Legacy in new Consumer Reports

[TLS]

We don't have a deep overdrive 6th gear. Give it to us and the car will top 30 mpg on the highway easily. Buzzing along at 2500-3000 rpm on the interstate just plain sucks.

 

I agree 100%

 

Wound entirely too tight at 70mph

 

Just checked the average economy tonite 22.8mpg

 

Just drove past a station that in a matter of 4 hrs, raised his price from 2.99 to 3.35!!! Drove a little further and filled up @ $2.91

[rottenspam]

Sheesh! Consumer reports and cars, well, let's just say I've questioned their judgements on occasion, um, frequently.

 

I never see less than 21 mpg, even when I drive hard. Then again, I drift in neutral going downhill and into braking zones.

 

For me consumer reports is spot on for fuel economy. during the summer I get about 18.5mpg 50-50 freeway/city streets. All highway I get about 24mpg. I think a lot of people are going off of the fuel economy on the dash display which is always optomistic. I caculate it at the pump.

 

In the winter I get ab out 20mpg on the same drive. BTW this is exactly the same economy I saw on my WRX. I've been driving like a granny coasting as much as possible, and watching the instananous fuel economy trying to max it all the time, and I'm still pulling about 18.5-19mpg

[TLS]

This is my opinion only.

 

But I believe that granny driving doesn't give you the best economy. Completely staying off the boost isn't going to give you the best economy.

 

By getting into the boost (not hammering it, just dipping into it) on a regular basis your operating your engine in it's most efficient state (under boost).

[emorphien]

For me consumer reports is spot on for fuel economy. during the summer I get about 18.5mpg 50-50 freeway/city streets. All highway I get about 24mpg. I think a lot of people are going off of the fuel economy on the dash display which is always optomistic. I caculate it at the pump.

I calculate mine at the pump and it is nowhere near that bad.

[Outback XT]

I also get about 18 in the city and 24 on the highway - added up at the pump. I wish that the engine was more efficient as well.

 

My last car was a 1.8t Stage II+ Jetta and I had about 240hp and 260torque. I would beat on the thing all the time and still got 25 in the city and 34 on the highway. I know that alot of our loss is through the all-wheel drive system but you think that it could be a little more efficient.

 

I'm certainly not going to sell the car because of it - I love it too much. Of course if I have to start shelling out $5 or more per gallon for premium then I might have to by a scooter - not good in Denver's winter! - and save the Outback for play.

[bcbaohio]

I agree 100%

 

Wound entirely too tight at 70mph

 

Just checked the average economy tonite 22.8mpg

 

Just drove past a station that in a matter of 4 hrs, raised his price from 2.99 to 3.35!!! Drove a little further and filled up @ $2.91

Hello? Hello? Is anyone at SOA reading this? We need a six speed manual for a number of reasons. I mean come on, Granpa can get a 6-speed on his new Accord.

 

How about this - Fuji recalls all MTs sold in the states and replaces our trannys with STi trannys

[AWDpower]

This is my opinion only.

 

But I believe that granny driving doesn't give you the best economy. Completely staying off the boost isn't going to give you the best economy.

 

By getting into the boost (not hammering it, just dipping into it) on a regular basis your operating your engine in it's most efficient state (under boost).

 

You are right, this is a proven fact. Granny driving can really lower your fuel economy. BMW did a study on this. At part throttle, the engine is pulling a vacuum because it has to pull the air past the restrictive throttle plate. If you try to save gas by accellerating slowly and minimizing throttle opening, you are not allowing the engine to operate efficently. You also have to remember that the throttle is not the "gas pedal". Throttle opening is not related directly to fuel flow. That is the main benefit of a taller gear, not the lower revs. The taller gear puts less torque to the wheels. That means you need to have a bigger throttle opening to accelerate or maintain speed relative to a shorter gear. Larger throttle opening = less pumping losses and greater efficentcy. The best way to get good gas mileage is to accelerate moderately. Hard enough to open the throttle a bit, but still keep the engine at the point where it is still running in open loop and running lean. You also want to short shift to keep the car in as tall a gear as possible. The key is to not accelerate more then needed- get up to cruising speed fairly quickly, and stay there.

 

You can have some fun and still get decent mileage too. I generally drive like I described, except I like to upen it up when accelerating. I just make sure I'm not accelerating for no reason, like to a red light, or past my cruising speed.

 

Jason K.

[BDII]

Hello? Hello? Is anyone at SOA reading this? We need a six speed manual for a number of reasons. I mean come on, Granpa can get a 6-speed on his new Accord.

