Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday July 24, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-19-2014, 06:31 PM   #26
rob1n1
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 276425
Join Date: Mar 2011
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Seattle, WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spenk View Post
He was being facetious.

But as an AR15-owning, Christian conservative, it's not surprising that you didn't pick up on that.


I can smell the burn from here
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
rob1n1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 07:53 PM   #27
skywaffles
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 82470
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: directions unclear
Vehicle:
dick got stuck
in vacuum cleaner

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavyD View Post
Is there a Ford engine that meets or exceeds their claims? I know the Ecoboost V6 doesn't and my 2012 5.0L Mustang never came close to their city/highway claims.
The DI 2.0 5MT combination in my Focus hatch consistently exceeds the estimates.
skywaffles is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 08:51 PM   #28
Balantz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 101457
Join Date: Nov 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Vehicle:
Czar of Sweet Dance
Moves

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skywaffles View Post

The DI 2.0 5MT combination in my Focus hatch consistently exceeds the estimates.
What are you getting? And how is the freeway mileage?
Balantz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2014, 09:42 PM   #29
skywaffles
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 82470
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: directions unclear
Vehicle:
dick got stuck
in vacuum cleaner

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balantz View Post
What are you getting? And how is the freeway mileage?
30ish city, a solid 40 highway (sometimes much higher, 65+ kills it), and right now 34.8 (on the relatively accurate computer) combined with about 65% city.
skywaffles is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 04:33 AM   #30
hkerekes
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 66310
Join Date: Jul 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Removing passenger seat
Vehicle:
2012 Orange

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavyD View Post
Is there a Ford engine that meets or exceeds their claims? I know the Ecoboost V6 doesn't and my 2012 5.0L Mustang never came close to their city/highway claims.


Ive gotten the advertised 17/26 before in my Boss 302. You have to drive like grandma and keep it under 65mph.

Isnt the GT rated similar?
hkerekes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 08:48 AM   #31
gpshumway
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 43950
Join Date: Sep 2003
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
07 WRX LTD Wagon
Satin White Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DougNuts View Post
The EB3.5 is rated at 17mpg combined and there are people getting that on fuelly. The main thing about all of their EB engines are that if you use it (boost), you loose it (MPG) and it's easy to get into boost.
I think this is a problem with all the DIT cars. They put up great EPA numbers, but you have to drive like the EPA test to get them. Which is to say you have to drive like an octogenarian with a sprained right ankle.

Quote:
The Mustang results on fuelly are mostly similar, all over the place with a noticeable bell curve. The website will let you filter by engine type and, while everyone's commute is different, you can usually see what the overall average is for a statistically relevant sample size. Take a look and see if your findings jive with your opinion.
The problem with fuelly is it's a self-selected sample of people who are by definition more interested in fuel economy than the population at large. In other words, there are more hyper-milers on fuelly than in the real world, and therefore fuelly's average is likely higher than the real average. Not totally useless, but not representative either.
gpshumway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 09:16 AM   #32
pete_falcone
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 123330
Join Date: Aug 2006
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Apalit
Vehicle:
13 Villena, 02 CVC
747 Philippine Airlines

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpshumway View Post
The problem with fuelly is it's a self-selected sample of people who are by definition more interested in fuel economy than the population at large. In other words, there are more hyper-milers on fuelly than in the real world, and therefore fuelly's average is likely higher than the real average. Not totally useless, but not representative either.
I can vouch for that. Especially when you're involved with a community whose concerned about mileage, most of the people you get in that community will try to out-mile each other. Us CR-Z folks are like that in particular, because it's nice to see people exceeding the EPA numbers while trying not to be an obstacle on the roads.

The wife and I were almost sold on a used C-Max hybrid. Loved almost everything about it during the test drive. 26k miles, a loose plastic molding, $18k asking price. We were already at the negotiating table when I opened my phone and saw the articles about Ford fudging the EPA numbers (the C-Max being the worst offender.) We walked out of there quickly.
pete_falcone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2014, 09:43 AM   #33
DougNuts
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 192568
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Georgetown, KY
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpshumway View Post
The problem with fuelly is it's a self-selected sample of people who are by definition more interested in fuel economy than the population at large. In other words, there are more hyper-milers on fuelly than in the real world, and therefore fuelly's average is likely higher than the real average. Not totally useless, but not representative either.
I think that (the number of hyper-milers) will largely depend on which car you're looking at. I can only speak for myself: I use fuelly for tracking purposes, to help determine cost of ownership, and I don't modify my driving style to maximize economy.

You may be right about a lot of the 125k cars being logged on Fuelly, but it's long term, real world data that can be audited and statistically analyzed.
DougNuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2014, 10:36 AM   #34
FaastLegacy
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 11671
Join Date: Oct 2001
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by heavyD View Post
Is there a Ford engine that meets or exceeds their claims? I know the Ecoboost V6 doesn't and my 2012 5.0L Mustang never came close to their city/highway claims.
My 5.0 was right at what it should have been in mixed driving. I would see 27-28 mpg on the interstate on roadtrips.
FaastLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2014, 02:49 PM   #35
capn_kill
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 57063
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Maine
Vehicle:
2011 Mustang
Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FaastLegacy View Post

My 5.0 was right at what it should have been in mixed driving. I would see 27-28 mpg on the interstate on roadtrips.
I get about 1-2 less, but have the 3.73 rear.
capn_kill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 02:36 AM   #36
TwinscrollGT35R
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 256810
Join Date: Sep 2010
Chapter/Region: International
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterauto View Post
Ford has never gotten ear what they claim. Have found Ford mileage claims to be dookied up for many years now.I have always been suspicious that they used some tricks or fuel additives in testing. Just ask any ecoboost F150 owner.
Its pretty straight forward in testing.

