|
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
09-09-2013, 08:52 AM | #701 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region:
SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:2013 Impreza Spt cvt Silver |
Quote:
That would be the pot calling the kettle black. Explain to us again how you know so much about real world fuel economy with a CVT? Why, exactly, do you feel you're an expert on the problem?
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
|
|
09-09-2013, 09:21 AM | #702 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 299286
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region:
NESIC
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:2017 Legacy Limited White |
Quote:
The EPA testing, done by Subaru according to the mandated EPA testing procedures, provide estimated MPG's. The tested 36 HWY MPG is not a guarantee, it is an estimate. There are many CVT/NASIOC members who are achieving the EPA numbers -- mainly 'cause they profess to drive under 70mph on the highway (your definition of grandmother?). So no problem, the only problem is the driver who expects a guaranteed 36mpg or better at 80mph up steep grades (that's you). Since you think this reply is ad hominem, please do me a favor and point out where I personally insulted you, instead of your wrongheaded claims? Last edited by Zeeper; 09-09-2013 at 09:26 AM. |
|
09-10-2013, 09:20 PM | #703 | |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 335945
Join Date: Oct 2012
Chapter/Region:
Tri-State
Location: West Islip NY
Vehicle:2013 Sport Limited Satin White Pearl |
Quote:
|
|
09-12-2013, 08:09 PM | #704 | ||
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region:
SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:2013 Impreza Spt cvt Silver |
Quote:
Quote:
So don't hold your breath... |
||
09-12-2013, 09:48 PM | #705 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:2013 Imp Sport CVT SWP |
Party Foul ;-)
|
09-13-2013, 06:32 AM | #706 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 313575
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Vehicle:2012 Impreza 2.0i HB |
Quote:
I have a CVT where i get more than acceptable mileage without slowing down to get my numbers. i hit EPA Highway numbers driving 65-70MPH, which is well within EPA spec. my beef (which is nothing i would ever take up with EPA or SOA is that this car takes a long time to warm up and eats up a lot of fuel those first 5miles after being started, relative to other cars i've owned) |
|
09-13-2013, 07:52 AM | #707 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region:
SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:2013 Impreza Spt cvt Silver |
That's zeeper's straw man right there. It doesn't matter. EPA estimates are for comparison. That means that two cars rated the same should get the same mpg in similar circumstances. "Your mileage may vary".
What has been demonstrated is that the CVT does not get the same mpg as other vehicles rated the same. In fact the first post in this thread shows how all the other cars Consumer Reports tested that get the same real world highway mpg as the 36 highway EPA rated Impreza CVT are rated in a very tight group around 30 mpg. That means that in the real world the Impreza CVT should be rated at around 30 mpg highway. The EPA test is an artificial, tightly controlled and easy to calibrate for procedure. It's not done while actually driving. |
09-13-2013, 08:01 AM | #708 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:2013 Imp Sport CVT SWP |
Dr, it hurts when I do this...
Well, if it hurts stop doing it, Dr says If I did, I'd have nothing to complain about in 98% of my posts on the Subaru forum |
09-13-2013, 08:09 AM | #709 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 299286
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region:
NESIC
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:2017 Legacy Limited White |
Quote:
1) You did not reference a 4X4 truck 2) Stevenhmn's car cannot drive at the speeds referenced, it is either 80mph or 50mph Please folks, if you drive a CVT and are happy with your mpg's, try to keep your posts relevant! Last edited by Zeeper; 09-13-2013 at 08:16 AM. |
|
09-15-2013, 03:02 AM | #710 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region:
SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:2013 Impreza Spt cvt Silver |
|
09-15-2013, 07:14 AM | #711 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 299286
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region:
NESIC
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:2017 Legacy Limited White |
|
09-15-2013, 09:02 AM | #712 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 301213
Join Date: Nov 2011
Chapter/Region:
South East
Location: Raleigh, NC
Vehicle:2012 Imp. Sp. Ltd. Blue/Silver |
Steve, have you tried running 93 octane E0 in your car yet? The EPA uses that for testing purposes. I noticed a 9% increase in MPG by spending 5% more on 89 vs 87. Maybe 93 would be worth it for you?
|
09-15-2013, 10:58 PM | #713 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 209172
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Omaha, NE
Vehicle:2012 Impreza CLL BL2 |
Would think that EPA tests would use 87 octane E0 as that is the recommended fuel??? E10 is another matter.
|
09-16-2013, 05:41 AM | #714 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 330507
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ottawa
Vehicle:2015 Jetta TDI Pure White |
I agree, this doesn't sound right.
