Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Thursday July 10, 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.
View Poll Results: Manual vs CVT Impreza MPG
MT Pure Highway 20-22 1 1.92%
MT Pure Highway 23-25 1 1.92%
MT Pure Highway 26-28 2 3.85%
MT Pure Highway 29-31 3 5.77%
MT Pure Highway 32-34 1 1.92%
MT Pure Highway 35-37 5 9.62%
MT Pure Highway 38-40+ 2 3.85%
CVT Pure Highway 20-22 0 0%
CVT Pure Highway 23-25 0 0%
CVT Pure Highway 26-28 1 1.92%
CVT Pure Highway 29-31 3 5.77%
CVT Pure Highway 32-34 6 11.54%
CVT Pure Highway 35-37 5 9.62%
CVT Pure Highway 38-40+ 3 5.77%
MT Mixed 20-22 0 0%
MT Mixed 23-25 2 3.85%
MT Mixed 26-28 5 9.62%
MT Mixed 29-31 9 17.31%
MT Mixed 32-34 4 7.69%
MT Mixed 35-37 1 1.92%
MT Mixed 38-40+ 0 0%
CVT Mixed 20-22 0 0%
CVT Mixed 23-25 5 9.62%
CVT Mixed 26-28 10 19.23%
CVT Mixed 29-31 10 19.23%
CVT Mixed 32-34 2 3.85%
CVT Mixed 35-37 1 1.92%
CVT Mixed 38-40+ 0 0%
MT Pure City 17-19 0 0%
MT Pure City 20-22 0 0%
MT Pure City 23-25 4 7.69%
MT Pure City 26-28 3 5.77%
MT Pure City 29-31 1 1.92%
MT Pure City 32-34 0 0%
MT Pure City 35-37+ 0 0%
CVT Pure City 17-19 0 0%
CVT Pure City 20-22 1 1.92%
CVT Pure City 23-25 8 15.38%
CVT Pure City 26-28 2 3.85%
CVT Pure City 29-31 1 1.92%
CVT Pure City 32-34 0 0%
CVT Pure City 35-37+ 0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-23-2013, 11:36 PM   #76
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RJSoobs251 View Post
New poll for Real World MPG MT vs CVT Impreza. Please use this thread for posting real world MPG figures
Hmm, this exactly what I did.....
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
flyboy1100 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2013, 11:43 PM   #77
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
1)

Stevenhm, I recommend you (something irrelevant)
Zeeper, you have the weakest, most non-responsive, yet most verbose arguments of anyone on this board. Anyone with any sense of logic can see that.

I think I have you nailed down. You are either
1. A Subaru employee, or
2. Own a lot of stock in Subaru, or
3. Are Subaru's poster child for the Stockholm Syndrome.
Complete with irrational attacks on those who try to reason with you.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 07:11 AM   #78
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
Zeeper, you have the weakest, most non-responsive, yet most verbose arguments of anyone on this board. Anyone with any sense of logic can see that.

I think I have you nailed down. You are either
1. A Subaru employee, or
2. Own a lot of stock in Subaru, or
3. Are Subaru's poster child for the Stockholm Syndrome.
Complete with irrational attacks on those who try to reason with you.
Wow, you are wrong again on all 3 counts.
  1. I don't work for Subaru (but if they want to pay me to post on the forum, they can PM me!)
  2. I own mutual funds through Vanguard (so maybe I do have stock in Subaru through one of those funds, but I don't know about it?)
  3. I am not a stockholme syndrome sufferer, I love the car, the price was right, it handles great, and I get exactly the mileage I expect for the type of driving I do -- (you can re-read my stats for yesterdays 200 mile jaunt, apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit)

It is almost as if you think being wrong is being right?