There is really no way to "dookie" up the numbers.
You log your fuel. You log the ecu, You log the drive. Everything code checks. Had the keys to someone else. They run the same pattern. Do the same logs.
We even have computers that tell use when to go, how much to go. When to break and how hard to brake. And a g-meter on the dash to match. And this isn't some computer g-meter. Its old school fluid type.

I think its more the consumer and their degrees of right foot. But that is just me.
TwinscrollGT35R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 08:27 AM   #37
UKscooby
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 33287
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: 2013 Focus ST, Yella
Vehicle:
RIP Nik
I will always miss you

Default

My 2.0 DIT Turbo 6MT Focus gets nowhere near the mileage claims. At 70 its getting 25.5mpg, but should be getting 32 according to the sticker. I do very little city driving so I don't have any numbers for that.
UKscooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 11:18 AM   #38
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

does the sticker say 32 mpg @ 70 mph?

I only say that because I was suppose to get 20 mpg in my truck on the highway, but I only managed 17 mpg at 75 ish mph. If I dropped to 60, I would nail 20mpg at times 21.

AS speed increases, resistance increases at a much higher rate.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 12:16 PM   #39
arghx7
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 232940
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: cold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
does the sticker say 32 mpg @ 70 mph?

I only say that because I was suppose to get 20 mpg in my truck on the highway, but I only managed 17 mpg at 75 ish mph. If I dropped to 60, I would nail 20mpg at times 21.

AS speed increases, resistance increases at a much higher rate.
You, without realizing, got to the heart of the matter. If you read closely at the articles, what happened was that Ford changed their road load derivation.

What does that mean? The emissions dynos are loading dynos. You input a quadratic equation (Ax^2 + Bx + C) that is supposed to represent the friction, wind resistance, etc. Those A B and C numbers are the road load coefficients and they have a huge effect on emissions and fuel economy results. First the coast-down test is done on a test track, and then based on the results the numbers are used on the dyno (oversimplifying here).

So what happened is Ford went back and revised the coefficients and re-ran the tests. That's the same thing that Hyundai had to do.

As for the sticker fuel economy, well basically they run the "City" cycle (FTP75), and the "Highway" cycle, then punch it into a spreadsheet to correct the values. I won't get too complicated here but there are other methods of certification including running a total of 5 tests instead. There's a huge amount of weighting and fudge factors involved here that are basically negotiated between the government and the OEMs.
arghx7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 12:26 PM   #40
gpshumway
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 43950
Join Date: Sep 2003
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Vehicle:
07 WRX LTD Wagon
Satin White Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UKscooby View Post
My 2.0 DIT Turbo 6MT Focus gets nowhere near the mileage claims. At 70 its getting 25.5mpg, but should be getting 32 according to the sticker. I do very little city driving so I don't have any numbers for that.
As Scrappy said, 70mph is too fast. The EPA "highway" test averages something like 48 mph. It yields really over rated numbers which are used to compute CAFE. Then an algorithm is applied to compute the "realistic" window sticker numbers. The problem as I see it is DIT engines are particularly sensitive to the difference between the test and the real world. The algorithm is pretty accurate for naturally aspirated engines, even conservative. My 2011 Civic walks all over its EPA numbers.

The other piece is Ethanol, the EPA test is done with pure gasoline, premium no less. I suspect the latter is the reason people report disappointing fuel economy with the Mazda Skyactive engines on regular, but it improves on premium.

Using DIT engines is effectively gaming the system. Yielding high window sticker numbers which are very hard to achieve in the real world. DIT engines stay close to stoichiometric at the granny slow acceleration rates specified in the EPA test, but go very rich very fast once boost is applied. This wasn't such a problem with old-school port injected turbo engines because the boost threshold was up at 3,000 RPM, high enough you don't even get there in regular driving. Now with DIT engines making boost at 1,500 RPM, boost is available at any time, and people use it, often.
gpshumway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 12:28 PM   #41
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

Nothing complicated about any of this, the faster you go the harder it is to push your vehicle along through the air.

good thing my truck is cuts through the air like Damascus Steel!.... (HAHAHAHAHAH)
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 02:26 PM   #42
4S-TURBO
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: NWIC<-1<3->BAIC
Vehicle:
'14 Twatever fits
in your narrowtive...

Default

At 75 mph my MKV GTI would get 35 mpg, which was higher than their highway EPA estimates of 32 mpg at probably a lot slower pace. And those GTI's would dyno right where their EPA rated figures were...everything about that car was an utter mistake. lol
4S-TURBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2014, 09:01 PM   #43
FaastLegacy
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 11671
Join Date: Oct 2001
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skywaffles View Post
30ish city, a solid 40 highway (sometimes much higher, 65+ kills it), and right now 34.8 (on the relatively accurate computer) combined with about 65% city.
My Focus exceeded it's rating when I drove it on a regular basis as well. I saw 40+ mpg on a road trip to Tuscon. Normal mixed driving in ****ty bumper to bumper 101 traffic still got me 34ish mpg. The car is only rated at 30 mixed.
FaastLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.