Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Friday October 24, 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 Archives > NASIOC Archives > WRX Forum Archive

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.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-08-2001, 08:42 AM   #1
Azucar
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 3507
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Unhappy High Octane Blues

As a miata owner, I'm very interested in the WRX as my first fun but practical car. I'm a little worried though about its expensive taste in petrol.

1) Will 91 octane do the job?
2) Anyone else bothered by this? If so, what's your take on the situation?

Thanks!

[This message has been edited by Azucar (edited February 08, 2001).]
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Azucar is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 08:47 AM   #2
[ /dev/null ]
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 3998
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: DFW
Post

i drive a turbocharged neon. i must use 92-93 octane... so putting super in my WRX wont be any different. Not sure what they recommend, but I imagine you will need super. especially if you turn the boost up at all

peace
[ /dev/null ] is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 08:49 AM   #3
LDragon
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 3529
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Coatesville? HUH?
Vehicle:
2003 FX45
Brownish

Post

I think it means I'm gonna be hurting at the pump, I have a heavy foot. But it will need that high octane, unless you drive real slow it will need it. But doesn't matter, already ordered my rex.
LDragon is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 09:26 AM   #4
[ /dev/null ]
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 3998
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: DFW
Post

lets put it this way... i drive the hell out of my neon @6lbs of boost and i still get ~24mpg. I can get well over 30 on the freeway. Not sure how much the WRX will get, but i bet its over 20mpg.

ITS WORTH IT!

peace
[ /dev/null ] is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 09:30 AM   #5
Gambit
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 102
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The meeting place
Post

If you can't spend more on high octane gas for the WRX, might as well not buy one.
Gambit is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 09:34 AM   #6
Foxbat
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 654
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Fairfax, VA
Vehicle:
2003 WRX, Silver
'08 Tribeca, Brown

Post

AWD eats gas like no tomorrow. The EPA rating for WRX is 20/27 for manual and 19/26 for auto. I saw reports that if you're heavy on foot, you'll most likely see something around 17 MPG.

Foxbat
Foxbat is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 09:37 AM   #7
kelley nelson
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 135
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: NJ
Post

People in the UK and Australia are seeing an average of about 24 mpg. That's about what I get from my RS.

And for the record, the AWD system does not have a very significant impact on the fuel economy. One of the reasons GM was so interested in Subaru's technology was because it is so efficient.

[This message has been edited by kelley nelson (edited February 08, 2001).]
kelley nelson is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 09:56 AM   #8
Azucar
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 3507
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Post

Looks like we got quite a range of mpg estimates. [/dev/null]'s #'s don't look too bad. I'd say 17 mpg is bordering on (if not flat-out) irresponsible in today's world (environmentally speaking), and with premium fuel downright lavish.

It's not only about whether you can spend the money, it's about whether you want to, whether it makes sense, what the trade-offs are. Realizing this is subjective, I'm just curious on how others weigh the variables.

Thanks again.
Azucar is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 10:55 AM   #9
ColinL
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 114
Join Date: Jul 1999
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Wichita, KS and Whoring, OT
Vehicle:
'03 Evo, Rice White
'01 Erion CBR 929

Have a Nice Day?

Uh, do the math on the total cost of vehicle ownership, and see what a difference paying $.14 - $.20 more per gallon for 91 versus 87 is compared to the whole budget for the car. It is insignificant unless you drive a WHOLE LOT of miles, and I agree with Gambit that if you can't afford the gas don't buy the car.

Very quick & very dirty numbers:
20MPG @ $1.50 per gallon (say this is 87) @ 15,000 miles per year = $1125
20MPG, $1.70 per gallon (91), 15,000 miles = $1275

You can't afford $150 extra per year and you're considering a new $24,000 car? Anyway, let's consider this versus your $300-500 per month car payment, $50-200 per month insurance (wide variation in cost there, obviously) and all the other car stuff and this $150 seems small. I mean even if you drove 60,000 miles per year it would still only be $600 extra using an overly low estimate of 20MPG overall.

The WRX's stock Bridgestone Potenza RE92s frankly suck, and replacing those with proper tires will set you back 500-900 quid mounted & balanced depending on what you choose!
ColinL is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 01:06 PM   #10
FlashJordan
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 2209
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Vehicle:
2002 WRX
World Rally Blue Pearl

Post

I'm suprised that the WRX gets *better* mileage than the lighter S2000 according to the EPA(20/27 vs. 20/26).


