Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Saturday August 23, 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 Subaru Models > Impreza Forum

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 07-05-2013, 02:13 AM   #4476
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

You are still confused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
So, no there is no direct relation to RPM'S and mpg's. Hope this helps clear things up for you.
Your definition of "direct relation" by which you apparently mean direct correlation is not only imprecise, but upside down. The correlation between rpm's and fuel consumption is positive, the correlation between mpg's and fuel consumption is negative (in fact, inverse) therefore the correlation between mpg's and rpm's is also negative.

Just try the simple experiment, without your increasing/decreasing speed variability which makes absolutely no sense in this discussion. Just set your cruise control and check your mpg in different gears at the same speed under the same conditions. That's all.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

Last edited by stevehnm; 07-05-2013 at 02:32 AM.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 08:33 AM   #4477
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post
You are still confused.

Your definition of "direct relation" by which you apparently mean direct correlation is not only imprecise, but upside down. The correlation between rpm's and fuel consumption is positive, the correlation between mpg's and fuel consumption is negative (in fact, inverse) therefore the correlation between mpg's and rpm's is also negative.

Just try the simple experiment, without your increasing/decreasing speed variability which makes absolutely no sense in this discussion. Just set your cruise control and check your mpg in different gears at the same speed under the same conditions. That's all.
OMG- you need more friends.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:26 AM   #4478
ICE_NY
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 324263
Join Date: Jun 2012
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: New York, NY
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Sport

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myrt1987 View Post
Last fillup



Last 7k+ miles



I think Ive earned this one:

@myrt1987 Have you done the hand calculation for these? How does it translate in relation to what the OBC says?
Mine is usually off by 1 to 2 MPG but the closer to empty I get in a tank, the more accurate it is. My OBC has been spot on a couple of times.

Also, what percentage of your commute is highway? I have no problem matching the 36 MPGs/Highway in my commute, but the city driving really takes a toll on these cars. I consistently average 30 to 33 MPGs hand calculated.
ICE_NY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:32 AM   #4479
Zeeper
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 299286
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Albany NY
Vehicle:
2012 Sport 5MT
Green/Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myrt1987 View Post
Last fillup



Last 7k+ miles



I think Ive earned this one:
Sorry,

Stevenhnm has already proven your numbers are all mathematically impossible in normal driving with a CVT, therefore, it must mean your dash display, photos, and gasoline bill have all been photoshopped.

Or do you only drive it downhill on Sundays at 40 mph?
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 11:21 AM   #4480
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
OMG- you need more friends.
LOL. Good Comeback (not).

Thanks, but I'll pass on your kind of friends. Your daddy buy you your vette, or were you "working" for him and that's how you bought it?

You might try a community college: Go for logic 101, statistics 101, etc.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 11:23 AM   #4481
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeper View Post
Sorry,

Stevenhnm has already proven your numbers are all mathematically impossible in normal driving with a CVT, therefore, it must mean your dash display, photos, and gasoline bill have all been photoshopped.

Or do you only drive it downhill on Sundays at 40 mph?
Or, make sure your "Grandma on Board" placard is visible - If I were you I'd get the large one, and keep my flashers on anyway...



P.S. Zeeper talk to G2 - maybe you two can help each other in those basic logic and math classes.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 11:39 AM   #4482
Zeeper
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 299286
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Albany NY
Vehicle:
2012 Sport 5MT
Green/Silver

Default

Love how your math is so good that you switch over to argumentum ad hominem instantly.

The refuge of a weak mind, you seem very comfortable with it.

Now how's about you show us again your "math", proving:
  1. CVT's cannot return EPA HWY mpg's in normal driving (seems like quite a few people are exceeding those numbers, or are they ALL grandma drivin', photoshopping, lying liars?)
  2. 5 speeds return higher highway mpg's than CVT's...
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 12:29 PM   #4483
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post

LOL. Good Comeback (not).

Thanks, but I'll pass on your kind of friends. Your daddy buy you your vette, or were you "working" for him and that's how you bought it?

