Review: 2012 Subaru Impreza 2.0i Limited

[sjmmail...@yahoo.co.uk]

Some cars appeal to the head. Others to the heart. Judging from the marketing pitches that festooned the corporate-owned, dealer-supplied 2012 Impreza, Subaru hopes the redesigned compact will appeal to both. On the rear bumper: "The most fuel efficient All-Wheel Drive car in America at 36 MPG." And on each front door: "Experience love that [...]
Read More: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/01/review-2012-subaru-impreza-2-0i-limited/

-----------------------------------
Subaru NewsHub: Latest auto news sourced from websites, portals and blogs
http://www.carshops247.co.uk/news/Subaru.html

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

Test drove the car last week.

Should read "The most underpowered All-Wheel Drive car in America at
36 MPG."

Why not Subaru offer two engine choices like most serious
manufacturers?

The old 2.2L was such a great success, and fuel efficient. A new 2.2L
variant
would be a preffered choice for people that need more power, say live
5000+
feet above sea level where air is thin, and hills abound.

Why forsake the diehard loyalists Subaru, people who have helped
make the brand so successful?

Shame!

Basia

[Tim Conway]

"ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:f6ae6c38-00f9-4898...@g4g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

Underpowered?! You've obviously never driven an '86 GL wagon with
automatic, or a '92 Loyale with automatic. I thought I was going to have to
help push the '86 it was so underpowered. The newer Subes are much more
powerful.

[AD]

On Jan 29, 10:23 am, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

there is an engine choice. tied with a bunch of other upgrades.
it's called wrx

[cameo]

The may have been forced to such compromises by the fuel milage
standards. The were way behind with the older models.

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

That would be going from underpowered to overpowered.

Subaru needs a sensibly powered car for its
traditional customer base that tends to live
in hilly or mountainous regions.

I am sure they have Direct Injection in mind for
this new 2.0L engine, the upcoming BRZ is supposed
to have it. I think last years earthquake in Japan
caused them some disruptions and delays and they
decided to go ahead without DI for the 2012 Impreza.

The car (hatchback) is overall very nice. Simple yet
esthetically very pleasing interior. Handles quite well.
Exterior styling is not that clean (seems the Japanese
just can't build a clean looking car, nowadays), but
overall it is acceptable. The Sport Hatch with large
17" size wheels looks very good.

The only problem is the lack of power.
Have not test driven the manual as dealer only
had CVT equipped models.

Looks like I won't be getting rid of my 2.2L 2000
Impreza auto, as it seem more torquey than the new
offering, despite its 11 years of service and nearly
90k miles.

Basia

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

On Jan 31, 11:52 am, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> wrote:

> The may have been forced to such compromises by the fuel milage
> standards. The were way behind with the older models.

Maybe.

To me it looks like a high stakes bet on future
demand caused by increasing oil prices. Why let
go of a winning formula and in the process let
go of tens of thousands of loyal and product happy
customers.

Subaru may turn out to be right and make a fortune.
If not, it seems they gave themselves some flexibility
with the new engine design and dimensions. I think
they can easily re-bore it and give it more displacement.
I've read the new engines piston stroke length has been
made unusually long, Subaru says it improves torque,
but if an increase in bore were to be implemented
the bore-stroke proportion would coincidentally return
to "normal."

The old engine went from 1.8 to 2.2, then later 2.5.
We may see similar progression with the new one.

Basia

[cameo]

On 1/31/2012 1:16 PM, ba...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> To me it looks like a high stakes bet on future
> demand caused by increasing oil prices. Why let
> go of a winning formula and in the process let
> go of tens of thousands of loyal and product happy
> customers.
>
> Subaru may turn out to be right and make a fortune.
> If not, it seems they gave themselves some flexibility
> with the new engine design and dimensions. I think
> they can easily re-bore it and give it more displacement.
> I've read the new engines piston stroke length has been
> made unusually long, Subaru says it improves torque,
> but if an increase in bore were to be implemented
> the bore-stroke proportion would coincidentally return
> to "normal."
>
> The old engine went from 1.8 to 2.2, then later 2.5.
> We may see similar progression with the new one.

Hm, interesting insight. You just might be right.

[AD]

On Jan 31, 9:14 pm, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> On Jan 31, 5:49 am, AD <isq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 10:23 am, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Test drove the car last week.
>
> > > Should read "The most underpowered All-Wheel Drive car in America at
> > > 36 MPG."
>
> > > Why not Subaru offer two engine choices like most serious
> > > manufacturers?
>
> > > The old 2.2L was such a great success, and fuel efficient. A new 2.2L
> > > variant
> > > would be a preffered choice for people that need more power, say live
> > > 5000+
> > > feet above sea level where air is thin, and hills abound.
>
> > > Why forsake the diehard loyalists Subaru, people who have helped
> > > make the brand so successful?
>
> > > Shame!
>
> > > Basia
>
> > there is an engine choice. tied with a bunch of other upgrades.
> > it's called wrx
>
> That would be going from underpowered to overpowered.
>

wrx is hardly overpowered. it produces under 300 lb·ft of torque

> Subaru needs a sensibly powered car for its
> traditional customer base that tends to live
> in hilly or mountainous regions.
>

that would be wrx

> I am sure they have Direct Injection in mind for
> this new 2.0L engine, the upcoming BRZ is supposed
> to have it.  I think last years earthquake in Japan

the injection method engineers chose is completely
irrelevant to consumers (except here and further east
it's bloody cold and direct injection is a serious handicap)

brz engine shares a few bolts with impreza engine, maybe
displacement figures are not very useful prediction of the
engine performance anymore