Jordan


[This message has been edited by FlashJordan (edited February 08, 2001).]
FlashJordan is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 01:45 PM   #11
vintageracer
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 3744
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Santa Cruz, CA USA
Post

Hello. I have a Mitsubishi Galant VR4, which is a full time 4WD turbo that weighs in at 4100lbs and I manage to get 22MPG. I would certainly hope my new WRX will be a bit more economical.
vintageracer is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 01:50 PM   #12
ColinL
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 114
Join Date: Jul 1999
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Wichita, KS and Whoring, OT
Vehicle:
'03 Evo, Rice White
'01 Erion CBR 929

Post

What's surprising? It has a fairly tall final drive in 5th gear and on the highway under vacuum you have a 8.0:1 2.0L inline four. Not exactly gas-guzzling stuff, IMHO.

Other replies--

Ginseng, yes there is driveline loss due to AWD. It is nowhere near 2x though, and there is a fixed and variable component to the loss.

JTaylor, no part of Kansas falls under the EPA regs in the Clean Air Act to have mandatory oxygenated fuel during any time of the year. We are very close in KC and Wichita though to having it mandated during winter, which will really suck. Yes 87, 89 and 91 are standard grades and 93 can be found in a few places if you hunt. If it is of real interest, I can tell you who is providing the gas and why it is the octane it is, but I'd rather not bother our refined products traders here at work. Anyway, oxygenated gas is sold at some locations and is subsidized so that it is often a bit cheaper than regular gas so some fools buy it.
ColinL is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 01:57 PM   #13
daverup
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 3708
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Michigan, USA
Vehicle:
2015 WRX Ltd Sedan
ISM

Post

I think the key to getting good fuel mileage on turbo cars is cruising rpm. If you cruise with the rpm in the range where boost is developing, then your mileage will suffer. If you can cruise more slowly and keep the turbo spooled down, then your mileage will be alot better.
This is most definitely the case with turbo audis.
If you don't have a boost guage, it's going to be difficult to figure out.
Does anyone know whether or not the new wrx engine has knock sensors? If it does, it would tolerate lower octane alot better.
daverup is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 02:13 PM   #14
Azucar
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 3507
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Post

Uh, Colin, thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, however, while your math is correct, your reasoning is faulty.

A valid comparison would put the WRX up against a car getting around 30 mpg. Hence, quick & dirty numbers:

30 mpg @$1.50 per gallon @15000 miles per year = $750
20 mpg @$1.70 per gallon @15000 miles per year = $1250

The difference is now $525 per year, $5250 over 10 years.

Don't know about you but that's money to me. Still, I'll admit you & Gambit are right on one point: if you want the car, you have to be willing to pay up for the difference.
Azucar is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 02:19 PM   #15
ColinL
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 114
Join Date: Jul 1999
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Wichita, KS and Whoring, OT
Vehicle:
'03 Evo, Rice White
'01 Erion CBR 929

Post

There are stock 227HP sport sedans/coupes getting 30MPG overall? Don't spend too much time finding one, because the WRX will get better than 20MPG overall-- I used a low MPG estimate for BOTH numbers to prove a point and you're contrasting the spread to make your octane complaint less ridiculous.

If you're that worried about gas mileage I assure you that if you keep the throttle light and never touch boost, a 8:1 CR 2.0L will get good gas mileage. Heck, you won't need 91 either!
ColinL is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 02:21 PM   #16
Paul UK
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 893
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Aylesbury
Exclamation

When comparing mpg figures from the UK and Austrailia etc, remember that the size of the gallon is different.

US gallon is 16fl oz. * 8 = 128 fl oz.

Imperial Gallon is 20 fl oz. * 8 = 160 fl oz.

so to convert UK mpg to US mpg, multipy UK mpg by 0.8.

Guess we do have something bigger than you
Paul UK is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 02:41 PM   #17
WRX1
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3533
Join Date: Jan 2001
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: St. Paul MN, USA
Vehicle:
2002 Impreza WRX
WR Blue

Post

Hell, I'm going from a fullsize chev p/u with 32's under it. I can get 18-20 cusing on freeway in the summer, but winter i'm at 15-17. I also have a 36 gallon tank, so every two weeks it cost me 50 bucks to fill the damn thing up. I will be happy with only 25 mpg.
WRX1 is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 02:53 PM   #18
Azucar
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 3507
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA, USA
Post

Hey ColinL, didn't know my "complaint" was "ridiculous", but since you put it in bold I suppose it is.

Didn't mean to compare mpg with another stock 227hp; sorry this wasn't clear. On this comparison there's no argument.

