disliked it), just ahead of the Kizashi, whose CVT I actually enjoyed.

So far, the only "un-CVT CVT" I drove is the Accord's, although it does funny moves at low speeds. Suzuki's and Scion's (iQ) behave like all CVTs, but feel well adapted to the cars and don't annoy as much as Nissan's and, especially, Subaru's.  Did not mind the CVTs in Civic and Escape hybrids. either.

[nlm]

Where the Subaru Impreza fails is on price for an entry level vehicle. This particular unit approaches 28K !!!.

Scratching my head on this one...this unit approaching $28k isn't entry level. The Impreza starts just under $20k, which is $1,500 cheaper than the same entry level unit a decade ago.

[nlm]

"They (CVT's) never work for fuel efficiency like they should, they’re loud, they feel horrible, just no. " Well at least some of that seems to be true. The author states that the CVT noises are still there.

I had to read this sentence in the article a couple of times but I think Jacob was saying that the CVT is actually quiet, and its quietness is NOT because of sound deadening materials because there are none.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Haven't driven the new Impreza yet, but I did test a 2013 Legacy sedan with the CVT and hated it with passion. Add spongy brakes and steering that reminded me of my old 225$ Mazda GLC, and the Subie finished 10th out of 11 cars in the comparo (just to show I wasn't the only one who disliked it), just ahead of the Kizashi, whose CVT I actually enjoyed.

So far, the only "un-CVT CVT" I drove is the Accord's, although it does funny moves at low speeds. Suzuki's and Scion's (iQ) behave like all CVTs, but feel well adapted to the cars and don't annoy as much as Nissan's and, especially, Subaru's.  Did not mind the CVTs in Civic and Escape hybrids. either.

I didn't like the CVT in the 4 cylinder Outback either. This one is much less intrusive and pretty much behaves itself.

[BernardP]

  "Sport" should have 2.5L with 6 spd manual, better hop to it Subaru before I purchase my new car in the next year!

Exactamento!

It would also be nice for Autos.ca to test drive an Impreza with the 5-speed manual. Better yet, do a performance and economy comparo with the CVT version. There might be some surprises.

CVT is mainly good for lugging the engine at even lower revs in government fuel economy test runs.

[JacobBlack]

"They (CVT's) never work for fuel efficiency like they should, they’re loud, they feel horrible, just no. " Well at least some of that seems to be true. The author states that the CVT noises are still there.

I had to read this sentence in the article a couple of times but I think Jacob was saying that the CVT is actually quiet, and its quietness is NOT because of sound deadening materials because there are none.

Yep, that's correct. Phwoar, my ego is copping a battering today - anytime you have to re-read a sentence is bad news for a writer!

[johngenx]

I didn't like the CVT in the 4 cylinder Outback either.

OMG, no kidding.  When they put the CVT behind the 2.5 in the OBW, I drove one and couldn't believe it.  It was horrid.  How could any automotive engineer let that into showrooms?

So when I had use a 2014 Forester with CVT this summer, I was preparing for the worst.  Wrong!  Somehow Subaru has gone from making easily the worst CVT on the market to one of the best.

[Noto]

Where the Subaru Impreza fails is on price for an entry level vehicle. This particular unit approaches 28K !!!. We looked at the Impreza when car shopping last year but the Mazda 3 was just the right vehicle at the right price for mom. Subaru needs to get more aggressive on price if they want to compete with the other Japanese manufactures.

A Mazda 3 GT isn't cheap either, and lacks AWD. I think the pricing of the Impreza is fine, especially based on how many I see around here.

I'm torn on this one - yes, AWD is worth some extra cash, and Subaru isn't exactly "economy" - there is something a 'bit' more premium to them.  Still, $28k isn't even for the Limited model...and in my daily driver, I don't know that I'd be so willing to spend the extra bit.

I think the prices are justified, but I'd like to see them lowered...so I can pay less

Pairing my Galaxy S3 to my car only took a few seconds, and I didn't have to refer to the manual to do it.