At least all your posts share the same amount of incorrectness as those including these gems:
  1. That you have concluded the 5 speed gets better mileage than the CVT (this has been tested, on the same equipment the 5 speed and CVT produced different numbers - because they share the same engine, and the CVT is slightly heavier than the 5 speed, but everything else except for the transmission was identical, this has something to do with the gearing, rpm's at different speeds, the amount of drivetrain friction, all scientific mumbo jumbo that would probably not interest you - but the two very different results are printed on the window stickers for each model, and widely reported in all the Car magazines, on and Subaru's own website, so stop being so lazy and look it up)
  2. That Flyboy's multiple reports of mpg are wrong, so you omitted them to make the data more accurate. Then leaped to the conclusion that using roughly 30 drivers to estimate mileage for the 80,000 Impreza's on the road is very accurate and representative...and of course proves that 5 speeds are getting relatively better mileage than CVT's ... (that is quite a leap of faith, because it sure is not valid statistical analysis due to the sample size...)
  3. That the Average MPG on Fuelly is more important than recognizing that nearly all of cars returning the highest mpg's on fuelly, when the transmission is identified, are CVT's. Not to mention if you read the forums somewhat regularly, you will have read that many CVT owners wrote that they bought the CVT because they dislike driving a manual transmission in bumper to bumper traffic (the type of driving that returns the worst mileage overall)

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wow you would make a poster child for being wrong...

Now if I was suffering from paranoid delusion, as you appear to be, I would leap to the conclusion that you work for Honda, and they are afraid of the competition between the Civic and the Impreza, because the Impreza is clearly spanking the Civic, and you are here on the forums to try and stem the tide...

Now fess up, do you work for Honda?

Last edited by Zeeper; 03-24-2013 at 10:44 AM.
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 09:45 AM   #79
79letour
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 302570
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: dear old dixie
Vehicle:
2013 XV
DGM!

Default

One flaw in that- when has he vehemently defended a Honda product?
79letour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 10:40 AM   #80
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 79letour View Post
One flaw in that- when has he vehemently defended a Honda product?
By definition paranoid delusion is not rational. But I also said IF I suffered from it (as he appears to), that is what I might think about his forum posts...

But if it makes you feel better, he has praised a Toyota product, so if I was suffering from paranoid delusion, he would be here paid by Toyota to promote the corolla over the impreza...good luck, I imagine not many impreza owners wanted a corolla...

Last edited by Zeeper; 03-24-2013 at 10:46 AM.
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 10:55 AM   #81
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 79letour View Post
One flaw in that- when has he vehemently defended a Honda product?
A lot more than one flaw, but I won't get into them all because I could go all day and I have other things to do.

While it's true that I have owned one Honda, my ex-wife got it in the divorce around 15 years ago and just for the record I do not work for them.

One of the biggest flaws with zips arguments is when he lamely attempts to defend his theory that the CVT obviously gets better mpg when he says that it is more important to realize that nearly all of cars returning the highest mpg's on fuelly, when the transmission is identified, are CVT's.

Besides the fact that "highest" is a subjective term, he is referring to the fact that on the curves 5% of CVT owners get better mpg than 5% of MT owners, while ignoring that 95% of MT owners get better than 95% of CVT owners.

I must confess that I threw out another outlier (besides flyboy before), somebody with two fill-ups by the name of ronjr8102 who reported 48 mpg. That was 15 mpg higher than the #2 of 33 mpg. On one of those fill-ups he reported 89 mpg!

Here are the curves:
Xmission__ Average ___ Standard Deviation
CVT _______ 27.3 ________ 2.63
MT _______ 27.8 ________ 2.21

Then there's the fact that the only place the CVT gets better mpg than the MT is on the EPA test, which is what this discussion is all about anyway.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 11:19 AM   #82
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
Then there's the fact that the only place the CVT gets better mpg than the MT is on the EPA test, which is what this discussion is all about anyway.
See, there he goes again making up his own facts.

For example, I drove on the highway yesterday and my highway mpg was much less than some CVT drivers have reported for their highway drives.

In fact I have never come close to the numbers they are reporting, and that is with the cruise control set to the same speed they drive on the highway (hint, it is 65mph).

But that makes sense, since a CVT driven in the same way will yield higher mpg's, except in his mind (the sole exception to this might be short city drives with a cold engine, due to the torque converter not locking up, while a 5 speed does not suffer from this mechanical issue -- but at this point it is a theoretical explanation, not a fact that the CVT does worse in short city drives than a 5 speed would, because there is no convincing evidence, yet).

Onward delusion!

Last edited by Zeeper; 03-24-2013 at 01:16 PM.
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 11:37 AM   #83
79letour
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 302570
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: dear old dixie
Vehicle:
2013 XV
DGM!

