[lancer3000gt]

For daily driving I prefer Turbo engine for many reasons:
1. low emission

2. Better fuel economy

3. High torque at lower RPM 1,600–3,600.(for traffic and going uphill ) it's exceptional here.
cars that comes with Turbo engine for daily driving has been tuned from factory to offer torque (peak:highest number of torque that engine can produce) at lower RPM (1,300- 4.000 RPM) unlike sport cars, the torque will (PEAK) start from >3,000 or 4.000 RPM.

4. easy to tune

5. Faster than NA engine

But for reliability it may not achive what NA engine does due to many parts movements unless you are doing extra maintenance like

1. adding fuel adaptive every 5K mile

2. walnut blasting at 60K to clean valves from carbon builds

Add catch can

 

[serotta]

Just for curiousity sake, NOT for starting a debate or argument, because I drive both and see the benefits of each, but how many of you guys that voted for the CVT/2.5 CANNOT drive a manual?

 

[Panelhead]

Not much opportunity since last stick was sold around 1998. Drove Fiat 500X in Europe this summer. Wife wanted to know why I shifted the gears so much. The 1.3l turbo had nothing below 3000 rpm.
But back to 2.0 manual versus 2.5 CVT it is easy for me. The short legged sixth gear in the manual is a deal killer.
My Limited mainly is run on highway. The relaxed 1800 rpm@70 mph would be much missed if wringing out a 2.0 to keep up with highway traffic. The interstates here are 75, many run 10 - 15 mph over that. They honk and flip you off if you are running speed limit.

 

[lancer3000gt]

Not much opportunity since last stick was sold around 1998. Drove Fiat 500X in Europe this summer. Wife wanted to know why I shifted the gears so much. The 1.3l turbo had nothing below 3000 rpm.
But back to 2.0 manual versus 2.5 CVT it is easy for me. The short legged sixth gear in the manual is a deal killer.
My Limited mainly is run on highway. The relaxed 1800 rpm@70 mph would be much missed if wringing out a 2.0 to keep up with highway traffic. The interstates here are 75, many run 10 - 15 mph over that. They honk and flip you off if you are running speed limit.

The main reason for choosing 2.5/CVT over 2.0/Manual is the hp of the engine when acceleration at traffic from standpoint and in highway to overtake the 2.5L provides better acceleration and torque with better fuel consumption and lower engine noise. Another reasons the 2.5L will last longer than 2.0L due to lower compression ration

Performance:
2.0L 0-60mph: 10.97 sec
2.5L -60mph: 8.17 sec
over 2sec for 0-60 it's really huge different in daily driving.

Fuel consumption:
2.0L + Manual

• EPA City Fuel Economy
  22 MPG
• EPA Highway Fuel Economy
  29 MPG
• EPA Combined Fuel Economy
  25 MPG

2.5L + CVT

• EPA City Fuel Economy
  27 MPG
• EPA Highway Fuel Economy
  34 MPG
• EPA Combined Fuel Economy
  30 MPG
  
  2.0L + CVT
• EPA City Fuel Economy
  28 MPG
• EPA Highway Fuel Economy
  33 MPG
• EPA Combined Fuel Economy
  30 MPG
  

 

[Montanan]

Just for curiousity sake, NOT for starting a debate or argument, because I drive both and see the benefits of each, but how many of you guys that voted for the CVT/2.5 CANNOT drive a manual?

Ha! I think it's a safe bet that a strong majority of the people who hang out on car forums are able to drive stick, regardless of the transmission in their current vehicle.

I test-drove both the 5-speed and 6-speed versions of the MT Crosstrek, and honestly just didn't find either one to be very satisfying.

 

[Lonelydriver_95]

Ha! I think it's a safe bet that a strong majority of the people who hang out on car forums are able to drive stick, regardless of the transmission in their current vehicle.

I test-drove both the 5-speed and 6-speed versions of the MT Crosstrek, and honestly just didn't find either one to be very satisfying.

