Beanboy Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 auto 2.5L turbo or auto H6 Legacy is down to 17/23 rating according to EPA. In comparision: Camry V6 auto: 19/28 Accord V6 auto: 18/26 Mazda6 V6 auto: 17/25 Newest engine getting the best mileage here, nevermind the AWD issue. With that said, 17/23 looks bad to window shoppers, especially in comparision to the much larger on the inside Camry/Accord. Direct injection can't come soon enough... forester: 20/25 crv: 19/26 Rav4 (4cyl): 20/25 Problem with this comparision is that the competition is much bigger, yet fuel economy is the same. Worst off is gonna be the new impreza... -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 ^ The new ratings seem on par with the overall average being reported on the gas mileage poll. http://legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45938 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John M Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 It looks pretty accurate; that's basically what I get with normal driving. I have no troubles topping 24-25 on the highway though, and my driving style can't be described as "sedate" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wukindada Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 EPA.......... Let them use mine as a example, I just will not let them know that boost is under 5psi while I'm breaking the new turbo in...... just over 30mpg highway:) Going for 450miles on a tankful Toyota 6EATS .........SUCK!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted April 19, 2007 Author Share Posted April 19, 2007 That's the idea, to get them more accurate as to what people are really getting. Still, seeing 17/23 on the side of a Subaru is gonna hurt. Worst is the new Impreza, estimated to be 20/25. Even with roughly a 10% improvement if that's possible on the tweaked 2008 motor, that's still only 22/28. Check out the competition: 25/36 for the Civic 23/31 Mazda3 26/35 Corolla 25/31 Matrix 23/27 Caliber 22/29 Cobalt 23/31 Focus For somebody shopping in the economy car market where fuel economy is a bigger factor, the revised bread and butter Impreza is going to be hurting... Wonder if Subaru needs to bring back a subcompact back to the market. Along with that, Subaru had better be bending over for some loving from Toyota and ask for direct injection technology now. -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wukindada Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 The problem is the fact that consumers actually care about the figures......... Gas mileage is so far down on the list of priorities for myself & my extended family it is not even a factor. Not even if gas was 4.00 a gallon Safety & Fun top the list & always will........ BTW I cummute every day over 50 miles round trip so it is not as though I work right around the corner..... Toyota 6EATS .........SUCK!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 That's the idea, to get them more accurate as to what people are really getting. Still, seeing 17/23 on the side of a Subaru is gonna hurt. Worst is the new Impreza, estimated to be 20/25. Even with roughly a 10% improvement if that's possible on the tweaked 2008 motor, that's still only 22/28. Check out the competition: 25/36 for the Civic 23/31 Mazda3 26/35 Corolla 25/31 Matrix 23/27 Caliber 22/29 Cobalt 23/31 Focus For somebody shopping in the economy car market where fuel economy is a bigger factor, the revised bread and butter Impreza is going to be hurting... Wonder if Subaru needs to bring back a subcompact back to the market. Along with that, Subaru had better be bending over for some loving from Toyota and ask for direct injection technology now. It is mportant to note that none of those cars listed is AWD. That is where the mileage penalty occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted April 19, 2007 Author Share Posted April 19, 2007 Oh, and it will be hit with gas guzzler tax. $1300 worth. Haha Subaru... http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f6197.pdf -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wukindada Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Screw the system & purchase either a demo or a car with very low miles. Gas guzzler tax:rolleyes: Vehicle luxury tax:rolleyes: Toyota 6EATS .........SUCK!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted April 19, 2007 Author Share Posted April 19, 2007 forester: 20/25 crv: 19/26 Rav4 (4cyl): 20/25 better comparision. Only problem is that the competition is at least 300 pounds heavier, three inches wider, three inch longer wheelbase, five inches more rear legroom... In other words, much bigger with the same fuel economy. -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Oh, and it will be hit with gas guzzler tax. $1300 worth. Haha Subaru... http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f6197.pdf You want AWD? You gotta pay to play. Would you favour a move back to 2.0l engines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted April 19, 2007 Author Share Posted April 19, 2007 Oh I could care less, just Subaru with their feel-good environmental image is going to take a hit hopefully and make them wake-up from their