Default

I wouldnt think calling him paranoid or irrational is really applicable. All he is doing is disagreeing with you, hell he's much more eloquent in his arguments than I am.
I personally have driven the cvt for arou.d a thousand miles. Hated it. It did good on gas though.
If I didnt live where its totally flat with only mild "hills"I doubt I'd be able to come close to the epa #'s.
You have repeatedly accused me of driving like a sixteen year old "bouncing off the rev limiter" so I can understand your argumentive tactics.
I get better than epa,even though I live in the "severe environment" of walt disney....
79letour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 11:44 AM   #84
jsteg
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 329271
Join Date: Aug 2012
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Lady's Island, SC
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Limited
Ice Silver Metallic

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehnm View Post
LOL. Yes, but there's only one person doing that, so you can take his opinion with a grain of salt - that's why I removed his obviously tainted "reporting".
There's definitely more than one person doing it!!
jsteg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 12:42 PM   #85
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 jsteg View Post
There's definitely more than one person doing it!!
Yep, they're coming out of the woodwork now, from the WRX/STI board. Low MT numbers... Ya think?
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 01:16 PM   #86
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
See, there he goes again making up his own facts.
I'll leave it up to the readers who is making up facts...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeper View Post
For example, I drove on the highway yesterday and my highway mpg was much less than some CVT drivers have reported for their highway drives.
First off, that's apples and oranges. Maybe you're just not out of elementary school yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeper View Post
In fact I have never come close to the numbers they are reporting, and that is with the cruise control set to the same speed they drive on the highway (hint, it is 65mph).
"Never even come close". ROFLMAO.

Max on fuelly.com is 34 mpg - you'd think that out of almost 300 cars someone would be pretty much driving highway. Oh well, if you're happy with what you get... Oh wait, I keep forgetting you drive a 5-speed. Of course you're happy with what you get.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 01:23 PM   #87
subaru222
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 92967
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: socal
Vehicle:
2009 wrx hatch
dark grey metallic

Default

Had the car for a week have 600miles on it mix driving iam getting 32 mpg
subaru222 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 01:45 PM   #88
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'll leave it up to the readers who is making up facts...

Max on fuelly.com is 34 mpg - you'd think that out of almost 300 cars someone would be pretty much driving highway..
I think it is fair to let people peruse your posts to determine, as I have, that they are not facts but opinions, and incorrect ones at that, so I completely agree with your first point.

As to your second statement, the 34mpg shown on Fuelly for that car is COMBINED mpg's!

The car is rated at 30mpg combined, so that car is exceeding the epa estimates by 4mpg, exceptional!

If it were the only CVT returning more than 30mpg combined, one might think that the CVT might not be capable of meeting the EPA numbers. But of course, if you peruse the cars getting more than 30mpg combined, many are CVT's.

And the people on the forum posting the highest mpg's? Yes, you can go back and read their posts, all CVT's (also many CVT's seem to return the lowest mpg's, quite a conundrum isn't it, messing up your average like that...)

I guess they just don't drive as badly as you do, or maybe their average speed is under 70mph, ya think?
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 02:05 PM   #89
hi5.0
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 340456
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Vehicle:
2013 Impreza

Default

CVT mixed driving getting 29-31 avg. mpg so far over the life of the car. Expect that figure to drop at next fill up as I have been caught in lots of stop and go traffic and made a few short trips around town since last refueling.
hi5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2013, 03:21 PM   #90
aeoporta
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 334126
Join Date: Oct 2012
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: New York
Vehicle:
2013 5mt Sp Premium
Venetian Red & Dark Gray

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 79letour View Post
I get better than epa,even though I live in the "severe environment" of walt disney....
another consumer educated on the efficacy of the oci definitions
aeoporta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 08:46 AM   #91
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
I think it is fair to let people peruse your posts to determine, as I have, that they are not facts but opinions, and incorrect ones at that, so I completely agree with your first point.

As to your second statement, the 34mpg shown on Fuelly for that car is COMBINED mpg's!

The car is rated at 30mpg combined, so that car is exceeding the epa estimates by 4mpg, exceptional!

If it were the only CVT returning more than 30mpg combined, one might think that the CVT might not be capable of meeting the EPA numbers. But of course, if you peruse the cars getting more than 30mpg combined, many are CVT's.

