Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Monday October 20, 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 11-27-2012, 12:31 PM   #2426
jd_24
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 318301
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Minnesota
Vehicle:
2012 CVT Sport Prem
Ice Silver Metalic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vwgti123 View Post
Is anyone else shockingly surprised how horrible the MPG's on this car are? I thought it was just me but the more I read I feel I am not the only one. I saw another thread about stop complaining about MPG's but I have not seen anyone nearing anything close to even 33 MPG???

Seems like a bait and switch or something that we are really doing wrong? I never used to even think about winter vs. summer and gas blends.. just how I drove? Thoughts?

In the summer I typically got 35 to 37mpg. Now in the winter (roughly 12 degrees F the last two mornings) I'm getting around 31 to 33 mpg. Theses are calculated numbers and not from the display. My current tank has a displayed value of 33.6mpg and that has been with lots of cargo, cold temps, and wind. I've yet to have a tank of gas average under 30mpg. This is with 10% ethanol fuel year round too.

My old outback (2001) had similar mpg behavior. It was rated at 27 highway and i typically got 27 to 28 in the summer and then 23 to 25 in the winter.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
jd_24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 01:36 PM   #2427
jay25RS
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4273
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: CT
Vehicle:
2011 GR-STI
& 2015 Legacy Ltd.

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy1100 View Post
is it too complicated to test it for us? I want to know if it changed by the same amount or not.
Nope, it's not too complicated; I just don't understand how you think that one can change (from changing a variable; in this case the overall tire circumference) without affecting the other. I also don't have any baseline from how my car was with the stock tires and since one car can be different from the next one I'm failing at comprehending the usefulness of any additional data that I can gather until I switch my wheels/tires back next spring.
jay25RS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 02:47 PM   #2428
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay25RS View Post
Nope, it's not too complicated; I just don't understand how you think that one can change (from changing a variable; in this case the overall tire circumference) without affecting the other. I also don't have any baseline from how my car was with the stock tires and since one car can be different from the next one I'm failing at comprehending the usefulness of any additional data that I can gather until I switch my wheels/tires back next spring.
curious if it is a direct correlation or not i guess. i haven't been able to figure out yet how the speedometer is perfect and yet the odometer is off. usually it is the other way around
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 03:01 PM   #2429
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

Well obv subaru measures velocity with infrared lasers to gauge speed of ground movement, while odometer is based off wheel rotations.
myrt1987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 08:57 PM   #2430
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 flyboy1100 View Post
is it too complicated to test it for us? I want to know if it changed by the same amount or not.
No, it's just basically stoopid. If you increase tire size by 5% then the odometer and speedometer drop by 5%. If they are x percent off from the other, they will always be x off from the other no matter what the tire diameter.

If the odometer is fast, the car would show it is getting *better* mpg than what it says when it is accurate.

My odometer is about 3% slow, but my speedometer is within 1% (as close as can be read with an analog dial).
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 09:07 PM   #2431
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 myrt1987 View Post
Well obv subaru measures velocity with infrared lasers to gauge speed of ground movement, while odometer is based off wheel rotations.
I thought it was UV lasers. Oh well, you learn something new every day.

On my Sport, the tire size is 205/50/17, for a diameter of 25.1 inches. Tread depth is one quarter inch. That means that if I drive on the tires until bald, the odometer and speedometer will increase by about 2% from where they are now.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 09:35 PM   #2432
ST Eye
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 73068
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MD
Vehicle:
2008 STI Boost Wagon
2014 Honda Accord Hybrid

Default

Lasers? What are you guys talking about?
ST Eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 09:44 PM   #2433
hemophilic
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 301213
Join Date: Nov 2011
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Raleigh, NC
Vehicle:
2012 Imp. Sp. Ltd.
Blue/Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ST Eye View Post
Lasers? What are you guys talking about?
How Subaru's measure ground speed, duh.
hemophilic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 09:49 PM   #2434
ST Eye
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 73068
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MD
Vehicle:
2008 STI Boost Wagon
2014 Honda Accord Hybrid

Default

Wow I am gullible!
ST Eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 02:45 AM   #2435
lymphomaniac
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 334451
Join Date: Oct 2012
Chapter/Region: VIC
Location: YVR
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza2.0i CVT
DGM (sedan)

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lymphomaniac View Post
6th fuel up:

