I average 15.8 
.
.
another car thread
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
Thanks!
What I don't understand is how can a flat boxer get such bad mileage. There is not much inertia from the pistons going against gravity.
Manual don't have much of an Eco. It just tells u when to change the gears. I can never change the gears at the assigned time. Too dull.
Maybe that's why I don't get the lower mileage. Still happy tho.
$50 fills my tank
Thats funny
Surely you have seen the quality glide path metric as production started And quantities increased? The glide path started with many quality issues and reduced with time......how is that a surprise? The preproduction models were built not using production tooling in some cases, or the high volume production process. Many things change going into full production snd hence the quality issues. Thats why there are so many changes to the tooling during Christmas shutdown .......
Last edited:
I lurked around the Subi forums for a while after getting the 08 Impreza. The STi guys never talk about fuel economy. STi is sexy but a gas pig. When the dealer says 'not that bad' I wonder what he's comparing it to.
because racecar
Gravity has nothing to do with it and the inertial effects of the pistons are the same as for any other engine, just acting sideways instead of up and down, which doesn't make any difference. What it costs to accelerate a piston up to speed is gained back at the other end of the stroke. This has nothing to do with it.
Subarus are saddled for marketing reasons in North America with an all-wheel-drive powertrain, and for those people who don't need it (realistically, most people in this area) all that does is add extra weight and friction. Also, the lengthwise engine means there are hypoid gears to turn the power 90 degrees in the transaxle - a transverse engine doesn't have that, and that costs a couple points of friction. Gearing probably wasn't optimal for fuel consumption, either. The boxer engine pretty much has to be a wide bore short stroke design for it to fit in the vehicle, but if you are looking for economy, a long stroke design is a little better, but they can't do it because it would make the engine wider in the vehicle and it won't fit. A lot of little things add up.
True enough about not needing balance shafts ... but most inline-fours 2.0 liters and smaller don't have balance shafts, either. Mine doesn't (VW 1.9 TDI), I don't think the Hyundai Elantra engine has them, nor does the Civic. In some cases the balance shafts are shared with the oil pump drive so it adds minimal extra moving parts.
So why use a boxer engine? Lower centre of gravity?
What about Porsche? Bad fuel economy too?
Sent from my phone using my paws
Yes. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with how efficient it is ... only how high off the ground its weight is sitting.
They're tuned for performance ... not for economy.
Which way the cylinders are oriented has very little effect on this.
Subie's have always marketed their machines to be different. boxer config and awd systems.
No one is looking at Porsche their stellar fuel economy.
All of your regrets will disappear the moment you take that thing out into a blizzard. I LOVE driving in blizzards
We bought a used Forester lately for my wife - the 2.5X model, auto, mid-2000's.
For what it is, the fuel mileage is fine and only slightly worse than my 5-speed 2001 Accord.
I think if I had the Impreza sedan with the same powertrain, I'd be a bit more frustrated with the mileage. But for something so roomy and big and square, the Sube is nice - and the powertrain works well (torque is nice, 'tho not a fast car by any means). The CR-V and RAV4 are about as slow and no better in the fuel mileage department.
Our previous small car was an older Corolla and it rocked for fuel mileage but was bland and cheap in other respects. We'd sooner enjoy the Sube and have a nicer car that's a bit thirstier.
Can't wait to kit it out in snow tires and drive it places in winter!
For what it is, the fuel mileage is fine and only slightly worse than my 5-speed 2001 Accord.
I think if I had the Impreza sedan with the same powertrain, I'd be a bit more frustrated with the mileage. But for something so roomy and big and square, the Sube is nice - and the powertrain works well (torque is nice, 'tho not a fast car by any means). The CR-V and RAV4 are about as slow and no better in the fuel mileage department.
Our previous small car was an older Corolla and it rocked for fuel mileage but was bland and cheap in other respects. We'd sooner enjoy the Sube and have a nicer car that's a bit thirstier.
Can't wait to kit it out in snow tires and drive it places in winter!
Hmmm.....different. That got them very far...
All jokes aside.....Subaru is a very underrated brand. I like that they stick to their guns with the boxer and awd systems.
Last edited:
They've already begun.
While on the Subaru tangent, friend of mine dropped in with his new 2012 Impreza hatch, 5-speed manual. Seems pretty good to me. Quiet, comfortable, seems to handle well. Apparently the engine on the North American models does not use direct injection. I'd have to say that the power output seems unremarkable, but then, nothing else in that class is a powerhouse, either. Fuel consumption - he's averaging 8.4 L/100 km.
I won't be buying one, though. My head was touching the sunroof, and the seats have no height adjustment. Someone shorter than me, wouldn't have this problem. I fit better in a Golf.
I won't be buying one, though. My head was touching the sunroof, and the seats have no height adjustment. Someone shorter than me, wouldn't have this problem. I fit better in a Golf.
Ya id like to know what he was comparing it to also. That said just have to take the good with the bad, the fun to drive factor helps take some of the sting off every time i need to fill up. Although hopefully as it breaks in the mpg will go up.
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
There is no beating Toyota resale value.
Buy a brand new Corolla for $20,000, sell it for $15,000 three years later.
Buy a brand new Elantra for $20,000, sell it for $12,000 three years later.
Which one was cheaper to own (over three years)?
Before you say "I don't like the beige Corolla car", let me ask you: do you like your money? Then buy the Corolla
Buy a brand new Corolla for $20,000, sell it for $15,000 three years later.
Buy a brand new Elantra for $20,000, sell it for $12,000 three years later.
Which one was cheaper to own (over three years)?
Before you say "I don't like the beige Corolla car", let me ask you: do you like your money? Then buy the Corolla
mma01
Well-known member
All of your regrets will disappear the moment you take that thing out into a blizzard. I LOVE driving in blizzards
Or the first time you launch on boost* 1.7 60 ft times on street tires? yes pls!
*assuming your transmission stays together