And the people on the forum posting the highest mpg's? Yes, you can go back and read their posts, all CVT's (also many CVT's seem to return the lowest mpg's, quite a conundrum isn't it, messing up your average like that...)

I guess they just don't drive as badly as you do, or maybe their average speed is under 70mph, ya think?
Interesting how your posts are just ad hominem attacks and anecdotes. Especially how questionable your selectivity is when you can take one single car and call it exceptional, while ignoring the fact that not a single car out of 140 identified as CVT's got within 2.5 mpg of the highway EPA figure. One would think that with 140 cars, one would be driven pretty much exclusively on the highway. Here is the data again:

Xmission__ Average ___ Standard Deviation
CVT _______ 27.3 ________ 2.63
MT _______ 27.8 ________ 2.21
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:10 AM   #92
hemophilic
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 301213
Join Date: Nov 2011
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Raleigh, NC
Vehicle:
2012 Imp. Sp. Ltd.
Blue/Silver

Default

I've got an idea.
"Hey stevehnm! Your ideas are right on the mark! Your data collection methodology is superb! I couldn't possibly agree more with your astute conclusions! When can I get a new car for free!? When can I join your class action lawsuit!?"
What now smart guy?
hemophilic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:10 AM   #93
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
Interesting how your posts are just ad hominem attacks and anecdotes. Especially how questionable your selectivity is when you can take one single car and call it exceptional, while ignoring the fact that not a single car out of 140 identified as CVT's got within 2.5 mpg of the highway EPA figure. One would think that with 140 cars, one would be driven pretty much exclusively on the highway. Here is the data again:

Xmission__ Average ___ Standard Deviation
CVT _______ 27.3 ________ 2.63
MT _______ 27.8 ________ 2.21
First of all, I am not sure you understand the difference between City, Highway, and Combined.

I've already poked holes in your use of the average combined mpg numbers off Fuelly, because, as I pointed out, CVT's return most of the the highest and lowest numbers on Fuelly (when the transmission is identified).

You have contended, as have most dissatisfied CVT owners, that the CVT cannot return the EPA numbers.

However, there is ample evidence on the forum (no one needs to believe me, read the forum posts) that there are CVT owners getting quite decent mpg's, and even exceeding the EPA rating.

That car you chose as your example (from fuelly, with 34mpg combined) was meant to illustrate that even the best performing Impreza cannot meet the 36mpg highway rating.

But your example fell flat on its face, along with your argument, because you are confusing the combined and highway mpg ratings.

That specific car on fuelly, that you previously wanted to discuss, is actually exceeding the EPA combined mpg rating of 30mpg by 4mpg.

This is extraordinary and you are right to now want to discount it (given what you are trying to convince us)

There are many CVT's on fully returning more than the 30mpg combined rating provided by the EPA. And as anyone with a 2013 model who can read their window sticker knows, the Combined MPG rating is now emphasized in bold print, while the other two numbers have been shrunk and moved to the side, providing ample evidence to any person with multiple brain cells that the EPA now wants you to focus on that number, a number that the best available evidence shows is certainly attainable.

And if you know anything about averaging, you probably know by now that at least half of the miles driven by the driver of the car you previously wanted to discuss returned higher than 34mpg in order to have a combined average of 34mpg.

Wow, that person must be seeing at least 36mpg on the highway, ya think?

Or (enter conspiracy mode now) do you think the car is being driven on the highway, at 50mph, and getting refuelled by a tanker truck to maintain the mgp's -- all paid for by Subaru, because they fear your class action lawsuit?

So much for your other theory about the 36mpg, unless that conspiracy theory is true!

PS: Still haven't received my first check from SOA -- I'll check my mailbox later today and let you know if it arrives... and I don't see the ad hominem coming from me, but you seem to like making up names to call me, you might want to look up the definition of ad hominem.

