Garandman Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 I'm starting to doubt the wisdom of carting AWD gear around 24x7x365. Best MPG for a tank I've gotten thus far is just over 26 mpg. We took a trip to Niagara Falls with 3 adults, 3 kids and gear in our Nissan Quest (3.5 V6). It weighs 4,000 lbs empty, has the drag coefficient of a minivan, and a large frontal area. It was hot so the AC was vlating (both zones) but on recirculate. Driving around 75 mph for the trip back, and making no special effort to conserve fuel, we averaged 25.9mpg. The way out against a headwind we still got nearly 23 mpg. Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwiener2 Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 yeah so? I get 23mpg and I have 315hp and 360 ftlbs tq? And I can always put that power down rather then spin tires. What's your MPG if you're just melting rubber? ZERO. What's your MPG if you lose control and fall off a cliff? ZERO What good is a car if it's raining too hard or snowing too much to even take it out? NOT GOOD!! AWD FTW!!!! My Mods List (Updated 8/22/17) 2005 Outback FMT Running on Electrons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIZARD Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 Ummm... why'd you buy an AWD vehicle in the first place? Stage2.5376, TDC ProTune,blah blah blahhhh and....Alky/H20 injection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenonk Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 let the weight of the car coast for you, and lighten up on the throttle, that'll help a lot.. listen and feel for the engine load.. there's a specific point to where the motor is keeping up with the speed that you are running, if you add too much gas, you are going to accelerate ever so slightly, if you are coasting or feel engine braking, you're slowing down and not covering as much distance as you can get.. smoother driving can get you as much as 5 mpg more.. but again, always carry light as possible, the weight will kill you. oh, and try towing a car or a 3000+ lbs trailer sometime, watch that gas just get dumped right out as fast as you can pump it in. Keefe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted July 22, 2006 Author Share Posted July 22, 2006 Ummm... why'd you buy an AWD vehicle in the first place? I didn't buy one. I bought three. I put 212,000 miles on two 1997 OBW's. The 06 is my third Subaru. The difference? About $1.00 per gallon and counting...... I'm just amazed at the delta. loh, and try towing a car or a 3000+ lbs trailer sometime, watch that gas just get dumped right out as fast as you can pump it in. I've towed a 3,000 trailer more than 10,000 miles with our Ford van (5.8l V8). It averages a little over 11mpg towing the 3,000 lb trailer (23 foot keelboat). It got a little less towing the 4,500 lb trailer (30 foot keelboat) but got almost 12 towing our Viper - about 1,000 lbs on the trailer. Lowest ever was towing the 23 boat through South Carolina at 80+ - 8.9 mpg. I haven't broken $100 yet but I'm close - 35 gallon tank. Great rig for towing, though, I towed an Etchells from Marblehead MA to NY and it never even had to downshift on hills. Our new Chevy van (4.8l V8) does much better - 16-17 mpg. So it puzzles me why a 3400 lb wagon with a smaller motor, smaller front area, and lower numerical final drive ratio only gets around 23 driving the same routes at similar speeds. Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanoswrx Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 I am so happy I have AWD all the time, you never know when you might need it, even on a dry hot day it can come in handy and the least expected time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 How many miles on the car? You are hitting EPA highway estimates... Roughly the same fuel economy as others in the class: Audi A4 quattro auto 3.2 is 19/27 BMW 325ix auto is 19/27 VW 3.6L 4motion 18/26 Yes, Passat is powerful, but also brand-new engine with direct injection. Weight doesn't matter too much on the highway. BMW weighs about the same, is smaller, and is slower. -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iyalla Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 :icon_conf Just a little confused on what the problem is here. The Outback R fuel estimate is 19/26 mpg. So you are getting the max. Are you expecting more or do you just want to know why its only 26mpg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deer Killer Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 I'm starting to doubt the wisdom of carting AWD gear around 24x7x365. Ask again in january. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted July 24, 2006 Author Share Posted July 24, 2006 I understand the wisdom of AWD in January..... I made myself feel better by deciding to go out and buy a roller skate for commuting. Then I did the math between the fuel cost for a vehicle driven 18,000 miles a year (about average for each of the vehicles I drive) averaging 23 mpg versus one averaging 30 mpg. At $3.00 per gallon I'd save $547 per year. That's about half of what insurance would cost, let alone capital cost, depreciation and repairs. I certainly want the AWD from November through March - 5 months. So really the penalty is about $320. As it's a company car and much of that 18,000 miles is paid for with pre-tax dollars, the out-of-pocket cost is even less. So that's about the price of two Nokians. So I'll cope..... But that Nissan 3.5l V6 in the Quest is a great engine, no doubt about it. Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iyalla Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 But that Nissan 3.5l V6 in the Quest is a great engine, no doubt about it. It was voted engine of the year (not sure which years) by several organizations. Nissan/Infiniti subsequently put it in every one of their cars and trucks (some models have it as an option some have it as standard but its in all except the sentra and the smaller than sentra vehicles I think). I guess you don't mess with perfection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhBe1 Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I think 26 is the minimum we've gotten. And it uses regular gas. Just liike the brochure says. Oh, yeah - it sends power to the rear. Upgrade the rear bar (if even by only a millimeter), and keep your foot down in a corner. 06LOB2.5i MT, JDMRSB, GYTTs, HPS, LGT Mufflers & Leather Wheel, SubiMomo Knob, Inalfa Moonroof, Clutch Switch Bypass, DeDRLd, DeChimed, & Straight Headrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted July 25, 2006 Author Share Posted July 25, 2006 That's fantastic average mileage for an Outback wagon. To be averaging the EPA highway rating is pretty unusual. The highest we ever got in our 4 cyl cars was 27.1 Our long term average was around 23.5 mpg, but highway driving usually yielded averages over 25. Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIZARD Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I didn't buy one. I bought three. I put 212,000 miles on two 1997 OBW's. The 06 is my third Subaru. The difference? About $1.00 per gallon and counting...... I'm just amazed at the delta. Okay, well that is different. You're saying you bought 3 AWD vehicles at the same time then, (2) '97's and (1) '06. I asked why you bought an AWD vehicle meaning NOW not how many cars/SUVs you've had in the past. Supplying power to 4 wheels as opposed to 2 is going to cost you more gas. You don't even pay for the gas as you've stated it is a company car so what are you really concerned about? Just wondering. Stage2.5376, TDC ProTune,blah blah blahhhh and....Alky/H20 injection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted July 25, 2006 Author Share Posted July 25, 2006 Okay, well that is different. You're saying you bought 3 AWD vehicles at the same time then, (2) '97's and (1) '06. I asked why you bought an AWD vehicle meaning NOW not how many cars/SUVs you've had in the past. Supplying power to 4 wheels as opposed to 2 is going to cost you more gas. You don't even pay for the gas as you've stated it is a company car so what are you really concerned about? Just wondering. I was wondering why the vehicle was not more efficient. It is slightly more efficient to drive four tires than two. The aerodynamic load is the same. So mechanical losses in the drive train make up the difference. That difference is surprisingly large, considering that a 4,000 lb bus seems to yield 10% better mileage on the highway. Where did I say I simultaneously owned the three vehicles? I'm getting old and need to learn how to better cope with sarcastic, negative internet sharpshooters who bring no positive or useful information to a thread. So help me out...... Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT05Legacy Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I commute about 35 miles one way to work. Mostly highway @ about 75-80mph. That, included with weekend driving around town, I end up at about 27.5 mpg per tank. The other day, I drove from southern Jersey to CT with a fresh tank of gas. When I arrived home, the display said 29.1 mpg. Driving style pretty much the same (maybe a little more 70-75 than 75-80). That was over a 200 mile trip. That gas mileage with AWD...I'll take it any day, and twice on sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Weight really doesn't matter for highway cruising. -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhBe1 Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 VVG, you have a higher-output engine (which admittedly shouldn't be as much of a penalty as it once was, if driven gently), with an automatic (again, they're more efficient than they used to be). In a what, 3400-lb car. You could get a 2wd camry/accord/whatever, but would there really