I have a CVT 2.0 now and I used to have a 6-speed Crosstrek (and almost a dozen manual cars before that) and if I'm being honest with myself I don't really miss the 6-speed that much and it wasn't even that nice to physically use. Call me getting older and soft but having an automatic to do daily traffic is a blessing. And, unpopular opinion, I actually like CVTs in general. They are typically very smooth transmissions and they allow great fuel economy. I mean I would average mid to high 20s in my 6MT but now I average mid 30s with my CVT. Also my 6MT started burning oil around my current cars mileage and so far my CVT car hasn't burned any that I can see on the stick.

Now here's hoping I don't take a huge reliability hit going from a manual to a CVT.

 

[Married Man]

@lancer3000gt, I don't dispute your numbers, although for me, my 2018MT, gets 30 MPG highway. It used to be 32 MPG before I switched to wildpeaks. City driving questionable but I've never done worse than 25 MPG. That's figured by fill up and miles driven, not the car's infamous calculator. Although I'm sure it would be nice, I have yet to find myself needing that quicker acceleration provided, at least on paper, with the MT. Unless one is only interested in the Crosstrek, there are plenty of faster cars available. For me, driving a MT is something I enjoy, so I'm willing to sacrifice some performance for that pleasure. BTW, I had my ECM reflashed per the applicable service bulletin and it totally changed the drivability of the car. Rev-hang is no longer an issue and rev matching during shifts is smooth. For members here with cars covered by the SB, I strongly recommend it.

When I was doing my car shopping a few years ago to replace my 2001 Jeep Cherokee XJ(automatic, BTW) as a daily driver, I wanted an AWD with a MT that had some off road capability. The Crosstrek made the cut, and I'm not disappointed with my choice. Hopefully, the information gleaned from this thread will help the OP decide which vehicle best suits his needs and desires. It's not always about the numbers. There is no right or wrong.

Doug

 

[lancer3000gt]

@lancer3000gt, I don't dispute your numbers, although for me, my 2018MT, gets 30 MPG highway. It used to be 32 MPG before I switched to wildpeaks. City driving questionable but I've never done worse than 25 MPG. That's figured by fill up and miles driven, not the car's infamous calculator. Although I'm sure it would be nice, I have yet to find myself needing that quicker acceleration provided, at least on paper, with the MT. Unless one is only interested in the Crosstrek, there are plenty of faster cars available. For me, driving a MT is something I enjoy, so I'm willing to sacrifice some performance for that pleasure. BTW, I had my ECM reflashed per the applicable service bulletin and it totally changed the drivability of the car. Rev-hang is no longer an issue and rev matching during shifts is smooth. For members here with cars covered by the SB, I strongly recommend it.

When I was doing my car shopping a few years ago to replace my 2001 Jeep Cherokee XJ(automatic, BTW) as a daily driver, I wanted an AWD with a MT that had some off road capability. The Crosstrek made the cut, and I'm not disappointed with my choice. Hopefully, the information gleaned from this thread will help the OP decide which vehicle best suits his needs and desires. It's not always about the numbers. There is no right or wrong.

Doug

The number that I have menthioned above was from official Subaru borchure

 

[lancer3000gt]

I have a CVT 2.0 now and I used to have a 6-speed Crosstrek (and almost a dozen manual cars before that) and if I'm being honest with myself I don't really miss the 6-speed that much and it wasn't even that nice to physically use. Call me getting older and soft but having an automatic to do daily traffic is a blessing. And, unpopular opinion, I actually like CVTs in general. They are typically very smooth transmissions and they allow great fuel economy. I mean I would average mid to high 20s in my 6MT but now I average mid 30s with my CVT. Also my 6MT started burning oil around my current cars mileage and so far my CVT car hasn't burned any that I can see on the stick.

Now here's hoping I don't take a huge reliability hit going from a manual to a CVT.

