What's more important... manual transmission or more power

As part of my plan to drive my wife crazy I like to look at new cars a lot. I'm probably not buying anytime soon but I like to look so whatever. I need is a car with ground clearance, I'd prefer a manual transmission, need AWD or 4WD, and drive enough that gas mileage matters. One of the few cars that meet the criteria is a Forester, hence this question: more power, or a manual transmission?

You can still get a 2.5i premium with a 6spd manual. 170ish hp in a 3400 pound car will get out of its own way but isn't exactly exhilarating.

For a little more money, you can get a 2.5XT with 250 turbo horses, but have to get the CVT. Having driven the new WRX with the CVT, it ain't half bad and a turbo wagon crossover thing is kinda cool.

So how do you pick?

In almost every case, the manual trans is going to make for more engaged, fun driving.
Especially vs a CVT.

I just bought a 2017 crosstrek CVT. It's great. I will say this- 170hp&3400lbs, or 150hp and 3200lbs in the cross trek. Considerably less money in manual. The manual still has a true mechanical awd coupler that goes 50:50 torque split. The CVT is 80:20 freeway, 60:40 on launch and WOT. Not sure how the wrx CVT is though.

More power makes manual trans a PITA to drive, you spend more time shifting than accelerating.

Knurled wrote: More power makes manual trans a PITA to drive, you spend more time shifting than accelerating.

I actually disagree. More power makes it easier to drive for me, and I spend less time shifting. The reason why is unless I'm really putting my foot in it for fun or specific purpose, I tend to skip shift a lot. I'll shift from 2nd straight to 4th, or maybe even from 3rd all the way to 6th. A car with a lot of power makes that really easy to do. A car with no power makes it hard. I skip shift a lot with my Elantra, but if I'm in any kind of hurry, I can't because it doesn't have a lot of power. Shifting from 3rd to 6th drops my rpm from 3500 to 1500. Fine if there's no traffic, but not good if there is.

To answer OP question, for me it depends. Is it your only car? If so, I'd go automatic. If you have a manual transmission toy, then I'd be more OK with an auto.

Having thus far refusing to own an automatic vehicle, I could live with the subi CVT. As long as it isn't poorly programmedcough Nissan cough I prefer a CVT to a conventional auto. I find the CVT in my mother's '14 Legacy very nice. The flappy paddles are decent if you can get a feel for it.(1)

I would be more concerned about subi turbo reliability than living with the CVT.

(1)I have absolutely no feel for flappy paddle/manumatic/video game shifting. But that is just me and not worth thread jacking.

Manual, no question. I hate the disconnected (for want of a better term) feel of automatics, and a CVT is only going to make that worse. Lack of power doesn't bother me except in very specific circumstances; an automatic or CVT would annoy me constantly.

The naturally aspirated Subaru CVTs that I have driven perform exactly the way I would expect a CVT to perform. Meaning, throttle position dictates horsepower level desired and the transmission runs the engine at whatever speed is best for that. So if you want to accelerate briskly, the engine runs out to 3500-4000 or whatever and you MOVE, it doesn't lug the engine down while waving a little middle finger in your face saying "ha ha, no acceleration for you!".

I am deeply curious at how the intersection of Subaru turbo and Subaru CVT plays out in the real world. It's a shame that they decided to wrap them in cars that are so aesthetically unpleasing.

What is the planned driving for the car?

The only time manual cars are more entertaining is when driving is entertaining.

The stop light parade is not fun. And freeway driving is not fun.

And I'm never sure if there's an instance were driving a Forester is engaging and fun.

Depends where you live, honestly. For my purposes and geography, I'd probably take the more power, auto for a DD situation since 95 corridor traffic is literally the worst. If you live somewhere where traffic isn't as big a concern or don't drive a lot, I'd take the manual with less power.

More power. Always. Though i have never driven a cvt. But still, more power, and whirry turbo noises.

I find power to be kind of a 1-trick pony. If the car is not otherwise very engaging to drive, I get bored with putting my foot down and feeling the straight line push very very quickly. Particularly since 85% of the time you have to immediately get right back out of it to avoid a ticket or the back bumper of the suburbanite ahead of you.

A manual trans, however, plays right into the whole "slow car fast" philosophy.

Yeah my manual GA16DE is definitely more fun than my auto Sr20. Skinnier tires do keep the limits down too.

I flat out refuse to buy CVTs. I'll buy traditional automatics in tow vehicles, and I have a flappy paddle DSG transmission in my daily driver Audi, although I'm of mixed feelings about how much I like it. Manual really is better, IMHO.

alfadriver wrote: And I'm never sure if there's an instance were driving a Forester is engaging and fun.