|
09-16-2013, 05:43 AM | #715 |
Scooby Guru
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:2012 2.0i Sport 5MT DGM |
|
09-16-2013, 08:14 AM | #716 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region:
SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:2013 Impreza Spt cvt Silver |
Quote:
I'm trying to get some 85 or 87 E0 to check, but haven't convinced myself to drive out of my way for it... |
|
09-16-2013, 09:23 AM | #717 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 301213
Join Date: Nov 2011
Chapter/Region:
South East
Location: Raleigh, NC
Vehicle:2012 Imp. Sp. Ltd. Blue/Silver |
Their reasoning is that all cars should be tested with the same gas to make the comparison closer. Theoretically this is plausible but in practice it isn't very useful. Civic/Corolla regularly beat estimates even with $*** gas but our Imps only meet them (or not, or slightly above). I think this methodology is completely flawed considering there are so many variables. It would be better to just drive the damn things on a known loop to generate real world data (a la consumer reports, mpgomatic, etc). At least, it would be more informative for consumers. I don't think the automakers would.be able to game that system as easily. For example, the Ford Cmax had to be recalculated because according to epa rules they used the fusion hybrid numbers. Same powertrain equals same mpg right?? F********* duh. It's such a shell game. And I didn't realise how bad it was until I got my Imp and wondered why it wasn't getting mpg equal to my 03 Civic (Imp is actually rated slightly better). Now I have to buy mid grade to get Civic numbers...
|
09-16-2013, 11:25 AM | #718 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:2013 Imp Sport CVT SWP |
Quote:
Not to dis anyone, but its a little like saying, I received an "A" on my math test, so I went and took a chemistry test and only received a "B". I didn't do my homework for my chemistry test before I took it, but some other school posted answers to their chemistry test and their math test. And since I received an "A" on the math, I should also receive an "A" on the chemistry test. I will admit, I didn't study the imp that much for actual mpg, but it was high enough I didn't care. I wanted a hatch with reliability and awd that did well on mpg. The fwd cars should get better. When my co installs a surveillance system, clients ask us how big of a HDD to buy in their DVR. The question is usually, how many days worth of recording time can I get with a 1TB drive? Well, I could say I have a client with 12 cameras getting 5 days worth if recording. That would be true. I could say I have one that now gets on avg 148 days with 12 cameras. That would also be true. Fact is, its the same client. He started recording 24/7, then transitioned to motion based activity recording. It's the same dvr, same 12 cameras, we just started driving it the speedlimit and conserved more. It achieved far more recording time. The point is, maybe the awd 2.0 imp is more susceptible to reduced mpg from driving conditions and fuel grades, heavy or skinny drivers, roof racks, etc than some others, but those others are not awd subaru's either. However you chose to qualify that, it has to be part of it. Maybe there needs to be a classification for 36 mpg awd cars only. Then its more of a level playing field. Otherwise I could compare my road bike with my motorcycle since they are both bikes with two wheels and someone sitting on top. |
|
09-16-2013, 09:22 PM | #719 | |||||
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 301213
Join Date: Nov 2011
Chapter/Region:
South East
Location: Raleigh, NC
Vehicle:2012 Imp. Sp. Ltd. Blue/Silver |
Not to dis anyone but:
Quote:
Emissions requirements argument can go two ways and only two ways. Either the testing procedure is flawed and doesn't account for emissions equipment or it's factored in to the end result MPG numbers. I highly doubt the former but if it doesn't then what good is the test?? Quote:
If we're going for analogies it's more like I bought a #2 pencil (sticking with the school theme) and I liked the way the lead glides across the paper I always buy. Later I decide to try another makers #2 pencil that has a fatter lead and longer eraser and a comfy grip. But wait a minute, this doesn't glide quite like my old #2 pencil. Now it feels 10% grabbier on the paper. I'm not going to be super upset with the new pencil but I will be often aware of how slightly different it feels even if it isn't a deal breaker because gosh golly the grip is comfy and I can write faster. Amen! I'm not upset with the car. I LOVE my car. But I'm disappointed with the EXPECTATION set by the EPA estimate. Disappointed by about 10%. Precisely. But then why does the EPA rate them equally (or in this case versus an '03 civic, BETTER)? For reference the '03 Civic is rated 26city 34hwy and I normally got 29-31 on my daily commute that I've been doing for 5 years. With Misty (my beloved Sky Blue/Ice Silver '12 Sport Limited) I normally get 26-28. Only this last tank of mid-grade 89 (no idea the ethanol content) did I get within an inch of 29 on that commute. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I believe the EPA test system in its current form is less a CAR test and more a POWERTRAIN test. This is the only explanation for why the Ford CMAX was originally rated 47 and had to be revised down to 43. My evidence: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...-what-it-means "C-Max Hybrid not tested Ford said during the call that it had not actually tested the gas mileage of the C-Max Hybrid, but simply used the ratings from the 2013 Fusion Hybrid mid-size sedan instead. An EPA rule permits vehicles that use the same powertrain and are in the same weight class to use the ratings from tests of any single vehicle in the group without separate tests." So, the point is... How can you accept a test system that rates CarA 26/34 that produces 29-31 real-world while CarB is rated 27/36 that produces 26-28 real-world? Something just ain't right in Candy Land. There are only a few conclusions we can make: 1 - Subaru gamed the EPA test system a little bit so they could advertise slightly higher numbers. 2 - Honda tuned their car for real-world performance and paid a small price for it on the EPA test cycle. 3 - The EPA test is incapable of reproducibility that reflects real-world CAR performance. |
|||||
09-16-2013, 10:09 PM | #720 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 299286
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region:
NESIC
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:2017 Legacy Limited White |
Please keep in mind that the EPA changes their testing pretty often, and certainly the testing done in 2003 was markedly different than the testing done for 2012+ vehicles.
