Subaru AWD Fuel Consumption question

[transfixed]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

OK, so if I put my 2000 Passat 4Motion Wagon in there, it says
17(city), 24 (highway), and 20 combined. That's a joke. I rarely get
below 18, and I would say 20-22 is typical city mileage. Highway at
55-65 mph is about 26-30 mpg. I have had as little as 28-32mpg at
constant 65. This is in line with what other people I know get.

So, please take these ratings with a big, big grain of salt. Moreover,
with some knowledge about how, when, and why your car consumes less gas
(hard acceleration at low rpm without lugging), you should do much
better than what is suggested here.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

OK, so if I put my 2000 Passat 4Motion Wagon in there, it says
17(city), 24 (highway), and 20 combined. That's a joke. I rarely get
below 18, and I would say 20-22 is typical city mileage. Highway at
55-65 mph is about 26-30 mpg. I have had as little as 28-32mpg at
constant 65. This is in line with what other people I know get.

So, please take these ratings with a big, big grain of salt. Moreover,
with some knowledge about how, when, and why your car consumes less gas
(hard acceleration at low rpm without lugging), you should do much
better than what is suggested here.

From http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

Adjusting Estimates

In the 1980s, an EPA study found that drivers were typically achieving lower
fuel economy than predicted by EPA laboratory tests. As a result, EPA
required the laboratory-derived city and highway MPG estimates posted on the
labels of new vehicles to be adjusted downward by 10 percent for city
estimates and by 22 percent for highway estimates to better reflect the MPG
real-world drivers can expect.

 

[Florian Feuser /FFF/]

My Forester Turbo, the very first version back in 1998, has constantly
making a mileage of 11L/100KM record.

98 Legacy GT here:

19.615384615385 mpg winter
21.854304635762 mpg summer

feel free to round up or down ;-)
these are not averages but representative samples...

florian

 

[Tom Reingold]

98 Legacy GT here:

19.615384615385 mpg winter
21.854304635762 mpg summer

feel free to round up or down ;-)
these are not averages but representative samples...

florian

What kind of engine does the 1998 Legacy GT have?

 

[Florian Feuser /FFF/]

What kind of engine does the 1998 Legacy GT have?

EJ25 2.5l DOHC

florian

 

[Tom Reingold]

EJ25 2.5l DOHC

florian

Well, I like my new (old) Legacy L wagon. I've had it since March 2. I
guess I have to say that fuel consumption is not on my list of reasons I
like it. My average is about the same as yours. It also has the 2.5l engine.

 

[Florian Feuser /FFF/]

Well, I like my new (old) Legacy L wagon. I've had it since March 2. I
guess I have to say that fuel consumption is not on my list of reasons
I like it. My average is about the same as yours. It also has the 2.
5l engine.

It's no Prius, that's true.

I used to get 25+ mpg out of the 2.2l Legacy L without even trying.

That car is a couple of hundred pounds lighter, had narrower wheels and
a manual transmission.
[IIRC, the final gear ratio is relatively similar ~ 3000 RPMs @ 65mph].
The FWD version got slightly better mileage still (I remember reading
28mpg somewhere) but it's not the AWD that's killing fuel efficiency
IMHO.

The 2.5l was designed to compete with the low-end torque of V6-equipped
cars in the same class in the US American market. Sadly but not
surprisingly, the fuel efficiency went down the toilet.

florian

 

[Tom Reingold]

Well, I like my new (old) Legacy L wagon. I've had it since March 2. I
guess I have to say that fuel consumption is not on my list of reasons
I like it. My average is about the same as yours. It also has the 2.
5l engine.

It's no Prius, that's true.

I used to get 25+ mpg out of the 2.2l Legacy L without even trying.

That car is a couple of hundred pounds lighter, had narrower wheels and
a manual transmission.
[IIRC, the final gear ratio is relatively similar ~ 3000 RPMs @ 65mph].
The FWD version got slightly better mileage still (I remember reading
28mpg somewhere) but it's not the AWD that's killing fuel efficiency
IMHO.

The 2.5l was designed to compete with the low-end torque of V6-equipped
cars in the same class in the US American market. Sadly but not
surprisingly, the fuel efficiency went down the toilet.

florian

Well, I suppose it competes well in power. I am definitely happy with
the power output of the engine. Someone here wrote that it's lacking,
and it's funny to me, because I realize it's totally subjective. I guess
I'm not a power maven.

But the car I'm selling is a 1995 Saab 9000CS, rated at 170 hp (5 more
than the Subaru). The cars accelerate very similarly, but the Saab gets
better mileage. They weigh about the same. The difference might be
because the Saab's engine is slightly smaller (2.3l) and turbocharged.
Also, it's FWD.

My most recent fillup with the Subaru yielded 23.5 mpg, and that's
better than the previous three fillups.

 

[Jakey]

We have a 2000 Forester automatic, we get about 21 mpg around town (lots of
hills) and 24-26 on the highway. The AWD and the boxy shape hurt highway
mileage. But we need the AWD as we live in the snowbelt. There are days here
when only 4 x 4 pickups and Subarus are getting through. Yesterday we had
that freak snowstorm that dumped 12" of snow. My wife made it out our hilly,
unplowed dirt road. The ground clearance of the Forester helps on snowy
roads.
The Forester is torquey and maneuverable in city and suburban driving. This
car is less fun on straight highways because of the short wheelbase and
engine drone. Subaru just can't seem to understand an overdrive that gives
low RPM at highway cruising speeds or say 70 MPH.
Also the back seat leg room is short.
So it all depends on where you drive and whether the rear leg room is a
requirement.