Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Wednesday August 21, 2019
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors

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 08-09-2019, 07:06 PM   #2151
SeeeeeYa
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 129681
Join Date: Oct 2006
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: WV
Vehicle:
'19 Imp Ltd Wagon
CWP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celery GT-5 View Post
says the guy who called me too stupid to use the accelerator pedal but won't acknowledge millions of miles of mpg tracking
It wasn't your data I referred to, I admire and respect that. Any context in which I may have said or intimated that, it was because a) you were arguing an obvious reality. My OWN lifetime on cars is 22-23 mpg regardless whether STi, WRX, FXT or LGT. And b), because we weren't communicating because you were referring to your lifetime mileages and I was specifically talking about what my FXT could do when I chose to do so, but that "normal" driving was like most others who own such vehicles... much less. So I just had fun running you around in circles.

Seems you're still on that roundabout.

But see? I'm not ignoring you. I talked to the 11 year old as she matured nicely into her 30's where she's at now, too. She learned.

I'm patience with you, too. As I'm sure the same thing will happen to you, eventually.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
SeeeeeYa is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Old 08-09-2019, 09:11 PM   #2152
Celery GT-5
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 98210
Join Date: Oct 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:
2016 Forester XT CWP
2002 WRX SRP 2016 Sienna

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeeeeYa View Post
My OWN lifetime on cars is 22-23 mpg regardless whether STi, WRX, FXT or LGT.
This right here ^^^

My whole and only point was that the FXT is EPA rated to do better than those EJ25 powered cars. You are now saying that your FXT (23/27) averaged the same as your STI, WRX and LGT, cars that are rated 17/23, 19/25 and probably 18/25? So after all that babbling and calling my car broken you are just straight up agreeing with me that the FXT does not deliver its promised 23 city, 27 highway, 25 combined while the rest of your subarus met or exceeded their EPA mpg figures....

I'm the 11 year old here though.
Celery GT-5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2019, 10:48 PM   #2153
4S-TURBO
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: your spreads like plague
Vehicle:
.... wordy and so
****ing hard to read

Default

I am lucky to get 18 on a tank with my LGT. 23 is about average for the RS.
4S-TURBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2019, 09:57 AM   #2154
Pre
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 139693
Join Date: Feb 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celery GT-5 View Post

I'm the 11 year old here though.
8 year olds, dude.
Pre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2019, 08:19 AM   #2155
Sid03SVT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 183032
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: CT
Vehicle:
OLD Family Wagon

Default

Breaking news! having a full time awd system negatively impacts fuel economy, using your turbo also hurts your fuel economy; more at eleven.

average MPG on my 2006 wrx wagon is 21; couldn't tell you highway vs. city since I don't do one exclusively anymore, but abysmal city and slightly less abysmal highway, maybe 18c/23h?.

93 octane OS tune, one step colder plugs, 3" catted DP w/stock cat-back, running 235/45/17 dunlop sportmaxx RTs; I mention the tires because I verified my speedo via GPS on them, accurate, maybe 1/2mph slower if at all, so for a good portion of its life on 215/45's or 225/45's my speedo was probably reading faster and returning a slightly inflated average fuel economy (24avg iirc). also worth noting, 13X,XXX miles on an unopened engine; how long with those original head gaskets last? the world may never know.

I also have a heavy right foot, the redline and I are well acquainted, so I'm sure someone else could get better gas mileage out of my car than I am, but if I was really super worried about fuel economy, I wouldn't have this car; can't wait for the winter when it can really shine.
Sid03SVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 02:45 PM   #2156
Celery GT-5
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 98210
Join Date: Oct 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:
2016 Forester XT CWP
2002 WRX SRP 2016 Sienna

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid03SVT View Post
Breaking news! having a full time awd system negatively impacts fuel economy, using your turbo also hurts your fuel economy; more at eleven.

average MPG on my 2006 wrx wagon is 21; couldn't tell you highway vs. city since I don't do one exclusively anymore, but abysmal city and slightly less abysmal highway, maybe 18c/23h?.

93 octane OS tune, one step colder plugs, 3" catted DP w/stock cat-back, running 235/45/17 dunlop sportmaxx RTs; I mention the tires because I verified my speedo via GPS on them, accurate, maybe 1/2mph slower if at all, so for a good portion of its life on 215/45's or 225/45's my speedo was probably reading faster and returning a slightly inflated average fuel economy (24avg iirc). also worth noting, 13X,XXX miles on an unopened engine; how long with those original head gaskets last? the world may never know.