You might try a community college: Go for logic 101, statistics 101, etc.
Like I said, there is no direct correlation between the two. I'm glad you researched it and again proved my point. Spin on my friend, but all you are doing is agreeing that there is not a direct correlation between rpm and mpg.

I'm 40, have 2 degrees, 3 businesses currently that I started from scratch. I've sold a couple I started before I was 25. I'm married to a woman, have 2 kids that have learned respect at an early age and both are in gifted classes in school. I was pre-med, then became a physical therapist before I started my first business developing technologies enabling persons with disabilities to be more independent. The newest business will go public soon.

You want me to go on and on? I've made lots of money so far. However, I don't like to flaunt it. Money is an evil necessity, and one I dont like to focus much on. I have accountants that handle that for me. I havnt even mentioned the nicer cars I have. Like I said before, my favorite thus far is my scoobie. Nobody presumes anything about me driving it, and I adore the little car.

Then there are people like you- who are single handily giving this forum a bad name. It's a shame that others on here have to be exposed to your posts and rants. Your missing something in your life, and I hope you find it some day. But, hopefully its after you've been removed from this forum too.

Last edited by G2Spfld; 07-05-2013 at 12:48 PM.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 03:32 PM   #4484
tmass
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 347679
Join Date: Feb 2013
Default

2012 sport premium 2.0i I average about 27 most highwayabout what I got with my previous foresters if you want mpg don't get it high speed(80) with kayaks ( creek boat or two) from md to wv I usually average 19 ish. I HATE THIS CAR it is hands down the worst Subaru I have ever owned
94 legeacy 2.2l front wheel
99 forester
03 forester
01 forester
I am going to get rid of it nosy as hell on the road underpowered and aneamic driving poor seats terrible blue tooth can hear probably because the radio sucks and I have to take 3 minutes to repair it to my phone ever time I start up the car
tmass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 05:04 PM   #4485
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
Like I said, there is no direct correlation between the two. I'm glad you researched it and again proved my point. Spin on my friend, but all you are doing is agreeing that there is not a direct correlation between rpm and mpg.
I agree there is not a direct correlation between rpm and mpg. However, there is a positive correlation between rpm and fuel consumption. It appears you still don't understand the very basic math involved in that concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
Then there are people like you- who are single handily giving this forum a bad name.
Sorry if you think injecting reality into a forum is "giving it a bad name". I disagree. I wasn't aware Kumbaya was in the forum title. I don't think by honestly bringing up the mpg problem with the CVT I am giving it a bad name. In fact, I think the continued attacks by a very few here on those who bring up their concerns is what is giving it a bad name, driving away honest people with legitimate gripes that Subaru should be addressing. I also am not "single handily" (sic) giving this forum a bad name. I think those attackers I mentioned a couple of sentences back are the vocal minority doing that.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 06:08 PM   #4486
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post

I agree there is not a direct correlation between rpm and mpg. However, there is a positive correlation between rpm and fuel consumption. It appears you still don't understand the very basic math involved in that concept.

Sorry if you think injecting reality into a forum is "giving it a bad name". I disagree. I wasn't aware Kumbaya was in the forum title. I don't think by honestly bringing up the mpg problem with the CVT I am giving it a bad name. In fact, I think the continued attacks by a very few here on those who bring up their concerns is what is giving it a bad name, driving away honest people with legitimate gripes that Subaru should be addressing. I also am not "single handily" (sic) giving this forum a bad name. I think those attackers I mentioned a couple of sentences back are the vocal minority doing that.
I'm glad you agree with the only point I made, no direct correlation between rpm and mpg. I understand the rest of it, and it was never called into question.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 12:22 AM   #4487
myrt1987
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 323103
Join Date: Jun 2012
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: toms river, nj
Vehicle:
2012 Limited 2.0i
Dreamy Gray Mistress

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE_NY View Post
@myrt1987 Have you done the hand calculation for these? How does it translate in relation to what the OBC says?
Mine is usually off by 1 to 2 MPG but the closer to empty I get in a tank, the more accurate it is. My OBC has been spot on a couple of times.