Azucar is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 03:02 PM   #19
why?
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 1996
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Vehicle:
2007 Toyota Yaris
some ugly red color

Post

in MA, where i happen to reside, I can get 89, 91, and 93 octones. I can also get 94, but It is Sunoco, and it ain't good. Anyways, my SHO gets 19 mpg on a good day, so anything above 20 will be great.
why? is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 03:39 PM   #20
illmatic
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3536
Join Date: Jan 2001
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: SD, OC
Vehicle:
2013 SWP BRZ Limited
2002/2003 AW/PSM WRX

Post

Has anyone else read this review of the WRX vs Audi vs VW. The worst they got was 13.4 to the gallon.
Heres the link to the whole review. http://pages.eidosnet.co.uk/~p.lewis.../reviews/trex/
<IMG SRC="http://pages.eidosnet.co.uk/~p.lewis/imprezaweb/reviews/1stroadtest/data1.jpg" border=0>

illmatic is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 03:44 PM   #21
illmatic
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3536
Join Date: Jan 2001
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: SD, OC
Vehicle:
2013 SWP BRZ Limited
2002/2003 AW/PSM WRX

Post

Heres the direct comparison of all three cars. Notice how slow the acceleration of the WRX from 30-50 and 50-70 in the next gear. But thats only for lazy people that should have got an auto.

<IMG SRC="http://pages.eidosnet.co.uk/~p.lewis/imprezaweb/reviews/trex/facts.jpg" border=0>
illmatic is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 04:09 PM   #22
Paul UK
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 893
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Aylesbury
Post

oops iilmatic, fell into the trap 13.4 miles per UK gallon = 10.7 miles per US gallon.


Saying that this car was at a track day at Donnington a few months back so that was probably their worst, hardly representaive of real world conditions.

And if they could only get it down to 13.4 mpg(UK) they weren't trying, should be aiming for single figures on track
Paul UK is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 05:11 PM   #23
Foxbat
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 654
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Fairfax, VA
Vehicle:
2003 WRX, Silver
'08 Tribeca, Brown

Post

Quote:
kelley nelson wrote,

And for the record, the AWD system does not have a very significant impact on the fuel economy. One of the reasons GM was so interested in Subaru's technology was because it is so efficient.
On what basis your above statement on? I have two Subarus, 97' OBS 2.2L and '98 OB 2.5L. The best I got from my OBS is 28 mpg with a long highway trip. The best I got from my OB is 24 mpg with a long highway trip. Both car gives me about 20 ~ 21 mpg on daily drive. While every other car I know with bigger engine and much heavier weight can easily reach close to 30s. Go check EPA ratings of any of those FWD or RDW Toyotas or Hondas or something like that and compare to what you get from any Subaru cars.

For the record, my OBS EPA rating is 23/30 and OB's EPA rating is 21/26.


Foxbat

[This message has been edited by Foxbat (edited February 08, 2001).]
Foxbat is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 05:17 PM   #24
AKGC8
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 1305
Join Date: Apr 2000
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Vehicle:
2000 Impreza

Post

I can almost guarantee that the car will run on on regular unleaded. I don't know for sure, but generally in the US when a manufacturer recomends premium unleaded its for best performance and gas mileage. They wouldn't sell a car to the general public that will detonate without premium. Imagine how many warranty claims they'd have to deal with. If you modify your car then yes the octane rating will become an issue to stave off detonation. The stock car should be fine on regular though. It just may not have as much grunt.
AKGC8 is offline  
Old 02-08-2001, 06:33 PM   #25
Narcisse91
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 3931
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Rochester, NY
Vehicle:
WRX, Ninja, RX-7
Legacy, Fiat 850

Post

I'm sure it will run on regular, but if they recommend 91 octance, I would get that or 93 (depending on what's available). I don't even put 87 in my car now, I definitely wouldn't put in the WRX when it comes.

Not too mention everyone is whining about gas mileage. Getting cheaper fuel is just going to make that worse.
Narcisse91 is offline  
 

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
High octane gas in Seattle RA North West Impreza Club Forum -- NWIC 18 06-17-2010 01:06 AM
High octane gas in Portland area Fubaru North West Impreza Club Forum -- NWIC 6 03-15-2002 01:52 PM
Any High Octane in Bay Area? Pat Green Bay Area Impreza Club Forum -- BAIC 10 08-27-2001 05:29 PM
cheap high octane ? brendon Normally Aspirated Powertrain 8 02-15-2001 06:52 AM
High Octane Scoober01 Normally Aspirated Powertrain 2 02-13-2001 09:31 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:47 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.