I also have a heavy right foot, the redline and I are well acquainted, so I'm sure someone else could get better gas mileage out of my car than I am, but if I was really super worried about fuel economy, I wouldn't have this car; can't wait for the winter when it can really shine.
Breaking news, manual transmission Subarus have realistic epa fuel economy estimates.

An 06 WRX wagon is supposed to get something in the ballpark of 18/23. I know the 2011 WRX was rated 19/25. I averaged just under 21 in mine.

The Forester is supposed to get 23 city, 27 highway, 25 combined and mine does worse than my 2011 WRX...why is this soooo hard to understand?

My 2015 WRX 6mt, epa rating 21 city, 28 hwy, 24 combined, I averaged 23.6 vs 19.8 in my Forester that's supposed to do better than the WRX.

6mt fa20 3.6mpg above city rating
CVT fa20 3.2 mpg BELOW city rating.
5mt ej255 1.8 above city rating
5mt EJ205 that's 17 years old averages right around it's city rating despite constantly abuse...

Last edited by Celery GT-5; 08-14-2019 at 02:50 PM.
Celery GT-5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 03:59 PM   #2157
Sid03SVT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 183032
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: CT
Vehicle:
OLD Family Wagon

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celery GT-5 View Post
Breaking news, manual transmission Subarus have realistic epa fuel economy estimates.

An 06 WRX wagon is supposed to get something in the ballpark of 18/23. I know the 2011 WRX was rated 19/25. I averaged just under 21 in mine.

The Forester is supposed to get 23 city, 27 highway, 25 combined and mine does worse than my 2011 WRX...why is this soooo hard to understand?

My 2015 WRX 6mt, epa rating 21 city, 28 hwy, 24 combined, I averaged 23.6 vs 19.8 in my Forester that's supposed to do better than the WRX.

6mt fa20 3.6mpg above city rating
CVT fa20 3.2 mpg BELOW city rating.
5mt ej255 1.8 above city rating
5mt EJ205 that's 17 years old averages right around it's city rating despite constantly abuse...
20/26 for the 06 WRX 23 combined, not 18/23; were you thinking about the STi? it's 18/24 for the STi 21 combined. If we're "ballparking" numbers you're right in the thick of it with your FXT numbers.

I'll agree that manual transmission EPA ratings are usually closer to the mark than auto/cvt ratings, which are further exacerbated by a turbo in real world conditions. The EPA tests are still pretty much "best case scenario" for auto/cvt vehicles; mostly out of boost & on a flat surface.
You may not have gotten great fuel economy out of your FXT2.0 but others have.

Comparing apples to apples, the 2.5FXT was 19/24 where the 2.0FXT was 23/27 - fuelly shows the mode for 2.5xt is 21, whereas the mode for the 2.0fxt is 24. Worth noting the 2.0FXT is bigger and heavier than the 2.5XT model, and delivers better epa and real world fuel economy.

If you were/are only getting 19.8avg out of the 2.0FXT it was most likely your right foot, secondary factor being highway cruising speed, it is a brick after all, tertiary being grade changes encountered, and fourth likely would be some mechanical or electrical anomaly.

I am in no way surprised that heavier, boxier cuv is worse on fuel than a lighter, smoother car, even with a newer engine design in the fxt; physics is physics. Anecdotally, I used to get better fuel economy in my 300rwhp 92 mustang than I do in my WRX; that data point doesn't matter because they are very different cars.
Sid03SVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 04:36 PM   #2158
Celery GT-5
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 98210
Join Date: Oct 2005
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Upstate NY
Vehicle:
2016 Forester XT CWP
2002 WRX SRP 2016 Sienna

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid03SVT View Post
20/26 for the 06 WRX 23 combined, not 18/23; were you thinking about the STi? it's 18/24 for the STi 21 combined. If we're "ballparking" numbers you're right in the thick of it with your FXT numbers.

I'll agree that manual transmission EPA ratings are usually closer to the mark than auto/cvt ratings, which are further exacerbated by a turbo in real world conditions. The EPA tests are still pretty much "best case scenario" for auto/cvt vehicles; mostly out of boost & on a flat surface.
You may not have gotten great fuel economy out of your FXT2.0 but others have.

Comparing apples to apples, the 2.5FXT was 19/24 where the 2.0FXT was 23/27 - fuelly shows the mode for 2.5xt is 21, whereas the mode for the 2.0fxt is 24. Worth noting the 2.0FXT is bigger and heavier than the 2.5XT model, and delivers better epa and real world fuel economy.