To keep CVT alive for ever just change fluid at every 40K mile (for heavy driving) and 50K mile (for normal driving).

 

[Nam-Vet Suby]

Well for me guys, I'm an MT enthusiast and have had several MT's I've owned. My previous Suby was a 2009 2.5l Legacy Spec Ed which I had to have as an Auto (no CVT back then) because I was working and doing a lot of city driving. Yep, the HP was great, but I don't miss it now that I'm retired. I went back to the MT in my '23 Premium which I could only get in the 2.0l, because I love driving stick. It really puts the fun back into driving! I don't need all that BS like...Eyesight or all the other crap that is offered "only" with the CVT, although I admit that the backup camera is nice. I've been driving almost 60 years in the US and other countries in all types of weather. Basic driving skills are all any enthusiast needs. Plus it keeps you awake, alert and active. What scares me most is "hands-free-driving" and of course, autonomous driving trucks !!!! It's a pleasure to drive stick, yeah, I understand that the MPG is not as good as the CVT and the HP isn't a good as the 2.5l, but hey...I'll give up these for the fun of driving stick. Also the Crosstrek is a nice ride!!

 

[MA Subie]

Well for me guys, I'm an MT enthusiast and have had several MT's I've owned. My previous Suby was a 2009 2.5l Legacy Spec Ed which I had to have as an Auto (no CVT back then) because I was working and doing a lot of city driving. Yep, the HP was great, but I don't miss it now that I'm retired. I went back to the MT in my '23 Premium which I could only get in the 2.0l, because I love driving stick. It really puts the fun back into driving! I don't need all that BS like...Eyesight or all the other crap that is offered "only" with the CVT, although I admit that the backup camera is nice. I've been driving almost 60 years in the US and other countries in all types of weather. Basic driving skills are all any enthusiast needs. Plus it keeps you awake, alert and active. What scares me most is "hands-free-driving" and of course, autonomous driving trucks !!!! It's a pleasure to drive stick, yeah, I understand that the MPG is not as good as the CVT and the HP isn't a good as the 2.5l, but hey...I'll give up these for the fun of driving stick. Also the Crosstrek is a nice ride!!

I couldn't have said it better myself! Unfortunately, we MT people are a dying breed. Glad you got a '23 because the '24 is no longer available with an MT.

 

[CanadaCraig]

Zero to 60 mph in 10.97 seconds with the 6 speed manual? [As it has been suggested] Not according to Car and Driver Magazine. The Crosstrek with the 6 speed takes 9.2 seconds to 60 mph. Motor Trend says it takes 9.5 seconds. That said.. I think the power is just fine. And this is coming from someone who owns a second car - one with 425 hp that can get to 60 in about 4.7 seconds. ONE of the reasons I wanted the Crosstrek with the manual transmission was because it would be different enough from my other car that no direct comparison performance wise would be made. [by me] And I'm glad I did. I think the shifter and clutch are great.

 

[serotta]

Appreciate you sharing your thoughts about the manual Nam-Vet Suby, I agree for all the same reasons.

I checked on a website called 0-60 dot com and found the 2.0 manual at 9.0 sec, the 2.5 CVT at 7.6 sec. I've waited way longer than 1.4 seconds for most things I've wanted in life. 60 MPH comes fast enough for me to figure out where to slot the Crosstrek into traffic on the highway. No close calls yet...... knock on wood!

Actually, with all the deer and bear crossing in front of me lately, I'd rather have better brakes!!!

 

[Bluefoton]

I've waited way longer than 1.4 seconds for most things I've wanted in life.

Best quote ever.



... that's not what she said.

 

[lancer3000gt]

Appreciate you sharing your thoughts about the manual Nam-Vet Suby, I agree for all the same reasons.

I checked on a website called 0-60 dot com and found the 2.0 manual at 9.0 sec, the 2.5 CVT at 7.6 sec. I've waited way longer than 1.4 seconds for most things I've wanted in life. 60 MPH comes fast enough for me to figure out where to slot the Crosstrek into traffic on the highway. No close calls yet...... knock on wood!