I think a Forester would be lots of fun where Skierd lives. The definition of "paved road" is different up there.

Also, after 56 years of driving strictly manual transmission vehicles, I have no problems with the CVT in my Outback.

I love the CVT in my xtrek. It's awesome. No lag, no jerks, more power to the wheels than a traditional auto. I can rally the piss out of that car too. Thank god for rally armor!

I'd rather eat the business end of a shotgun than have a CVT. A traditional slushbox make the choice harder.

Appleseed wrote: I'd rather eat the business end of a shotgun than have a CVT. A traditional slushbox make the choice harder.

Have you driven a CVT lately?

Manual. It is more fun to drive a slow car fast than it is to drive a fast car slow.

EastCoastMojo wrote: Manual. It is more fun to drive a slow car fast than it is to drive a fast car slow.

We acquired a 1.6l Civic for a family member of Da Boss. It needs a little TLC and I had to drive it around a bit.

No. Way.

I used to have a 1600cc-class car. I guess I am jaded, or have become effete, or whatever the proper term is, because I don't think I could tolerate that "S" ever again. I like dipping into the insta-BOOST against the torque converter's stall speed with no waiting for a kickdown. Or if I am feeling saucy, a quick stab to initiate a kickdown, then apply throttle for BOOOOOOOOST. So smooth and seamless it sounds and feels totally effortless.

It's like driving a big-block without all that noise and vibration. Just the other day I needed to effect a point and squirt pass of a line of stopped cars, and I was surprised and pleased at the lack of sturm und drang involved. No big noise, no drama, just a smooth seamless GO-TIME and a mildly mechanical sound effect from under hood. (Not from the exhaust)

SnowMongoose wrote: In almost every case, the manual trans is going to make for more engaged, fun driving. Especially vs a CVT.

This, period. At least for regular passenger cars (automatics are preferable for trucks/SUVs/etc in my opinion. I'll take less power any day for the enjoyment of three pedals. YMMV though.

Yeah, but it's a LOT less power. The thing I miss most about my Mustang? Power. The WRX CVT I drove had just about the perfect amount of grunt and the CVT really wasn't bad. My wife's previous car was a Crosstrek with the CVT and it was fine too... just slow.

But... it is really satisfying to turn traction control off and wag the wagon around the curves on the icy roads home too. I like the true mechanical connection. But damn it's a slow car wagon thing.

A requirement for four driven wheels and a manual transmission in a newer car does severely help the car ADD thing by severely restricting choices to basically the Tacoma, the Ram 2500 diesel, Jeeps, Subaru's, and Audis at least.

The manual will be more fun to drive but the CVT will be faster...especially with the more powerful engine. Subaru CVTs have a mode that uses stepped shifting to simulate gears that you can shift through with the paddles, give that a try.

skierd wrote: Yeah, but it's a LOT less power. The thing I miss most about my Mustang? Power. The WRX CVT I drove had just about the perfect amount of grunt and the CVT really wasn't bad. My wife's previous car was a Crosstrek with the CVT and it was fine too... just slow.

I think you answered your question right there. Sounds like you'd go for more power.

EastCoastMojo wrote: It is more fun to drive a slow car fast than it is to drive a fast car slow.

I used to feel that way too, but I'm really starting to change my opinion on this. I can try to pretend it's fun, but if I'm being honest with myself it's not a ton of fun having to whip the living E36 M3 out of my 150hp car just so I can keep up with trophy wife driving her Lexus RX. Well, not even keep up, it's more like just try not to lose sight. That used to be fun, not so much anymore. I don't drive a ton of really tight and twisty roads. If that's all I did, I may feel different, but out on the "open" roads and highways, a slow car isn't all that much fun.

I still go back to my original thought. To me, this debate depends on my fleet situation. If it's my one and only car, my feeling would be split to 50.000001% manual, and 49.999999% power. So I'd chose (and did chose) manual, but would be very sad about no power. If I had a toy already (which be default is a manual for me), then my feeling is 80% power and 20% manual....i.e. I'd easily pick more power with only slight regret about an automatic.

Trackmouse wrote:

Appleseed wrote: I'd rather eat the business end of a shotgun than have a CVT. A traditional slushbox make the choice harder.

Have you driven a CVT lately?

Two. In the last year. And they sucked the sweat of a dead man's ass.

Perhaps there are better ones exist, but when a transmission's terrible performance nearly gets you killed, you tend to loath them.