Distance travelled to date - 2546 km (approx 1582 miles)
47.127 litres (12.45 US gallons) for 487.1 km (302.7 miles), 9.675 l/100km (24.31 MPG). Meter reading was 9.0 l/100km (26.135 MPG)
Average over all fuel-ups: 257.365 litres (67.99 US gallons) for 2546 km travelled (1582 miles) = 10.109 l/100km (23.27 MPG)

Approx. 80% in craptastic city traffic.
7th fuel up:

Distance travelled to date - 3026 km (approx 1880 miles)
41.688 litres (11.01 US gallons) for 480.4 km (298.5 miles), 8.678 l/100km (27.10 MPG). Meter reading was 8.0 l/100km (29.4 MPG)
Average over all fuel-ups: 299.053 litres (79.00 US gallons) for 3026 km travelled (1880 miles) = 9.883 l/100km (23.80 MPG)

Approx. 60% in craptastic city traffic (got to do some highway driving ).
lymphomaniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 09:40 PM   #2436
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 ST Eye View Post
Wow I am gullible!
That explains why you think the cvt Imprezas get reasonable mpg compared to the EPA estimate! You are a victim of the lowbrow tag team zeepfly!
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 09:42 PM   #2437
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 lymphomaniac View Post
Approx. 60% in craptastic city traffic (got to do some highway driving ).
Better find a low volume road so you don't get run over if you're going to try to increase your mpg's...
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 10:58 PM   #2438
John451
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 321966
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sydneys South, Australia
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza 2.0i H
Black Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post
I thought it was UV lasers.
UV Lasers are only used to blind Birds and kill Vampires....
John451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 11:44 AM   #2439
pxpaulx
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 306218
Join Date: Jan 2012
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza CVT
DarK Grey Met. Sport Prem

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saabarupp View Post
No bait and switch. The EPA test does not include conditions where the Impreza tends to be particularly inefficient (i.e. cold start, short trips, bumper to bumper, hooning it).
A agree no bait and switch, however the original epa city test does account for cold starts (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml). The new 'cold temperature' portion of testing also is done from a cold vehicle start (I guess according to the site link above the cold temperature test is just the city test at a colder outside temperature 20f vs 68-86f).
pxpaulx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 02:34 PM   #2440
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 pxpaulx View Post
A agree no bait and switch, however the original epa city test does account for cold starts (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml). The new 'cold temperature' portion of testing also is done from a cold vehicle start (I guess according to the site link above the cold temperature test is just the city test at a colder outside temperature 20f vs 68-86f).
That test is weighted into the overall averages they get from their other testing, and is 30 minutes long, so although they initially start with a cold engine, it warms up over the 30 minute test -- so as you pointed out it is mostly testing performance in cold weather, not really reflecting people who only drive short distances starting with a cold engine each time.

For that type of driving, plenty of owners have given their numbers and most report the new impreza is not the best car for those conditions, to say the least, and the CVT may be worse than the 5spd, because of when the torque converter locks up (or doesn't).
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 02:47 PM   #2441
Angelus911
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 89967
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: MA
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Sport
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post
That explains why you think the cvt Imprezas get reasonable mpg compared to the EPA estimate! You are a victim of the lowbrow tag team zeepfly!
You can easily get the advertised mpg if you drive in line with the EPA guidelines. When you're going 70 or 80 mph, air drag goes up exponentially and your mpg drop drastically. How is that hard to understand?
Angelus911 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 02:56 PM   #2442
sgoldste01
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 322264
Join Date: Jun 2012
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Webster, NY
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Sp 5sp
Obs Blk Prl/Drk Gray Mtl

Default

All cars get relatively crappy MPGs while the engine is warming up, and when only making short trips that don't allow the engine to run warm for an extended portion of the trip (well, I guess an EV would be an exception to this rule).

Even my VW TDI, which was an MPG rock star, would get poor fuel economy (relative to its normal average) during the first 5-10 miles of a trip.
sgoldste01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 03:39 PM   #2443
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 Angelus911 View Post
You can easily get the advertised mpg if you drive in line with the EPA guidelines. When you're going 70 or 80 mph, air drag goes up exponentially and your mpg drop drastically. How is that hard to understand?
Zeepfly to the rescue!

He is an engineer but does not believe in this:

http://www.mpgforspeed.com/

Which is hilarious, actually, because he tested his car with a scangauge and saw 36mpg at 65mph, but complains that when he drives an average speed of 70mph+ he cannot achieve that. No kidding.