 

How about this - Fuji recalls all MTs sold in the states and replaces our trannys with STi trannys

 

 

+1

[rottenspam]

Yeah I've noticed that the car just isn't efficent. I work at NASA and I have drives on site where I drive maybe 1-2 miles at 25mph in 4th gear feathering the gas, and I routinely see 14-27mpg on the car just keeping the throtle almost constant. I've yet to see anyone I know get more then about 26mpg on the highway. I sit in constant gridlock here in houston which I know kills fuel econonomy. For a 4 cylinder car it sure is a guzzler for only 250hp. A V6 honda accord with auto no less is rated 34highway, my car with 5spd is rated only 25mpg highway, and I'm lucky to see that with my cruise set to 80mph. More like 24mpg. But 19 is right for around town thats what I average in a typical year. Pathetic for a 3400lbs, 250hp 4 banger.

[BDII]

Yeah I've noticed that the car just isn't efficent. I work at NASA and I have drives on site where I drive maybe 1-2 miles at 25mph in 4th gear feathering the gas, and I routinely see 14-27mpg on the car just keeping the throtle almost constant. I've yet to see anyone I know get more then about 26mpg on the highway. I sit in constant gridlock here in houston which I know kills fuel econonomy. For a 4 cylinder car it sure is a guzzler for only 250hp. A V6 honda accord with auto no less is rated 34highway, my car with 5spd is rated only 25mpg highway, and I'm lucky to see that with my cruise set to 80mph. More like 24mpg. But 19 is right for around town thats what I average in a typical year. Pathetic for a 3400lbs, 250hp 4 banger.

 

turbo + more air + more fuel + AWD = bad fuel economy.

[tantal]

It's tough to feel sorry for peeps complaining about fuel economy when they bought the car for the very fast acceleration and performance potential. If you wanted the car to have better mileage, why didn't you buy the 2.5i Limited?

 

I mean, sure it's nice to get better mileage, but calling your car "pathetic" when you bought for performance says a LOT more about you than it does about the car, doesn't it? Comparing to the accord, sure it gets better mileage, but how much does it weigh and how fast is it (I have no idea)? 3400 lbs is not too heavy for this car. The comparable (and significantly smaller) A4 weighs in at about 400 lbs heavier. Now that thing is a fat pig.

 

Anyway, think about it - you bought a high performance car. It still gets more than 2x or 3x the fuel economy of those idiotic 4x4, 10 ft tall trucks morons commute to work in. Also, the LGT is definately faster than the RX-8, which admittedly is a much better handling car, but the LGT gets 2x the mileage of that car (okay, only for some of us).

 

Anyway, G/L, I hope everybody's mileage improves over time!

[BDII]

It's tough to feel sorry for peeps complaining about fuel economy when they bought the car for the very fast acceleration and performance potential. If you wanted the car to have better mileage, why didn't you buy the 2.5i Limited?

 

I mean, sure it's nice to get better mileage, but calling your car "pathetic" when you bought for performance says a LOT more about you than it does about the car, doesn't it? Comparing to the accord, sure it gets better mileage, but how much does it weigh and how fast is it (I have no idea)? 3400 lbs is not too heavy for this car. The comparable (and significantly smaller) A4 weighs in at about 400 lbs heavier. Now that thing is a fat pig.

 

Anyway, think about it - you bought a high performance car. It still gets more than 2x or 3x the fuel economy of those idiotic 4x4, 10 ft tall trucks morons commute to work in. Also, the LGT is definately faster than the RX-8, which admittedly is a much better handling car, but the LGT gets 2x the mileage of that car (okay, only for some of us).

 

Anyway, G/L, I hope everybody's mileage improves over time!

 

+1

[rottenspam]

It's tough to feel sorry for peeps complaining about fuel economy when they bought the car for the very fast acceleration and performance potential. If you wanted the car to have better mileage, why didn't you buy the 2.5i Limited?

 

I mean, sure it's nice to get better mileage, but calling your car "pathetic" when you bought for performance says a LOT more about you than it does about the car, doesn't it? Comparing to the accord, sure it gets better mileage, but how much does it weigh and how fast is it (I have no idea)? 3400 lbs is not too heavy for this car. The comparable (and significantly smaller) A4 weighs in at about 400 lbs heavier. Now that thing is a fat pig.

 

Anyway, think about it - you bought a high performance car. It still gets more than 2x or 3x the fuel economy of those idiotic 4x4, 10 ft tall trucks morons commute to work in. Also, the LGT is definately faster than the RX-8, which admittedly is a much better handling car, but the LGT gets 2x the mileage of that car (okay, only for some of us).

