forrester 2.0 fuel economy

[robf]

Hi,

I have a (european) Forrester 2.0 liter manually shifted.
The fuel usage is always about 10 km/liter (=23.5 mpg).
During long trips on the highway (not going above 120km/h (= 75mph) the
economy can increase to 12 km/liter (=28 mpg).

I think this is quite high, are these numbers normal?
Can the engine be tuned to be more economic?

greetings
Rob

 

[Shit happens in a Renault]

Which gallon are you converting to, Imperial or American?

The general rule for measuring fuel consumption in metric is litres per 100
kilometres.

 

[Bruce Hoult]

Which gallon are you converting to, Imperial or American?

American, obviously, since he said 10 km/l was 23.5 mpg, (rather than
28.3)

The general rule for measuring fuel consumption in metric is litres per 100
kilometres.

Except that is a silly counter-intuitive measure. I prefer to say that
my Subaru does 9 - 11.5 km/l and my BMW 16 - 21 km/l, rather than deal
with numbers such as 5 - 6 l/100km.

-- Bruce

 

[Shit happens in a Renault]

Bruce, unfortunately what you prefer as an individual doesn't cut it in the real
world of petrol consumption figures. Being an individual is fine as long as you
don't make a goose of yourself.

 

[Bruce Hoult]

Bruce, unfortunately what you prefer as an individual doesn't cut it
in the real world of petrol consumption figures. Being an individual
is fine as long as you don't make a goose of yourself.

If I was the only one who preferred km/l to l/100km as a measure then
you might have a point, but it seems that I am *far* from the only one.

Doesn't really bother me all that greatly since I can do the reciprocals
to practical accuracy in my head anyway (or convert between F and C
depending on who I'm talking to), but I do prefer km/l for my own
purposes.

Perhaps it's a difference in attitides to driving? For Europeans,
driving is very expensive, so they only drive as much as they really
have to. When faced with a necessary journey the question is "How much
of that expensive fuel do I need?". For we antipodeans (and Americans),
on the other hand, the question is "I've filled the tank, where can I
get to before I need to worry about looking for a town with a gas
station?"

-- Bruce

 

[Dominic Richens]

I have a (european) Forrester 2.0 liter manually shifted.
The fuel usage is always about 10 km/liter (=23.5 mpg).
During long trips on the highway (not going above 120km/h (= 75mph)
the economy can increase to 12 km/liter (=28 mpg).

I think this is quite high, are these numbers normal?
Can the engine be tuned to be more economic?

Since Messeurs "Shit" and Hoult are being less than helpful today, I thought
I'd chime in and say that www.fueleconomy.gov (US) states that the fuel
economy of a manual 2.5l Forrester is 21(city)/28(hwy), so your numbers
sound about right. Couldn't find a 2l version, but the web site is American
models only.

 

[wabby]

Hi,
I have an Eropean Forester 2.0 as well. Fuel consumption as mentioned is
normal and i.a.w. the owners manual.
To "shit happens in a Renault" (quite an indication of intelligence) and
Bruce: stop this non-discussion and answer the question.
Greetings
Wabby

 

[Benleigh Bob]

If I was the only one who preferred km/l to l/100km as a measure then
you might have a point, but it seems that I am *far* from the only one.

I would be interested to hear your explaination of this.

Doesn't really bother me all that greatly since I can do the reciprocals
to practical accuracy in my head anyway (or convert between F and C
depending on who I'm talking to), but I do prefer km/l for my own
purposes.

Fair enough.

Perhaps it's a difference in attitides to driving? For Europeans,
driving is very expensive, so they only drive as much as they really
have to. When faced with a necessary journey the question is "How much
of that expensive fuel do I need?". For we antipodeans (and Americans),
on the other hand, the question is "I've filled the tank, where can I
get to before I need to worry about looking for a town with a gas
station?"

This is a sweeping statement and I guess another personal view?

 

[ed]

You really get used to any measument, mpg, L/100 km or km/L. All 3 are
interchangeable for me, it's like speaking 3 languages.
By the way, to convert mpg (Can. gallon) to L/100 km and back, divide 282.5
by the number, 282.5 divided by mpg gives L/100 km, and vice versa.
Ed B.

 

[ed]

I presume you are using these figures as examples, 21 km/l is 59 mpg (Can
gallon) or 47 mpg (US gallon), only the BMW Isetta would maybe get that !

 

[Benleigh Bob]

Yep, like converting pounds, shillings and pence to dollars, however what your
suggesting is buying a colour TV and watching it in black and white.

Your rules mean nothing in the real world, get over it.

 

[Bruce Hoult]

I presume you are using these figures as examples, 21 km/l is 59 mpg (Can
gallon) or 47 mpg (US gallon), only the BMW Isetta would maybe get that !

In fact my BMW R1100RT does that (or even a little better) on the open
road with two people and luggage, if I stick to no more than 105 - 110
km/h and am careful with the throttle while overtaking.

It does 16 km/l on the 5 km trips from home to work, where the engine
doesn't get a chance to warm up properly.

The figures for my Subaru Legacy 250T (2.5l auto wagon) are also correct.

-- Bruce

 

[Dominic Richens]

Yep, like converting pounds, shillings and pence to dollars, however
what your suggesting is buying a colour TV and watching it in black
and white.

?! sorry, don't get the metaphor ?!

I like l/100km because it makes it easy (in Canada) to figure out how much
$$ (also CDN) it's going to cost me for a given trip. km/l requires me to
do fancy division.

(and it's "you're", the contraction of "you are", not "your", the possessive
form of "you")