Last edited by Zeeper; 11-29-2012 at 05:31 PM.
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 06:22 PM   #2444
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelus911 View Post
You can easily get the advertised mpg if you drive in line with the EPA guidelines. When you're going 70 or 80 mph, air drag goes up exponentially and your mpg drop drastically. How is that hard to understand?
because his 8yr old ****box that weighs 900lbs less (2200lbs total), with less HP and FWD only can. and because his ****box can, obviously every single vehicle produced should be able to do the same, no matter what logic or physics would indicate to a normal person.
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 06:40 PM   #2445
Zauri
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 333487
Join Date: Sep 2012
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: MD
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza 4DR 2.0
Limited DGM CVT

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy1100 View Post
because his 8yr old ****box that weighs 900lbs less (2200lbs total), with less HP and FWD only can. and because his ****box can, obviously every single vehicle produced should be able to do the same, no matter what logic or physics would indicate to a normal person.
pretty much sums it up. even on average most of those fwd boxes cars could pull 27-30 mpgs city even in crap conditions... but as indicated.. with less power. weighing less, and being only fwd

Now the Impreza is rated at what 27 city? "Up to" 27 city. And I don't even think it has a minimum listed. (not the '12) at least. And to expect though yes it is advertised at that anyone would easily understand how coming in anywhere around 23-25 cold be reasonable.. Heck even 21 city though extremely low.

But to expect this car to sip gas like it's fwd counter parts is a bit much IMO.
Especially with the cvt (which seems to penalize you for simply trying to drive slow instead of getting up to speed and then coasting )
Zauri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 09:42 PM   #2446
stevehnm
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329526
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: SWIC
Location: Ground Control
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza Spt cvt
Silver

Default

I am amazed at the lack of ability of some people to understand that the mpg ratings by the EPA already consider the weight and drivetrain of the vehicle. Why else would they rate identical 2WD and AWD vehicles differently?

Chevy Equinox, Auto, 2.4 liter.
AWD:20/29/23
2WD:22/32/26.

Think about it.

P.S. I never said I got 36 mpg at 65 mph, not even on a two way constant flying mile (if you know what that is ZeepFly), let alone on a real road, which will be significantly less.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 10:01 PM   #2447
BigFatHorse
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 328167
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Utah
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza MT PZEV
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post
P.S. I never said I got 36 mpg at 65 mph, not even on a two way constant flying mile (if you know what that is ZeepFly), let alone on a real road, which will be significantly less.
If this is the case then I think something is wrong with either your car or mine as my car gets somewhere from 37 - 39 mpg at 65 mph.
BigFatHorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 10:16 PM   #2448
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 BigFatHorse View Post
If this is the case then I think something is wrong with either your car or mine as my car gets somewhere from 37 - 39 mpg at 65 mph.
How many miles do you have on yours? Is it a cvt or 5 speed?
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 10:17 PM   #2449
ST Eye
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 73068
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MD
Vehicle:
2008 STI Boost Wagon
2014 Honda Accord Hybrid

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post
That explains why you think the cvt Imprezas get reasonable mpg compared to the EPA estimate! You are a victim of the lowbrow tag team zeepfly!
What are you talking about?
ST Eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 10:18 PM   #2450
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 stevehnm View Post
I am amazed at the lack of ability of some people to understand that the mpg ratings by the EPA already consider the weight and drivetrain of the vehicle. Why else would they rate identical 2WD and AWD vehicles differently?

Chevy Equinox, Auto, 2.4 liter.
AWD:20/29/23
2WD:22/32/26.

Think about it.

P.S. I never said I got 36 mpg at 65 mph, not even on a two way constant flying mile (if you know what that is ZeepFly), let alone on a real road, which will be significantly less.
Oh you are right, you said you got 36mpg at 60mph

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post
These were two way runs on a flat and level road, no traffic, cruise control. Absolute best case.

36 mpg at 60,
31 mpg at 70,
26 mpg at 80.
Your scanguage pretty much reflects what the EPA testing reflects, since the EPA test the HWY number on your sticker is based upon is meant to simulate real world conditions, where the average speed limit is under 60mph.

MPG goes down with speed? You don't say... where have I seen that before?

http://www.mpgforspeed.com

Stupid government researchers, who are they to tell you the truth...
Zeeper 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 09:48 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.