I don't have such issues - I have a Blackberry    Who knew Blackberry could get something right?

[Fobroader]

Sport and CVT are mutually exclusive...... for shame Subaru....for shame.... 

[hemusbull]

This Impreza is competent from technical point of view with the great team of new 2.0 l engine and CVT. Of course it is pricey and this is a problem. I will insist again Subaru should think about selling FWD only cars here, the same way they do overseas. Changing the business model will improve Subaru sales and this is vital for the smaller Japanese manufacturers. Suzuki is a fresh example while Isuzu is a little more distant.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Subaru has been increasing sales year over year pretty consistently. I think they have a good handle on who their customer is.

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2012/10/subaru-brand-sales-figures-usa-canada.html

[KD]

"They (CVT's) never work for fuel efficiency like they should, they’re loud, they feel horrible, just no. " Well at least some of that seems to be true. The author states that the CVT noises are still there. Fuel figures are about the same or maybe a little lower than real world numbers (not the dream world TC numbers that the CVT helps attain) with a manual (fuelly.com). And then there's the life expectancy issue. Stories I hear seem to cast concern on how long a CVT lasts and what it costs to replace it ($3500 to $4000+). So when a car gets to be about 15 years old and is worth about $4-6k or, that CVT would be the end of the vehicles lifespan most times. Maybe this helps explain car companies love of them?

I find this hard to believe.  I'm not a huge fan of CVT, but with fewer moving parts shouldn't it be more reliable, at least in theory?

[johngenx]

I find this hard to believe.  I'm not a huge fan of CVT, but with fewer moving parts shouldn't it be more reliable, at least in theory?

In theory, maybe, in practice, not so much.  CVT's (with the exception of the planetary gear unit used by Toyota) have proven to be far less reliable than conventional automatics.

[P.R.]

I was on Vancouver Island a few weeks ago and test drove a Sport version with the CVT. I took it on the Hwy, and boy , was it loud, not from the CVT but from road/wind/tire noise. They need to put more sound deadening in these cars. Also found it to be very underpowered, I had to keep stepping on the gas to get it moving and that most likely explains why you probably don't get the mileage they claim. They had no standard tranny to compare, but the road noise was a deal breaker.
Luckily I drove down the Island Hwy and found a 2011 Impreza sedan ( old style ) with a manual tranny, 2.5 motor with only 9000 km. on it at a Ford dealr no less. Mint shape, like new. It was still a little loud but that 170 hp 2.5 with manual vs that 148 hp 2.0 on the newer model made a difference. I bought it on the spot.
I've also read that some of these new motors with the 2.0 and new 2.5 from the Forester and newer Legacy have an oil consumption issue in where they use oil between oil changes.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I had a 2008 Outback with the 2.5 and 5 speed. It didn't get close to the fuel economy I get with the 2.0L and CVT in the XV. In city driving, it was in the 11L+/100km range. With the XV in the same conditions I'm getting around 8L/100km.

To date, it hasn't consumed any oil, which is pretty good considering the 10k service interval and 0W20 oil. With the 2.5, I'd be down not quite a quarter litre over 6k kms.

[Mongo McMongo]

I don't understand how a company that makes cars with longitudinally mounted boxer engines isn't trying to establish itself as an affordable performance oriented brand like Mazda. It makes no sense to me that the Mazda 3 is a sportier hatchback and a better performer than the Impreza—it really shouldn't be.

[Solstice2006]

Styling-wise I think the Impreza is a win. It’s about as good as the outgoing Mazda3 Sport, and is far better than the incoming clown-shoe edition

I don't follow, so you saying it's as good as the 2013 Mazda3 Sport, and is far better than what?  (what incoming clown-shoe edition)

This is my first winter driving in Canada, and while I had the Impreza the weather got cold enough for me to try seat warmers for the first time – oh my! It was nice to experience the comforting embrace of a warm electrical element while outside the cold rain pelted down.

Umm, it's Autumn mate, winter is 2 months from now....