> caused them some disruptions and delays and they
> decided to go ahead without DI for the 2012 Impreza.

it's an awd car, meaning that there are cases
when it will be run at and below -50C

I'm not sure where japs could test a car at -50C outside a lab.
most jdm cars on board computers think life ends at -32C

> The only problem is the lack of power.
> Have not test driven the manual as dealer only
> had CVT equipped models.

Yeah, owning an underpowered 4 pot with a automatic, cvt included
is very smart. not./

> Looks like I won't be getting rid of my 2.2L 2000
> Impreza auto, as it seem more torquey than the new
> offering, despite its 11 years of service and nearly
> 90k miles.

that is smart.
flat -> impreza
hills&mountainous usage -> wrx

i see no need to fill the gap in between though there is an awd lancer
sitting
right in the middle of the lineup that might provide you with the
power
handicap (compared to wrx) that you want to much

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

On Feb 1, 4:57 am, AD <isq...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 9:14 pm, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > there is an engine choice. tied with a bunch of other upgrades.
> > > it's called wrx
>
> > That would be going from underpowered to overpowered.
>
> wrx is hardly overpowered. it produces under 300 lb·ft of torque
>
> > Subaru needs a sensibly powered car for its
> > traditional customer base that tends to live
> > in hilly or mountainous regions.
>
> that would be wrx

(...)

> flat -> impreza
> hills&mountainous usage -> wrx
>
> i see no need to fill the gap in between

I would not deny rationality to the tens of
thousands who live in the Rockies, Sierras,
Cascades, other hilly places who bought a
normal 2.5L instead of a turbo WRX, and who
are perfectly happy with it, and its power.

I know my insurance agent would love it if
I bought a turbo WRX, preferably STI, but it
is not going to happen.

> though there is an awd lancer sitting
> right in the middle of the lineup that might
> provide you with the power
> handicap (compared to wrx) that you want to much

Yes, you are right, just somehow I am stuck
on another boxer. It is nice to have a naturally
balanced engine that stays smooth as new even after
years, and years of high rpm service. When I touch
the steering wheel of my 90k miles 12yr old car,
I cannot feel any vibration whatsoever, nearly
cannot tell whether the car is running or not.
Nice. I still feel like if I had a new car :))

Regarding direct injection, it improves
power. In that respect it makes a difference
to consumers. A little 1.6L Kia Rio with direct
injection makes 138 hp. Impreza's 2.0L barely
scratches 10hp more.

If they don't plan on a bigger engine I hope
they fix the problem that way. BTW, it is not
that it is grossly underpowered, it just
lacks power for any kind of mountain driving.

Basia

[AD]

On Feb 2, 9:44 am, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> On Feb 1, 4:57 am, AD <isq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 9:14 pm, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > there is an engine choice. tied with a bunch of other upgrades.
> > > > it's called wrx
>
> > > That would be going from underpowered to overpowered.
>
> > wrx is hardly overpowered. it produces under 300 lb·ft of torque
>
> > > Subaru needs a sensibly powered car for its
> > > traditional customer base that tends to live
> > > in hilly or mountainous regions.
>
> > that would be wrx
>
> (...)
>
> > flat -> impreza
> > hills&mountainous usage -> wrx
>
> > i see no need to fill the gap in between
>
> I would not deny rationality to the tens of
> thousands who live in the Rockies, Sierras,
> Cascades, other hilly places who bought a
> normal 2.5L instead of a turbo WRX, and who
> are perfectly happy with it, and its power.
>
> I know my insurance agent would love it if
> I bought a turbo WRX, preferably STI, but it
> is not going to happen.
>

what could I say?
it's sad to be you. you have an excuse for
a turbo now and you don't use it

2.5 was not a happy engine
there was no fun spinning all that weight to
get to any rpms where it would finally start pulling

audi claims 170bhp in my a4 quattro 1.8t
which is less than 174 or 176 subaru claimed for 2.5
but the torque "curve" is as flat as ohio above ~1800 rpm
and german thoroughbreds do not feel like there are 170 of them
it just PULLs the way 2.5 H4 was supposed to but never actually did

did you bother at least to test drive wrx?