So emissions requirements have changed, and the testing has changed. That's life. Apples and Oranges... Now you can argue the previous testing was more accurate, or less accurate, but it does not matter. Subaru is required to do the testing the EPA tells them to do, that is what they do, that results in the printed MPG estimates on the window sticker. Nobody, including Consumer Reports, has started claiming Subaru improperly conducted the mandated EPA mpg testing. The only people who I have seen suggest that are a few anonymous NASIOC members. |
09-16-2013, 10:12 PM | #721 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:2013 Imp Sport CVT SWP |
I believe the EPA test is a slightly reworked emissions test to start with. It should be scrapped anyway and only use numbers based on real world driving. But again, for me it would just be a matter of principle as I'm happy with my mpg. This is the first car I've owned that gets mpg like this, less a couple that did well on hwy but poor in city ;-)
|
09-16-2013, 11:14 PM | #722 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region:
SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:2013 Impreza Spt cvt Silver |
Quote:
Further, in an attempt (again) to put to rest the fallacy of "sure, the Impreza is rated the same on the EPA test, but the AWD will always get worse mpg than the 2wd model" here's the proof it's not true - i.e. the EPA test compensates for that. First, go here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml and download the csv file. Then, sort the columns by year, model, and drive. Scroll down to find AWD vehicles, and close to that are typically the 2WD version. Compare identical vehicles with both AWD and 2WD - including displacement, tranny, with/without turbo etc. Now, if those who think the Impreza should get an advantage because it's AWD are right, the mpg estimates for the AWD and 2WD would be the same. They aren't. The 2WD is always higher - well, on every car I looked at anyway. Typically the difference was between 5 and 10%. That means that if there was a 2WD version of the Impreza (and 36 mpg highway was correct for the AWD version) the highway mpg would be around 38 mpg. The EPA changed their test procedure once, in 2008. I have seen no evidence of any other changes. However, those cars built before 2008 are renormed to the 2008 procedure, and that column is "highway08". The most precise measure, however, is "highway08U", or unrounded. Both the '04 Corolla manual and '03 Civic CVT were rated at 40 mpg when new, and are both rated at 36 mpg with the 2008 method (see files by year for original ratings). The bottom line is that the testing is done "for comparison purposes" and when the bias offset is taken out, the highway mpg from the EPA method is remarkably equivalent to the highway mpg from Consumer Reports. Which means the Impreza CVT should be rated at about 30 mpg highway, like the other cars that got the same real world test results as the Impreza. Of course those who don't or can't understand that but are full of hot air will just dismiss it... |
|
09-17-2013, 05:20 AM | #723 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:2013 Imp Sport CVT SWP |
Quote:
|
|
09-17-2013, 05:39 AM | #724 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region:
SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:2013 Impreza Spt cvt Silver |
Like I said, it depends on where you're coming from. If you have no reference except "worse" then of course the Impreza is "better".
Kind of like when a cave man finds a bigger cave and is happy for it, eh? |
09-17-2013, 06:17 AM | #725 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:2013 Imp Sport CVT SWP |
Rofl, I have several "caves" actually, and the main one is plenty big enough. You can talk down to me all you want. But, here is something maybe you should learn from this barbaric cave man, when I was tired of my mpg, I went out and bought vehicles that received much better mpg's. I did not get in the forum for the vehicle I drove and complain about it. I actually did something about it. Now, that is no longer an issue. It's really simple, you say this car will cost you an extra $5000 to drive, then trade it and get a Prius or something more fitting instead of just complaining about it. Negativity is not a very productive trait, even for an engineer.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|