I discredit all of you that...

CVTs have a history of being unreliable and generally feel like shit to drive, crazy variable gearing or not.
Also the Crosstrek is the new Forester. It's a damn shame what happened to Subaru.

File: ok5-tarnation.jpg (37KB, 696x480px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 696x480px

What are you rambling about?

>>16736192
get the manual option you moron, it's cheaper too

File: 20170105_202538_2000x1125.jpg (212KB, 2000x1125px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 2000x1125px

>>16736217
What this guy said

>>16736217
>>16736232
OP here, I test drove a Kia Soul in manual, and even my fucking girlfriend said I can't drive a manual smoothly. The dealership guy asked how long I've been driving stick for. To be honest, I've driven a Jeep CJ7, 6 speed Civic, and tractors/ farm equipment. Very little manual experience, but I get discouraged cause people say my driving is rough.

>>16736260
Not really gonna get any smoother without practice m8.

>>16736215
It seems like FWD and AWD get bashed to death on this board, and it made me hop aboard the RWD only train, but the AWD car's I'd only driven were Rav4's and Explorers. So these Subaru's were a big eye opener. Also for CVT as well. I didn't like the CVT in my friend's Sentra, but the Impreza was totally different. It shifted in stages it seemed.

>>16736268
Yeah I know they are fun, but I also drive a lot slower in them, except the Civic that was buttery smooth. It asks to be slapped around.

>>16736209
Uhh Honda and Toyota rock CVT's, and now Subaru, and those 3 FIGHT to be top dog for basic reliable transportation that doesn't break. Honda's rep wasstepped down in the early 2000's cause of the faulty Accord transmissions

>>16736339
And now you start to realize that almost everybody that actually knee a damn thing about cars has left here. It's impossible to 100% say AWD is good or not because there are a hundred different kinds of it. Subaru have (mostly) stuck to their guns of mechanical AWD, which is generally praised for being predictable and consistent, if a tad understeery without significant rear bias from the center different (only in STI models). Whereas I'm pretty sure the new exploder only sends power to the back when it detects the front is slipping. Etc.

>>16736377
Yeah I can definitely tell the knowledgeable guys left, except for the guys that flaunt their $hit. Big fish small pond I guess.

The exploder I drove with it was an '06 I think. And that 4.6L has loads of torque too. I wouldn't mind one, even though I know their trannies fail.

>>16736339
>fwd is utter garbage.
>awd is good for track etc but boring for fun driving
>rwd the most fun

"Why do car enthusiasts like rwd??!?"

>>16736449
06 exploder isn't AWD, it's 4x4. There's an important distinction. 4x4 is always switchable between 2wd and 4x4 with the use of a mechanical transfer case. AWD at least used to mean all wheels driven all the time.

>>16736504
Hmm. Maybe the Escape or Mariner or Mountaineer. IDK it looked like an explorer

File: Previa Chassis - 800x450.jpg (57KB, 932x524px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 932x524px

What advantageous vehicle dynamics are attributable to the 4-memel drive systems, which would not be more positively enhanced by mimicking the amidships configuration, in the manner of the Toyota Plebia?