 

Anyway, G/L, I hope everybody's mileage improves over time!

 

I don't disagree that there are worse cars out there than Subaru. I mearly mentioned the Accord as it has similar performance, weight, and size. Yet it significantly more fuel efficent. Heck cars with more performance like the pontiac GTO do a bit better then the legacy. I bought the car for its performance, and other attirbutes, but that dosen't mean I ever thought it was fuel efficent. I was just noting that Subaru engineering has a long ways to go before it builds a power and efficent car. They built the Prescott of cars.

 

Here's the accord coupe's specs (the sedan is auto only) But as you can see they are comparable to the legacy.

Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door coupe

Price as tested: $28,360 (base price: $26,360)

Engine type: SOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection

Displacement: 183 cu in, 2997cc

Power (SAE net): 240 bhp @ 6250 rpm

Torque (SAE net): 212 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm

Transmission: 6-speed manual

Wheelbase: 105.1 in

Length/width/height: 187.6/71.3/55.7 in

Curb weight: 3299 lb

Zero to 60 mph: 5.9 sec

Zero to 100 mph: 15.2 sec

Zero to 130 mph: 31.1 sec

Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.3 sec

Standing 1/4-mile: 14.5 sec @ 98 mph

Top speed (drag limited): 135 mph

Braking, 70-0 mph: 181 ft

Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 g

[tantal]

I don't disagree that there are worse cars out there than Subaru. I mearly mentioned the Accord as it has similar performance, weight, and size. Yet it significantly more fuel efficent. Heck cars with more performance like the pontiac GTO do a bit better then the legacy. I bought the car for its performance, and other attirbutes, but that dosen't mean I ever thought it was fuel efficent. I was just noting that Subaru engineering has a long ways to go before it builds a power and efficent car. They built the Prescott of cars.

 

Here's the accord coupe's specs (the sedan is auto only) But as you can see they are comparable to the legacy.

Vehicle type: front-engine, front-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 2-door coupe

Price as tested: $28,360 (base price: $26,360)

Engine type: SOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, port fuel injection

Displacement: 183 cu in, 2997cc

Power (SAE net): 240 bhp @ 6250 rpm

Torque (SAE net): 212 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm

Transmission: 6-speed manual

Wheelbase: 105.1 in

Length/width/height: 187.6/71.3/55.7 in

Curb weight: 3299 lb

Zero to 60 mph: 5.9 sec

Zero to 100 mph: 15.2 sec

Zero to 130 mph: 31.1 sec

Street start, 5-60 mph: 6.3 sec

Standing 1/4-mile: 14.5 sec @ 98 mph

Top speed (drag limited): 135 mph

Braking, 70-0 mph: 181 ft

Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.82 g

 

Um, you're not exactly being honest here:mad: From Edmunds, here's the fuel efficiency of the V6 6MT:

=====

Fuel Tank Capacity: 17.1 gal.; EPA Mileage Estimates: 20 mpg / 30 mpg; Range in Miles: 342 mi. / 513 mi.

 

Cons

Tepid handling, brakes should be more powerful.

 

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/honda/accord/100452190/specs.html?tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Honda*

=====

 

NOT 35. Have to call you a liar there. IT's 20/30. Not that much better than my wagon, which has a LOT more room, and is a lot faster. The sedan is 21/30, but it's an auto, so it'll be slower.

 

Again, if the GT is such a POS, why did you buy it? The accord is not really competetive in speed to the GT, although it is faster than an RX-8. Also, that 6 speed transmission is a significant contributer to the hwy fuel economy; no argument against the complaint that subaru needs a 6-speed, but comeon, what's the point? Did someone show up at your door with the car and hold a gun to your head to make you buy it?

 

If fuel economy was so important, then it's you who made a bad decision. My MT wagon will hammer the accord MT coupe from just about any speed, and that's why I bought it. If honda offered a rwd accord wagon with the 5 speed, I would certainly have checked it out, but I bought this car. The handling is pretty good too, and will be a lot better with a decent set of tires and rear sway bar.

 

Enjoy your accord. Maybe next time you should think about what car you actually want to own before dropping cash on a POS. Wish I was your car salesman.

[scatman]

+ whatever on the 6M thing... for the price we should a got it. Would of solved the whole gas milage prob.

[rottenspam]

Um, you're not exactly being honest here:mad: From Edmunds, here's the fuel efficiency of the V6 6MT:

 

=====

Fuel Tank Capacity: 17.1 gal.; EPA Mileage Estimates: 20 mpg / 30 mpg; Range in Miles: 342 mi. / 513 mi.

