Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday December 25, 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 09-09-2013, 09:52 AM   #701
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
Responding to an accusation of argumentum ad hominem with more argumentum ad hominem?
Lol

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.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2013, 10:21 AM   #702
Zeeper
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 299286
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:
2015 WRX CVT
White

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post
Lol

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?
First, your premise is wrong, there is no problem.

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 10:26 AM.
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 10:20 PM   #703
vwgti123
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 335945
Join Date: Oct 2012
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: West Islip NY
Vehicle:
2013 Sport Limited
Satin White Pearl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeper View Post
First, your premise is wrong, there is no problem.

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?

I would like you to answer his question? "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?" I have about 12k on my car and almost a year of ownership, I think that would qualify me to speak about the CVT, you not so much, can you agree with that? Good Ty
vwgti123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2013, 09:09 PM   #704
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
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?
Again, I'm not going to waste my time continually responding to your lies. As you can see I didn't have to go very far back...

Quote:
Originally Posted by vwgti123 View Post
I would like you to answer his question? "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?" I have about 12k on my car and almost a year of ownership, I think that would qualify me to speak about the CVT, you not so much, can you agree with that? Good Ty
It's been asked of him many times, but he has no answer except that a few people on this board are "happy" with their mpg (generally either comparing to a 3/4 ton pickup or slowing down to get the mpg...)

So don't hold your breath...
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2013, 10:48 PM   #705
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

Party Foul ;-)
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2013, 07:32 AM   #706
nubsub
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 313575
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza 2.0i HB

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post
It's been asked of him many times, but he has no answer except that a few people on this board are "happy" with their mpg (generally either comparing to a 3/4 ton pickup or slowing down to get the mpg...)

So don't hold your breath...
Ok, i'll keep this ride going...

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)

nubsub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2013, 08:52 AM   #707
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 nubsub View Post
i hit EPA Highway numbers driving _______
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.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2013, 09:01 AM   #708
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

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
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2013, 09:09 AM   #709
Zeeper
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 299286
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:
2015 WRX CVT
White

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nubsub View Post
Ok, i'll keep this ride going...

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)

I know that your experience with your CVT is completely invalid because:

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 09:16 AM.
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2013, 04:02 AM   #710
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
Please folks, if you drive a CVT and are happy with your mpg's, try to keep your posts relevant!
LOL. Analyze THAT!!!
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2013, 08:14 AM   #711
Zeeper
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 299286
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:
2015 WRX CVT
White

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post
LOL. Analyze THAT!!!
After analyzing your post I find it invalid.

Though you clearly have a CVT, you failed to meet one of the other tests of validity you proposed, because you failed to reference a 3/4 ton truck in your reply.

Please try again.
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2013, 10:02 AM   #712
hemophilic
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 301213
Join Date: Nov 2011
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Raleigh, NC
Vehicle:
2012 Imp. Sp. Ltd.
Blue/Silver

Default

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?
hemophilic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2013, 11:58 PM   #713
G-Omaha
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 209172
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Omaha, NE
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza CLL
BL2

Default

Would think that EPA tests would use 87 octane E0 as that is the recommended fuel??? E10 is another matter.
G-Omaha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 06:41 AM   #714
Caocao
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 330507
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ottawa
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Ltd CVT
White

Default

I agree, this doesn't sound right.
Caocao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 06:43 AM   #715
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Omaha View Post
Would think that EPA tests would use 87 octane E0 as that is the recommended fuel??? E10 is another matter.
It is a government agency....

And my sources for 87 e0 are drying up fast :-(
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 09:14 AM   #716
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 hemophilic View Post
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?
Yes, I use it when I happen to be near a station that sells it (Actually gas is generally 85/87/91 octane around here). I carry a pure-gas.org printout in my car. I do get 1-2 mpg better with it, but I'm not sure the Impreza engine can make full use of that high of an octane. Also for e.g. last week one day 91 octane E0 was $3.86/gallon and 85 E10 was $3.16/gallon, so there's a pretty big price spread. I'm also not sure how much octane requirements decrease with altitude - I've heard 1 point per thousand feet in elevation, but I think that's probably excessive, since at 6,000 feet (my average commute) it would mean 87 octane would be reduced to 81 octane!

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...
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 10:23 AM   #717
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 G-Omaha View Post
Would think that EPA tests would use 87 octane E0 as that is the recommended fuel??? E10 is another matter.
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...
hemophilic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 12:25 PM   #718
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hemophilic View Post

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...
I don't think your '03 civic had the emissions the new cars have, and ethanol wasn't very prevalent in 2003 as its being forced now.
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.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 10:22 PM   #719
hemophilic
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 301213
Join Date: Nov 2011
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Raleigh, NC
Vehicle:
2012 Imp. Sp. Ltd.
Blue/Silver

Default

Not to dis anyone but:

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
I don't think your '03 civic had the emissions the new cars have, and ethanol wasn't very prevalent in 2003 as its being forced now.
Ethanol or no ethanol is irrelevant considering I had the '03 Civic until the day I bought my '12 Impreza.
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:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
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.
Actually it's nothing like that. What you wrote above is a logical incongruity. While in your case they are both tests, the SUBJECT matters are very different. The subject at hand is about cars that use gas and have different consumption rates based on an identical driving pattern. I'm not sure the above applies even if I were comparing an '03 Civic to a 1800's steam locomotive.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
I wanted a hatch with reliability and awd that did well on mpg.
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%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
The fwd cars should get better.
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:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
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.
Again, a logical incongruity. We're not talking about the same car in two different use cases. We're talking about two different cars in the same use case. So, for your analogy of DVR gear, two DVR systems record the same video. The DVR with the higher advertised storage rate gets 148 days while the DVR with the lower advertised storage rate gets 162 days. Either the test to estimate capacity is faulty or the manufacturer is lying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
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.
I agree. Those factors should be qualified IN THE TESTING PROCEDURE by simply testing the vehicle. If the test misses those factors, what good is the test?

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
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.
Again, a logical incongruity. The whole point of a test system is reproducibility. The playing field is supposed to be level so that you can gauge whatever it is you are trying to test, be it cars, locomotives, or pencils. We want to know, very specifically, what are the efficiency differences between cars if all other factors are equal. The system is supposed to be able to plug in any car and spit out useful results.

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.
hemophilic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 11:09 PM   #720
Zeeper
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 299286
Join Date: Oct 2011
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:
2015 WRX CVT
White

Default

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.
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2013, 11:12 PM   #721
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

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 ;-)
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2013, 12:14 AM   #722
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 hemophilic View Post
Not to dis anyone but:

...

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.
Well put.

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...
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2013, 06:20 AM   #723
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

Well put.

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...
How about.... F*** **! I am not the one with an issue with my mpg. Im not searching thru anything. Besides, as much as everyone faults their test measures, the compensation measures for awd are 100% accurate? Guess it fits the argument.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2013, 06:39 AM   #724
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
This is the first car I've owned that gets mpg like this
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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
How about.... F*** **! I am not the one with an issue with my mpg. Im not searching thru anything.
Kind of like when a cave man finds a bigger cave and is happy for it, eh?
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2013, 07:17 AM   #725
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

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?
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.
G2Spfld 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 12:49 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.