EyeFlyIsTheEye Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 I don't think they change a car's mileage significantly, unless the tire is dramatically wider than stock. [quote name='jasonlgt']Do wider tires reduce mpg? Jason[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoundBoy Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 after my first fill up: Computer Reported : 17.7 Actual: 16.75 91 Octane Gonna keep a detailed log to see if I go up/ down dependin on gas. Got Shell V-Power in now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLS Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Where ya gettin' 91 Octane? All I ever see is 87 - 89 - 93, and Sunoco has 94. Never seen 91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Our GT's (Australia) require 98 Octane! This makes it harder to choose between performance orientated GT (high fuel cost and usage/more fun)and the fuel friendly 2.5iNA. If the 2.5NA came with a stereo upgrade option (McIntosh) it might sway me more towards it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 The 2.5i NA should also use 98 octane. You can put in 91 but the computer will detune the engine to suit - and who wants that? I always use 98 in my 2.5i. Australian fuel octane is qouted using RON (Research Octane Number). I think the US use (RON+MON)/2 (MON is Motor Octane Number), so we all have to be careful here folks. I think the numbers in previous replies are all jumbled up. Japan use 108RON. Theoretically, a 10:1 compression ratio engine requires 100 RON fuel, so using 98 RON in the non turbo 2.5 still detunes it a bit! At least BP have made an effort in Australia and put 98 RON in places like between Adelaide and Melbourne. Good on them. If you're in Australia, stay away from 98 RON from Shell (Optimax). This is lower RON fuel with additives - not refined to be 98 RON. After sitting in you tank for a while, it degrades quicker. No wonder "shoppers" could get it cheaper with their dockets. Well der! Shane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLS Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 I'm talking American measure here! :D We are R+M/2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 Ah OK - well if you read anything from an Aussie, they will be qouting R only! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoundBoy Posted October 5, 2004 Share Posted October 5, 2004 [quote name='TLS']Where ya gettin' 91 Octane? All I ever see is 87 - 89 - 93, and Sunoco has 94. Never seen 91[/quote] dealership didn't fill me up... so they gave be a card to get gas at the station... i believe it was a getty on the corner of 252 & west chester pike ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highwaydrifter Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 19.5 1300 on the odo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plunk10 Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 14.778 gallon fill up today at 327.2 miles equals 22.14 mpg since the last fillup. This was mostly highway, some city, and some commuting. Still not revving past 4K rpm, though coming close a lot at WOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 [quote name='shane']The 2.5i NA should also use 98 octane. You can put in 91 but the computer will detune the engine to suit - and who wants that? I always use 98 in my 2.5i. Australian fuel octane is qouted using RON (Research Octane Number). I think the US use (RON+MON)/2 (MON is Motor Octane Number), so we all have to be careful here folks. I think the numbers in previous replies are all jumbled up. Japan use 108RON. Theoretically, a 10:1 compression ratio engine requires 100 RON fuel, so using 98 RON in the non turbo 2.5 still detunes it a bit! At least BP have made an effort in Australia and put 98 RON in places like between Adelaide and Melbourne. Good on them. If you're in Australia, stay away from 98 RON from Shell (Optimax). This is lower RON fuel with additives - not refined to be 98 RON. After sitting in you tank for a while, it degrades quicker. No wonder "shoppers" could get it cheaper with their dockets. Well der! Shane.[/quote] Hi Shane, hope you are enjoying your car. Do you have an auto or manual? Do you regret not getting a 3.0R or GT? I am really confused because I would love the extra power but is it worth the extra costs? I wish there was a mcintosh upgrade available for the 2.5i. I can't wait much longer :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Hi Mark, I boguht the manual. I doubt the extra power is worth the cost of the GT or 3.0. I paid 36.5K on road. Only problem with the car is the vibration in the clutch pedal. The clutch master cylinder does not come with a damper to remove these vibrations. It does on the GT and I have one of these on order to be fitted in the next week or so. I find the acceleration sufficeint after driving a Commodore - the AWD is a bonus and the handling/braking is great with our 17 inch wheels. Fuel economy is 8.4-8.6L/100km around town, taking off rapidly and cruising in fifth at 60kph. Highway I get 7.2-7.6L/100km. Given the power ist's a good package. The GT or 3.0 will only get 12-18l/100km around town and 8-10 out on the highway. I know someone with a GT in Melbourne who gets 17L/100km. Stuff that for a joke. Have a look at the non turbo liberty forum on the australian mrt rally website for more info. Shane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flo4Legacy Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hi Mark, the 2.5i is a really good base engine for the Legacy. It has enough power to drive around city and highways and is also doing well for overtaking. I have the 3.0R and I am very pleased with the engine. I have to admit that the felt difference between the 3.0R with automatic and the 2.5i manual is not so big. The automatic in the 3.0R takes away some of the expected oooommmmmppppphhh feeling. But believe me this baby is plenty powerful! 8) I also had a hard time to decide between these two engines. But I am glad now that I took the 3.0R. It is a very quiet engine and it is comfortable to drive. The automatic fits very well and contributes to an smooth, relaxed driving. Ok, if I step on the gas pedal it can move, too. And it is soooo much fun to do that! The other side is the mileage. I recorded between 12 - 13 l/100 km, but that also includes city and autobahn driving. If top speed of 240 km/h is the goal, then the mileage is slightly worse :). But this comes down with a speed of 180 -200 km/h. The mileage of the 2.5i that Shane mentioned is really better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awdG35killer Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 LGT 5mt drove 252miles(200mi city+52mi freeway). a/c on half the time. comp shows: 21.5mpg avg. ... started with 300mi->fillup [b]actual is 19mpg[/b] after fillup it showed 20mpg and 320mi->fillup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Jedimaster* Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 I'm getting less than a lot of you guys- are you trying to drive conservatively? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 [quote name='Flo4Legacy']Hi Mark, the 2.5i is a really good base engine for the Legacy. It has enough power to drive around city and highways and is also doing well for overtaking. I have the 3.0R and I am very pleased with the engine. I have to admit that the felt difference between the 3.0R with automatic and the 2.5i manual is not so big. The automatic in the 3.0R takes away some of the expected oooommmmmppppphhh feeling. But believe me this baby is plenty powerful! 8) I also had a hard time to decide between these two engines. But I am glad now that I took the 3.0R. It is a very quiet engine and it is comfortable to drive. The automatic fits very well and contributes to an smooth, relaxed driving. Ok, if I step on the gas pedal it can move, too. And it is soooo much fun to do that! The other side is the mileage. I recorded between 12 - 13 l/100 km, but that also includes city and autobahn driving. If top speed of 240 km/h is the goal, then the mileage is slightly worse :). But this comes down with a speed of 180 -200 km/h. The mileage of the 2.5i that Shane mentioned is really better.[/quote] You drive at those speeds :?: :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 [quote name='shane']Hi Mark, I boguht the manual. I doubt the extra power is worth the cost of the GT or 3.0. I paid 36.5K on road. Only problem with the car is the vibration in the clutch pedal. The clutch master cylinder does not come with a damper to remove these vibrations. It does on the GT and I have one of these on order to be fitted in the next week or so. I find the acceleration sufficeint after driving a Commodore - the AWD is a bonus and the handling/braking is great with our 17 inch wheels. Fuel economy is 8.4-8.6L/100km around town, taking off rapidly and cruising in fifth at 60kph. Highway I get 7.2-7.6L/100km. Given the power ist's a good package. The GT or 3.0 will only get 12-18l/100km around town and 8-10 out on the highway. I know someone with a GT in Melbourne who gets 17L/100km. Stuff that for a joke. Have a look at the non turbo liberty forum on the australian mrt rally website for more info. Shane.[/quote] You're getting excellent fuel economy. The 3.0/GT fuel figures you have quoted are bad, I travel 60 km round trip everday to work and it looks like the 2.5i is the sensible choice, I am after an automatic though so hopefully it still performs ok. My current car is '88 ford telstar and has no go at all. I wonder if a full exhaust on a 2.5i AT would be worth investing in for performance improvements Also, is the 6 speaker stereo as bad as I am led to believe. Pity it's not easy to change the head unit. Can't wait for a test drive..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 I've been on the autobahn- it was great to watch. I was always in the right hand lane being in a 1.5L renault diesel hatchback, watching those mercedes and proches flash their lights from the horizon as they approach at 200kph+ I was sitting on 140kph. We have no idea in Australia - where the Commodore is seen as the standard.... Australian engineering is almost an oxymoron (and I am an engineer! - a dwindling profession here) I once sat on 180 every day on the way home before the radars here in Oz. We used to cruise at 140. Using a Commodore though, 200 was fast and only ever did that once. They aren't built for it. Now the Subaru's can flash their lights as they approach too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flo4Legacy Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 [quote name='MarkC'] You drive at those speeds :?: :?[/quote] YES! :twisted: 8) Why shall I not? I have access to the autobahn (Germany) and there are some parts left with no speed limit. And by the way, the car is capable of that speeds, really no problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Mark - I think the standard stereo is fantastic. I can't believe how good it is (my previous cars have been a forester and a commodore, both with woeful stereo's). More importantly - you might not like the acclereration of the 2.5i auto. Looks a bit weak on paper.... The manual acclerates really well and my average fuel economy over the past week is 8.4l/100km to 8.6 around town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkC Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 [quote name='Flo4Legacy'][quote name='MarkC'] You drive at those speeds :?: :?[/quote] YES! :twisted: 8) Why shall I not? I have access to the autobahn (Germany) and there are some parts left with no speed limit. And by the way, the car is capable of that speeds, really no problem![/quote] OK, didn't know about roads with no limits. Sounds like fun :D Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awdG35killer Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 [quote name='jedimaster']I'm getting less than a lot of you guys- are you trying to drive conservatively?[/quote] yes, i am :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul G. Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Still not quite broken in, so the economy should improve somewhat. Typically 1/3 highway, 1/3 city, 1/3 rural. I drive on the spirited side of moderate. Computer - 27.9mpg Actual - 26.0 For the record, the stereo is quite nice, plenty of power and fairly smooth sounding. I'm sure if I drove more conservatively, I could get up to 28 or so--more use of the cruise would definitely help there. The base engine is quite torquey, and performs much better (pulls harder) than comparable Honda, Mazda and Nissan 160ish hp fours. It also cruises strongly and smoothly at 80+mph. P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franklin Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I have close to 3,000 miles now on my 5 speed manual gt. mostly fast highway (80%) 20 % mixed local city. getting low 20's about 23. My vote goes for the JDM Legacy wagon 6 speed with a Big Time overdrive for nice mileage. My last car a 6 speed Z-28 could get 26 MPG real world at 80 mph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoundBoy Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 i did an experiment today: My normal drive to/from work is at most 55 mph in brief spurts, and averages around 35. using my AT, I average around 17 mph... and its been going up every tank full. Today i reset the 'b' trip computer, and shifted my entire drive manually on sport shift. I was in 4th during the straight runs, downshifting to 3rd when i needed to accel uphill or gain some bigger power.. otherwise i was in 4th. i also engine breaked on downhill runs. My trip computer reported a avg run of 20.9 MPG ... and in line w/ my manual calculations.. my trip comp is < .5 mpg off. So... maybe we just need to drive around in manual for a while.. to let the ECU know how to shift a little better :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.