 

Cons

Tepid handling, brakes should be more powerful.

 

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/honda/accord/100452190/specs.html?tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Honda*

=====

 

NOT 35. Have to call you a liar there. IT's 20/30. Not that much better than my wagon, which has a LOT more room, and is a lot faster. The sedan is 21/30, but it's an auto, so it'll be slower.

 

Again, if the GT is such a POS, why did you buy it? The accord is not really competetive in speed to the GT, although it is faster than an RX-8. Also, that 6 speed transmission is a significant contributer to the hwy fuel economy; no argument against the complaint that subaru needs a 6-speed, but comeon, what's the point? Did someone show up at your door with the car and hold a gun to your head to make you buy it?

 

If fuel economy was so important, then it's you who made a bad decision. My MT wagon will hammer the accord MT coupe from just about any speed, and that's why I bought it. If honda offered a rwd accord wagon with the 5 speed, I would certainly have checked it out, but I bought this car. The handling is pretty good too, and will be a lot better with a decent set of tires and rear sway bar.

 

Enjoy your accord. Maybe next time you should think about what car you actually want to own before dropping cash on a POS. Wish I was your car salesman.

 

WOW!?! Quite a response Tantal, you think I just did a home invasion! Or keyed your car?

 

 

Name calling? Liar? You’d think I was talking to a Macintosh user that and saying their computer wasn’t the fastest computer in the world. Gun to my head? I think you need to relax and read what I actually wrote.

 

 

You’d think when I was talking about the Legacy GT that I was talking about you personally? I was merely stating that the Legacy GT has lousy fuel economy for a sedan of its size and performance, and using the Honda Accord as a comparison of as similarly performing car that gets better fuel economy. Don’t take it so personally that there could be some bad attributes of a Legacy GT. Please read my previous post I didn’t say the Legacy GT was a bad car I merely stated its gas mileage was pretty pathetic. Did I ever say I chose the Legacy because of fuel economy? Nope, I was just merely stating that the Legacy GT has pretty bad economy. I was simply using the accord as a comparison.

 

 

Did I say 35mpg for the Honda Accord V6 Coupe with 6M? Nope please read my previous post before the performance specs. I said a V6 Accord with automatic is rated at 34highway. When I quoted you the economy rate I actually mis-quoted and said that the V6 got 34 highway with the auto, its actually 30mpg for the ’05, I incorrectly entered the fuel economy for the 4cycl. Thank you for pointing out this incorrect information.

[melayout]

I was merely stating that the Legacy GT has lousy fuel economy for a sedan of its size and performance, and using the Honda Accord as a comparison of as similarly performing car that gets better fuel economy.

Similarly performing in just one case, straight line performance on a very dry day.

Consider handling and inclement weather where the LGT trumps the Accord, and your statement is false.

Consider overall comfort and amenities where the Accord trumps the LGT, and you statement is again false.

[emorphien]

I was merely stating that the Legacy GT has lousy fuel economy for a sedan of its size and performance, and using the Honda Accord as a comparison of as similarly performing car that gets better fuel economy.

 

I believe I had some authority to comment on this since I own an 05 LGT Limited 5mt and my mother has an 04 Accord V6 (auto but thats not important really).

 

There is no comparing how they drive, the accord simply does not perform like the LGT. The Accord is a very nice car, but it in no way competes with the LGT in terms of performance.

 

A lower revving V6 should always be expected to see better fuel economy than a higher revving FI'd 4 cylinder. Additionally the car doesn't have 4 wheels to drive, and the extra drive shafts to drive them.

[tantal]

Did I say 35mpg for the Honda Accord V6 Coupe with 6M? Nope please read my previous post before the performance specs. I said a V6 Accord with automatic is rated at 34highway. When I quoted you the economy rate I actually mis-quoted and said that the V6 got 34 highway with the auto, its actually 30mpg for the ’05, I incorrectly entered the fuel economy for the 4cycl. Thank you for pointing out this incorrect information.

 

You did. You whined about the GT being "pathetic" and the "accord, with auto no less, gets 34"

 

Then in your next message you quoted the 6mt specs, accel, weight, etc. with no indication whatsoever that you were referring to a different drivetrain of the car.

 

Big difference betwen what you clearly implied and your whining defence in the message I am replying to.

 

Pathetic, indeed.

 

Bottom line is the Accord, which you state "has similar performance, weight, and size. Yet it significantly more fuel efficent." does not in fact have similar performance with significantly more fuel efficiency.