Actually, with all the deer and bear crossing in front of me lately, I'd rather have better brakes!!!

1.4 sec for full throttle but with normal throttle it will be more than 4 sec especially if you drive your car in town with heavy traffic.
with manual you are slower and consume more fuel. The 2.0L + manual consumes fuel the same as the turbo engine that produces 270hp+ and note from 0-60 in 5.5sec.
At the end it depends on the customer what he/she prefers and where he will buy the car in town or mixing driving type like 30% in city and 70% in highway.
In my country it's really panic to drive manual car, the last car I drove it with manual transmission was mustang 2013 V8 5.0 it was a nice car but horrible in city driving with heavy traffic jam you are just keep shifting between gears always 😅 . Full fuel tank can take you about 240 mile only

 

[serotta]

1.4 sec for full throttle but with normal throttle it will be more than 4 sec especially if you drive your car in town with heavy traffic.
with manual you are slower and consume more fuel. The 2.0L + manual consumes fuel the same as the turbo engine that produces 270hp+ and note from 0-60 in 5.5sec.
At the end it depends on the customer what he/she prefers and where he will buy the car in town or mixing driving type like 30% in city and 70% in highway.
In my country it's really panic to drive manual car, the last car I drove it with manual transmission was mustang 2013 V8 5.0 it was a nice car but horrible in city driving with heavy traffic jam you are just keep shifting between gears always 😅 . Full fuel tank can take you about 240 mile only

Our family owns a 2.0 manual, a 2.0 CVT and a 2.5 CVT. The only time I notice any difference between the 2.0s and the 2.5 is driving up mountain roads with switchbacks.
You reference to a potential 4 seconds difference at normal throttle would be the same for the 2.5 CVT. The fuel consumption difference between the two is negligible depending upon driving styles.

 

[MA Subie]

Best quote ever.

Yep. That traffic backup due to construction or an accident will delay you way more than 1.4 seconds.

 

[slipkid]

Well for me guys, I'm an MT enthusiast and have had several MT's I've owned. My previous Suby was a 2009 2.5l Legacy Spec Ed which I had to have as an Auto (no CVT back then) because I was working and doing a lot of city driving. Yep, the HP was great, but I don't miss it now that I'm retired. I went back to the MT in my '23 Premium which I could only get in the 2.0l, because I love driving stick. It really puts the fun back into driving! I don't need all that BS like...Eyesight or all the other crap that is offered "only" with the CVT, although I admit that the backup camera is nice. I've been driving almost 60 years in the US and other countries in all types of weather. Basic driving skills are all any enthusiast needs. Plus it keeps you awake, alert and active. What scares me most is "hands-free-driving" and of course, autonomous driving trucks !!!! It's a pleasure to drive stick, yeah, I understand that the MPG is not as good as the CVT and the HP isn't a good as the 2.5l, but hey...I'll give up these for the fun of driving stick. Also the Crosstrek is a nice ride!!

100% with you. I LOVE driving MT. All my cars have been MT except the one prior to this '23 xtrek premium that I bought last year. I was bored to death driving that automatic, resolved must get a MT next car. So glad I got it b4 they phased out MT.

I just enjoy MT, find it fun/engaging. Don't mind the slower ride, don't really even notice to be honest, can still blow some other cars with more power off the line at a red light who don't know how (or don't care) to start faster.

 

[charlie_b]

Getting a MT is more of an emotional decision rather than a logical one. Automatics are not what they used to be: they last forever and generally perform better.

The only right answer is getting what suits your needs the best. Don't let those pesky MT lovers sway your decision.

 

[Lonelydriver_95]

Don't let those pesky MT lovers sway your decision.

I am one of those pesky MT drivers and I say that either transmission has its positives. MT is more engaging and probably more reliable long term (and cooler) but CVT is better in every other regard. I am averaging 34MPG with mine.