Also, what percentage of your commute is highway? I have no problem matching the 36 MPGs/Highway in my commute, but the city driving really takes a toll on these cars. I consistently average 30 to 33 MPGs hand calculated.
Calculation usually is 1.5 lower, but odometer is proven to be slow on these cars so the real number is somewhere between the hand-calc and display.

Its probably about 75% highway for 3.5 hours a day. Its not about driving slow as much as just efficient driving. Like long coasts to red lights, steady acceleration, limiting the use of the brake pedal, etc.
myrt1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 03:01 PM   #4488
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
I'm glad you agree with the only point I made, no direct correlation between rpm and mpg. I understand the rest of it, and it was never called into question.
I still don't think you get it. rpm and mpg are negatively correlated. rpm and fuel consumption rate are positively (or in your language, "directly") correlated.

Last edited by stevehnm; 07-06-2013 at 03:08 PM.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 04:03 PM   #4489
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post

I still don't think you get it. rpm and mpg are negatively correlated. rpm and fuel consumption rate are positively (or in your language, "directly" correlated).
Here you go again- the problem is you don't know what you don't know. A positive correlation is two variables raising ( positive values) together. A negative correlation would be one raising as one decreases. Actually, in context , your example is this:
X= RPM
Y= MPG
Negative correlation would be:
X+1 = Y-1

Positive correlation as you described above:
X=RPM
Y= Fuel consumption

X+1=Y+1

"1" is for explanation only, it could be any number for explanation purposes

You derive this subjectively, which for an engineer ( if that's what you are, I'm just guessing) is kind of a reach. Your data acquisition is putting your car on cruise and watching the instant mpg readout as you vary the gears. I'm taking this info from your posts as you wrote them.

Lets review what I said initially- " there is not necessarily a direct correlation between RPM and MPG".

You found fault with that, then agreed with it, then faulted it again explaining that I don't know what in talking about, among other things like me being uneducated, my daddy bought my vette, etc.

My point is this, there is not a direct correlation positive or negative between rpm and mpg. Yes, they are related, however watching the readout and shifting gears hardly qualifies as any basis for argument. The computer in the car ( ECU if your not following) reads sensors, and makes calculations. It reads TPS ( throttle position sensor) to read the direct input we give it. Our expectation of it if you will. Like I said earlier, I can rev the engine up and TPS read 10-15% without much load and injector pulses et al are less than 2500 RPM for instance, at TPS reading WOT. In fact, at the bottom end I load it up much more, much quicker to help spool up turbo and get the car going. There are many factors involved with the mapping, not just rpm and mpg, which I know you understand that. Either you don't understand, or don't think I do, so you continue to draw direct correlations where there are none. Maybe you can replicate it per your example, however you agree the mpg avg indicator is less than accurate, so its a little odd you base this off of the same system. Per your definition, one would never worry about lean or rich conditions. If the rpm increases, then the fuel burn increases positively, as rpm increases mpg is negatively correlated. If you drive the car hard at higher TPS readings then the only correlation is mpg will suffer. That wasn't the point. You can increase rpm with less TPS readings and not have a big negative impact of mpg. If you still don't understand that, build yourself a car with a stand alone EMS and generate your own maps. Most people who arnt familiar with this will not understand I guess, I didn't until I learned from my engine builder. It gets much more involved than I even described, ambient air temp, etc, etc, etc.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 06:41 PM   #4490
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Wait, what turbo?
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 07:45 PM   #4491
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy1100 View Post
Wait, what turbo?
My other cars are turbo cars. Those have stand alone ECUs. Turbo or not, basically the same just without having to worry about boost. Obviously these imprezas are not like the WRX or sti versions where you do have open tuning capabilities, however limited they might be. I havnt looked at a Subaru WRX or sti map yet, so I'm not sure what variables are available to tune. I know in other threads on this forum you will find this info. I use Autronic and AEM ECU's in a few of my cars. They are pretty much 100% tune from scratch.