slacking. -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Oh I could care less, just Subaru with their feel-good environmental image is going to take a hit hopefully and make them wake-up from their slacking. AWD. Are you also in favour of Subie moving to FWD? Weight savings and drivetrain efficiencies to be gained by that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted April 19, 2007 Author Share Posted April 19, 2007 Explain: forester: 20/25 crv: 19/26 Rav4 (4cyl): 20/25 When vehicles that weigh 300 pounds more and offer inches more of interior room for passengers in almost all areas yet return the same fuel economy, something is wrong with your offering. Subaru needs to look long and hard at their 2.5L and get some improvements done already. -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Are you refering to a non-turbo Forester? I believe the turbo version has a smaller turbo than the LGT. The CRV isn't a full time AWD vehicle from what I understand and neither is the Rav4 and neither of them offer the same power. If you want good power and full time AWD, you're going to have to pay for it. I bet we'll begin seeing FWD vehicles from Subaru in the not too distant future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meltdown07 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I bet we'll begin seeing FWD vehicles from Subaru in the not too distant future. I seriously doubt that. That would be contrary to the whole niche they have. They're not going to abandon their loyalists. Go Cardinals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 ^ They'll still produce AWD vehicles but to meet market demand for more fuel efficient cars (not to mention improved CAFE standards) expect to see FWD. They have offered them in the past in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 They're not going to abandon their loyalists. Wagon owners thought so as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2furious Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I don't think Subaru will bring FWD cars. Everybody knows Subaru is AWD, I don't think they want to lose the already well-developed image of the company. From Desert to Rocky to SLC !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beanboy Posted April 19, 2007 Author Share Posted April 19, 2007 4AT from Subaru really isn't really a full-time vehicle either, at least in NA form. If you want to compare turbo Forester and V6 RAV4 2008 figures: Forester XT auto: 18/23 Rav4 V6 AWD: 19/26 RAV4 versus Forester Passenger Volume (cu. ft.) 108.20 91.50 Curb Weight - Automatic (lb.) 3675 3360 Wheelbase (in.) 104.70 99.40 Width (in.) 71.50 68.30 As far as interior goes, the only thing the Forester has more of is front legroom: Front Headroom (in.) 40.80 39.10 Rear Headroom (in.) 39.70 37.00 Front Legroom (in.) 41.80 43.60 Rear Legroom (in.) 38.30 33.70 Front Shoulder Room (in.) 57.10 53.50 Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 55.30 53.60 Front Hip Room (in.) 53.80 51.60 Rear Hip Room (in.) 52.40 51.60 The RAV4 is obviously a larger, heavier and more powerful vehicle. So why is it able to get better fuel economy numbers? -B http://www.standardshift.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Ive said it before, but Ill say it again. I disgree with the new testing procedures. I rarely accelerate to 80 mph and rarely use my A/C. So why are we testing that way? The highway test should go up to 70 MPH in my oppinion. As far as accuracy, the old hwy est. for my car is 27 mpg, the new 24 mpg, I reality I get btw. 30 and 32 depending on how fast Im going. I typically cruise at 75 mph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 If Subaru is worried about their fuel economy figures, they need to follow suit with 6 speed MT and AT in addition to direct injection. And they need to do it right. Adding the STi 6 speed isnt the answer. It really needs to be geared so that 6th is an overdrive. My dad's 330xi is done that way and it gets 28 mpg hwy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi Pimp Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Rav4 has a five speed auto geared for cruising on the V6 model so thats why the better highway ratings. For some reason Subaru refuses to put the five speed auto in the Impreza based vehicles, I'm sure its a cost issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATB Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 Try comparing to other performance sedans and wagons, not utilitiy mobiles for the rest of the herd. The other cars I was cross shopping were the Audi S4 Avant and Volvo V70R, both of which are known to be much worse in real world mileage. S4 folks seem to have difficulty breaking 20 on the highway. I usually get mid-high 20s. So I went with the fuel efficient choice. It doesn't make sense to compare a car with sporting intentions, a turbo, and AWD to a FWD (or AWD in the case of a CRV/RAV4) appliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLegacy99 Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I think that window stickers should include the new estimates as well as the old ones to give people a better idea during this transition period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.