Last edited by Zeeper; 03-26-2013 at 09:19 AM.
Zeeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:59 AM   #94
aeoporta
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 334126
Join Date: Oct 2012
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: New York
Vehicle:
2013 5mt Sp Premium
Venetian Red & Dark Gray

Default



I want my hwy epa numbers, combined numbers are not for me
aeoporta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 08:11 PM   #95
milo607
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 69438
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Cincinnati
Vehicle:
2009 Jetta TDI SW
Lots O' MPG...Wooooot!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 79letour View Post
And why does everyone bring up the lousy tdi everytime someone has a complaint or problem with their impreza? I know the tdi wasnt even on my radar of cars to look at when I was car shopping. Is it the fact that the tdi's are bad news and its easy to just say "at least you dont have a tdi"?
Our secretary has one thats two years old. shes only put 30k+/- on it, but it gets her to work every day and she likes it a lot. Me- I'm just not a big fan of the tdi, although I did have a diesel A1 canadian Rabbit that got 50+ mpg.
But comparing a fwd diesel to an awd gasoline car is most definitely apples and oranges.
If its to say apples meet epa and oranges don't,I see the point. Otherwise, who's here going on about buying a tdi?
Ha! I like my TDI, but I live in constant fear of the fuel pump imploding..or the DPF clogging. On the MPG note, my 2009 TDI and many others miss the highway EPA numbers (unless you drive like a grandma). They gave the 2010 model better gear ratios and that helped a lot. Still planning to trade it in for something else soon - not a CVT Impreza!
milo607 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 12:35 AM   #96
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
First of all, I am not sure you understand the difference between City, Highway, and Combined.
Lol - you are the one who uses different speeds for different mpg's with indiscretion, as if people here can't remember what you post from one hour to the next...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeper View Post
I've already poked holes in your use of the average combined mpg numbers off Fuelly, because, as I pointed out, CVT's return most of the the highest and lowest numbers on Fuelly (when the transmission is identified).
You are incredibly ignorant about numbers. CVT's have 5% of the highest and 95% of the lowest. The fact you keep bringing that up says loads about your lack of intellectual capacity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeper View Post
You have contended, as have most dissatisfied CVT owners, that the CVT cannot return the EPA numbers.

Never. In fact I checked it again today (a two way run, you can't trust numbers without that. I got over 50 mpg.

at 45 mph. So what.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeper View Post
However, there is ample evidence on the forum (no one needs to believe me, read the forum posts) that there are CVT owners getting quite decent mpg's, and even exceeding the EPA rating.
You apparently don't understand the difference between a small minority and the majority. Not that it matters, what does matter is what happens with a large number of cars, or a large range of vehicles. The Impreza CVT should be rated at 32 at the maximum. As I said, the 5 speed gets better mpg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeeper View Post

There are many CVT's on fully returning more than the 30mpg combined rating provided by the EPA.
Yep, and a much higher percentage with 5 speeds getting closer to their EPA highway. Well above the aforementioned 95%.

You have zero ability for analytical thought. Not only that, but you apparently seem to be trying to compensate for it by anonymously posting ad hominem attacks here, and developing a "cadre" of ignorami to support you.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:01 AM   #97
Penguin44
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 315883
Join Date: Apr 2012
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Vehicle:
2012 IMPREZA
Silver

Default

It's a good thing the op didn't want purse hitting in this thread. Can't you guys just argue in one thread and let the rest of us have one without the pettiness?
Penguin44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 07:23 PM   #98
dmanicone
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 350863
Join Date: Mar 2013
Default

I got rid of my MT legacy to get the 2012 cvt to get better MGP for a long commute to work. I am getting 26.2 MPG. The trip computer claims 29.7 MPG. It is impossible to get the EPA rated MPG with the CVT. I have driven this car attempting to get the best MPG I can, and there is nothing fun about that, and have been nothing but disappointed with the real world MPG. It is not what it is advertised and I think that is what all of us CVT owners are trying to say.
dmanicone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 08:18 PM   #99
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 dmanicone View Post
I got rid of my MT legacy to get the 2012 cvt to get better MGP for a long commute to work. I am getting 26.2 MPG. The trip computer claims 29.7 MPG. It is impossible to get the EPA rated MPG with the CVT. I have driven this car attempting to get the best MPG I can, and there is nothing fun about that, and have been nothing but disappointed with the real world MPG. It is not what it is advertised and I think that is what all of us CVT owners are trying to say.

Well, except for a few who don't understand that mpg's in the high 30's when driving 55 mph is not what the EPA meant. Oh, yes, and a few with the 5MT who are either incredibly confused or just tools of SOA.
stevehnm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2013, 09:06 PM   #100
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Please explain what the epa meant and what their recommended speed for best economy is.
flyboy1100 is online now   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 06:59 PM.


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.