be much gain? 06LOB2.5i MT, JDMRSB, GYTTs, HPS, LGT Mufflers & Leather Wheel, SubiMomo Knob, Inalfa Moonroof, Clutch Switch Bypass, DeDRLd, DeChimed, & Straight Headrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeedMoreBoost Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 It got a little less towing the 4,500 lb trailer (30 foot keelboat) but got almost 12 towing our Viper You have a Viper and your complaining about + or - $5 in gas savings??? Is there something wrong with this picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted July 25, 2006 Author Share Posted July 25, 2006 I commute about 35 miles one way to work. Mostly highway @ about 75-80mph. That, included with weekend driving around town, I end up at about 27.5 mpg per tank. The other day, I drove from southern Jersey to CT with a fresh tank of gas. When I arrived home, the display said 29.1 mpg. Driving style pretty much the same (maybe a little more 70-75 than 75-80). That was over a 200 mile trip. That gas mileage with AWD...I'll take it any day, and twice on sunday. I had two 4 cyl OBW's. It was just too slow to be fun, was very buzzy when it downshifted to 3rd, and there was a hufge gulf between 2nd and 3rd. We never, ever got 29 mpg. I've had my display show as much as 31.3 for a trip - but that was not the tank average. You have a Viper and your complaining about + or - $5 in gas savings??? Is there something wrong with this picture? Yes - it was a Viper640 - a racing sailboat. It weighed 725 lbs and the trailer weighed 350. It had a drop keel so it was out of the windstream, much easier and more efficient to tow. In fact one guy towed one with a VW Cabrio. Keelboats generally stick up a few feet above the top of the truck, and you have the mast and rigging so it's not very aerodynamic. Plus the keel is usually made of lead. An Explorer-sized SUV works pretty hard - a V8 Tahoe or above is usually the ticket. Vans are fantastic for towing as they long wheelbases, tons of room and big brakes. But we never got about 13mpg towing a keelboat. See pics for examples. Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattleLegacy Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 I was wondering why the vehicle was not more efficient. It is slightly more efficient to drive four tires than two. The aerodynamic load is the same. So mechanical losses in the drive train make up the difference. That difference is surprisingly large, considering that a 4,000 lb bus seems to yield 10% better mileage on the highway. Your statement that it is more efficient to drive 4 wheels than 2 and there are more mechanical losses when driving 4 wheels, contradicts itself. If there are more mechanical losses, its impossible for it to be more efficient. A 2TON bus gets better mileage compared to what? (I've gotten 32mpg avg on the freeway after a full swap to synthetic fluids in the engine, tranny, and rear diff. This was according to the trip computer which as many know can be off +/-5%. So, the actual number could be closer to 30mpg.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallispec Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 You have a Viper and your complaining about + or - $5 in gas savings??? Is there something wrong with this picture? HAHA>. yeah, i thought the same thing until i realized it was a boat - and not the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted July 26, 2006 Author Share Posted July 26, 2006 Your statement that it is more efficient to drive 4 wheels than 2 and there are more mechanical losses when driving 4 wheels, contradicts itself. If there are more mechanical losses, its impossible for it to be more efficient./// Go back and read what I wrote - "Tires" not "wheels". Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattleLegacy Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Go back and read what I wrote - "Tires" not "wheels". ok, whatever. still doesn't change the fact that your statement is wrong. BTW, its called All-WHEEL-Drive, not All-TIRE-Drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garandman Posted July 26, 2006 Author Share Posted July 26, 2006 Tires flex. So driving a tire makes it flex more. Putting the power down through four tires is more efficient. But the mechanism required to do so is less efficient That's why you can't get your head around the statement. Here's the simplest possible primer on automotive physics I could find that explains some of the drag factors, written in layman's terms and without any math concepts beyond multiplication....Give it a go. Physics In Automobiles and Trucks HAHA>. yeah, i thought the same thing until i realized it was a boat - and not the car. Also a snake but I don't have one of those either. Best thing I ever did to meet girls was to buy a sailboat - right up there with a Labrador Retriever. Who Dares Wins スバル Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.