If you were/are only getting 19.8avg out of the 2.0FXT it was most likely your right foot, secondary factor being highway cruising speed, it is a brick after all, tertiary being grade changes encountered, and fourth likely would be some mechanical or electrical anomaly.

I am in no way surprised that heavier, boxier cuv is worse on fuel than a lighter, smoother car, even with a newer engine design in the fxt; physics is physics. Anecdotally, I used to get better fuel economy in my 300rwhp 92 mustang than I do in my WRX; that data point doesn't matter because they are very different cars.
The 06 wrx's original window sticker was 20/26 but in 07 or 08 the epa changed their testing procedure to be more realistic with heavier acceleration and the accessories running. So the updated epa rating for an 06 WRX is 17/24. You need to compare the updated numbers in order to be ab apples to apples comparison vs a newer car.

I'm not disappointed with the fuel economy of the fxt, I'm disappointed that Subaru slapped an unrealistic estimate on it. They knew they did too because they dropped the hey mpg from 28 to 27 halfway through 2016.

The original point of this argument being in the Ascent thread is that despite the Ascent 's mpg on the window sticker, it isn't living up to the numbers in the real world, where as something like the CX9 or pilot does.
Celery GT-5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 06:12 PM   #2159
4S-TURBO
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 67807
Join Date: Aug 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: your spreads like plague
Vehicle:
.... wordy and so
****ing hard to read

Default

Hmm, I remember when the SJ FXT came out, Subaru had performance ratings based on the grade of fuel used. I think it lost something like 25 hp. Perhaps the regular fuel power rating was used to get the EPA MPG rating on the sticker.
4S-TURBO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2019, 12:01 AM   #2160
neg_matnik
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 132389
Join Date: Nov 2006
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: SF Bay Area
Vehicle:
2006 WRX Wagon SGM
2003 SV1000S, 2014 DL650

Default

Again, FA24DIT is oversquare (granted that it's significantly less so than EJ25) and it's asked to run on 87 for SUV duty.
Something has to give. If it's not reliability or power then it's fuel economy.
Every other manufacturer that is using a turbo 4 for SUV duty is using a long stroker. See CX-9, Explorer, XC90 and others.
neg_matnik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2019, 08:53 AM   #2161
Sid03SVT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 183032
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: CT
Vehicle:
OLD Family Wagon

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celery GT-5 View Post
The 06 wrx's original window sticker was 20/26 but in 07 or 08 the epa changed their testing procedure to be more realistic with heavier acceleration and the accessories running. So the updated epa rating for an 06 WRX is 17/24. You need to compare the updated numbers in order to be ab apples to apples comparison vs a newer car.

I'm not disappointed with the fuel economy of the fxt, I'm disappointed that Subaru slapped an unrealistic estimate on it. They knew they did too because they dropped the hey mpg from 28 to 27 halfway through 2016.

The original point of this argument being in the Ascent thread is that despite the Ascent 's mpg on the window sticker, it isn't living up to the numbers in the real world, where as something like the CX9 or pilot does.
Then I guess my stage 2 car with wider and stickier than stock rubber and 131k on the clock is doing pretty good, although I think I'm a little rich, time to log...

The Ascent is rated 21c/27h & 23 combined for the entry level, and 20c/26h & 22 combined for the limited & touring. Take a stroll over to fuelly and you'll see the majority of owners are reporting 20-23 on average; there are of course outliers above and below, but the bulk of the numbers are right in that range; it appears it's living up to it's EPA rating.

Link:
http://www.fuelly.com/car/subaru/ascent
Sid03SVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2019, 02:25 AM   #2162
T_Mosier
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 505371
Join Date: Aug 2019
Default

My wife is really loving this new Ascent vehicle. We both really like the Touring trim level with those brown leather seats. Will probably end up with one soon. After the 2nd or 3rd model year is out and there has been a thorough shakedown of this new platform.
T_Mosier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:31 AM   #2163
bdubblu
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 251046
Join Date: Jul 2010
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: Mostly at my home
Vehicle:
2004 WRX Wagon
Stage 5.1.2a.2

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sid03SVT View Post
Then I guess my stage 2 car with wider and stickier than stock rubber and 131k on the clock is doing pretty good, although I think I'm a little rich, time to log...

[/url]


So my 2004 stage 3.5.12A-Rev 2 wagon is now getting a healthy 12mpg. Sounds like Iím right in line with the status quo.

If youíre buying a Subaru, fuel economy canít be a priority. Most choose Subaru because all of the other features outweigh the fuel eco. For those who want it all, well, they just confuse me a bit.
bdubblu 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 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2019 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2017, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.