Last edited by G2Spfld; 07-06-2013 at 08:18 PM.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 08:42 PM   #4492
goregasm
*** Banned ***
 
Member#: 331656
Join Date: Sep 2012
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i
Marine Blue Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myrt1987 View Post
Last fillup



Last 7k+ miles



I think Ive earned this one:
How did you get the digital gauge (the one with fuel left and mileage) to be black with white lettering/symbols? Is it just that way on the sport? If so, seems stupid... why would subaru change something that little?
goregasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2013, 09:01 PM   #4493
myrt1987
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 323103
Join Date: Jun 2012
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: toms river, nj
Vehicle:
2012 Limited 2.0i
Dreamy Gray Mistress

Default

Thats the way it came. Its not a sport, its a limited sedan.
myrt1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2013, 10:54 AM   #4494
apollo_f1
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 230535
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mountlake Terrace, WA
Vehicle:
2013 Sport Prem. MT
Dark Grey Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkMasta View Post
Bring your sunscreen, going to be hot in keremeos!

Let us know your mileage, its similar distance to keremeos for me, would be interesting to compare.
I filled up in Lynden, WA on the way up and again in Princeton for the return trip, and my MPGs came out at 32.7. This included the "around town" bits too. I'm liking the results, seeing as the trip from Hope to Princeton is very hilly. I haven't filled up since I got home so I don't know what the return trip was like.
apollo_f1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2013, 02:28 PM   #4495
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Just did 1746 miles and averaged 30.8 for the trip. All highway at 75mph except 200 around wichita lots of idling and 100+f temps, that tank was 24.8

I'm pleased
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2013, 09:03 AM   #4496
hemophilic
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 301213
Join Date: Nov 2011
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Raleigh, NC
Vehicle:
2012 Imp. Sp. Ltd.
Blue/Silver

Default

Latest fillup was pretty disappointing. Trip indicated 29.4, actual was 26.8. I've never had that big of a gap before.
hemophilic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2013, 09:10 AM   #4497
Caocao
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 330507
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ottawa
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Ltd CVT
White

Default

Anything different in your driving routine?
Caocao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2013, 12:01 PM   #4498
Zeeper
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 299286
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Albany NY
Vehicle:
2012 Sport 5MT
Green/Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hemophilic View Post
Latest fillup was pretty disappointing. Trip indicated 29.4, actual was 26.8. I've never had that big of a gap before.
if you are calculating off the pump there is enough variability on when the pump shuts off that you should ignore individual fill ups and look at average over time.

So this one might have been worse than normal, while the previous seemed better than normal, just because of when the gas pump shut off.

At least consider the possibility...
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2013, 08:08 PM   #4499
hemophilic
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 301213
Join Date: Nov 2011
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Raleigh, NC
Vehicle:
2012 Imp. Sp. Ltd.
Blue/Silver

Default

Part of the tank was a return leg of a beach trip last weekend. 120 miles at 75mph. The rest was typical commute. It was originally getting between 1 and 1.5 mpg optimistic. Seems to be edging up over time.

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/hemophilic/impreza
hemophilic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2013, 02:16 PM   #4500
jay25RS
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4273
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: CT
Vehicle:
2011 GR-STI
& 2014 Legacy Ltd.

Default

I just got a hand calculated 31 MPG. about 70-75 mph mostly highway 90+ degrees with 2 people and luggage A/C blasting. Prior to getting off the highway, the dash calculated value was over 34mpg.

I'm at about 30mpg now mostly city (my normal work commute) with high heat and A/C running.

jay25RS 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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Impreza owner, low mpg? stuffedcabbage Newbies & FAQs 34 09-25-2012 10:10 PM
2012 Impreza Reviewed - Whytecliff to Seymour brendan_mac Vancouver Impreza Club Forum -- VIC 16 12-23-2011 01:12 PM
NJ Impreza owners - sighting Dan G General Forum Archive 76 10-06-2000 12:24 AM
Md or Va Impreza owners - I have an Impreza related question. Snoopy General Forum Archive 1 06-05-2000 08:08 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:23 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.