> > though there is an awd lancer sitting
> > right in the middle of the lineup that might
> > provide you with the power
> > handicap (compared to wrx) that you want to much
>
> Yes, you are right, just somehow I am stuck
> on another boxer.  It is nice to have a naturally
> balanced engine that stays smooth as new even after
> years, and years of high rpm service.  When I touch
> the steering wheel of my 90k miles 12yr old car,
> I cannot feel any vibration whatsoever, nearly
> cannot tell whether the car is running or not.
> Nice.  I still feel like if I had a new car :))
>

there is more to the car than the cylinder layout

the rattling pieces of plastic and prodigious amounts of
body roll don't bother you in a least bit?

though lancer probably is not immune to that

> Regarding direct injection, it improves
> power.  In that respect it makes a difference
> to consumers.  A little 1.6L Kia Rio with direct
> injection makes 138 hp.  Impreza's 2.0L barely
> scratches 10hp more.
>
> If they don't plan on a bigger engine I hope
> they fix the problem that way.  BTW, it is not
> that it is grossly underpowered, it just
> lacks power for any kind of mountain driving.

Well, you do understand that people who live in
places that get severe cold spells like half of the
year will be seriously handicapped by DI?

[wide open]

Hi,

So I drove '12 2.0 CVT Impreza finally. A bit underpowered but okay for
a DD. MPG indicated on hwy was around 35. Nice. Roomy and sweet
interior. Hopefully they will add some power in near future but not a
big deal.

I am glad they fixed 3+1 speed auto tranny. CVT is actually very
interesting to drive. It works at 2500RPM at 70MPH IIRC.
I like it. I hope they offer 6speed MT though.

--
A.

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

On Feb 9, 10:49 pm, wide open <spamgrinder.tryla...@ggmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> So I drove '12 2.0 CVT Impreza finally. A bit underpowered but okay for
> a DD. MPG indicated on hwy was around 35. Nice. Roomy and sweet
> interior. Hopefully they will add some power in near future but not a
> big deal.

What altitude did you test drive at?

I am at around 5000 feet (+/- 1500m) and found
the new Impreza with CVT quite a bit lacking.
Definitely not suitable for any kind of mountain
driving.

I intend to test the manual, it may be better,
with respect to power, but CVT's don't produce
as much power loss as regular automatics, so I
don't expect a manual to be significantly better.

I like the car very much otherwise.

Basia

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

On Feb 10, 2:25 am, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> On Feb 9, 10:49 pm, wide open <spamgrinder.tryla...@ggmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > So I drove '12 2.0 CVT Impreza finally. A bit underpowered but okay for
> > a DD. MPG indicated on hwy was around 35. Nice. Roomy and sweet
> > interior. Hopefully they will add some power in near future but not a
> > big deal.
>
> What altitude did you test drive at?

Sorry, should have said elevation, altitude refers
to distsnce above ground.

Basia

[kaboom]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:01:52 -0800 (PST), "ba...@sbcglobal.net"
<abj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Feb 10, 2:25 am, "ba...@sbcglobal.net" <abjj...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 10:49 pm, wide open <spamgrinder.tryla...@ggmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>>
>> > So I drove '12 2.0 CVT Impreza finally. A bit underpowered but okay for
>> > a DD. MPG indicated on hwy was around 35. Nice. Roomy and sweet
>> > interior. Hopefully they will add some power in near future but not a
>> > big deal.
>>
>> What altitude did you test drive at?
>
>
>Sorry, should have said elevation, altitude refers
>to distsnce above ground.

**Hopefully, he didn't have a near miss with an Airbus ;-)

kaboomie

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

:))))

Basia

> kaboomie

[abj...@sbcglobal.net]

On Jan 31, 11:52 am, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid> wrote:

> The may have been forced to such compromises by the fuel milage
> standards. The were way behind with the older models.

Might be. Cafe standards require 34.1 mpg by 2016.
2012 Impreza is at 34 right now.

I think for Subaru this is going to end up in diesel
engines. AWD requires more power and that comes with
a mpg penalty. Diesel would be perfect.

Hybryd+ AWD+ low cost, seem impossible.

This is an old article abot Cafe,
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/04/01/new-federal-cafe-standards-officially-released-34-1-mpg-by-2016/

Basia

[wide open]

On 02/10/2012 03:25 AM, ba...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:49 pm, wide open<spamgrinder.tryla...@ggmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> So I drove '12 2.0 CVT Impreza finally. A bit underpowered but okay for
>> a DD. MPG indicated on hwy was around 35. Nice. Roomy and sweet
>> interior. Hopefully they will add some power in near future but not a
>> big deal.
>
>
> What altitude did you test drive at?
>
> I am at around 5000 feet (+/- 1500m) and found
> the new Impreza with CVT quite a bit lacking.
> Definitely not suitable for any kind of mountain
> driving.

I am in the area where the elevation changes all the way from 2000 to
7000. However, I found '02 2.5 Impreza lacking too.

> I intend to test the manual, it may be better,
> with respect to power, but CVT's don't produce
> as much power loss as regular automatics, so I
> don't expect a manual to be significantly better.
>
> I like the car very much otherwise.
>

Did you drive MT?

A.