2005 Legacy fuel efficiency

2005 LGT 5,700 miles on odo using 93 octane 5speed EAT 34lbs front and rear

I have been getting ~23 mpg in roughly 75/25 highway/local driving. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, some of the higher mileage is generated in local driving at less than highway speeds (moderate stop-and-go) with the usual smattering of stop signs and lights. The trip computer is very useful in determining one's average mileage. The paper computations agree very closely with the trip computer's results.

The highway driving consists of cruising at 80mph about half the time with some bursts higher, with the other half at 65-75, with several "blow your doors off" runups per tankful to shake loose those who would dare challenge the boxer's beastiness. My favorite victims are new/newer trucks with loud, powerful V-8's that can't get out of their own way, and BMW drivers who can't get past 90 mph. I don't waste fuel on kids in modded Honda's, etc.

If you don't like the turbo's "characteristics", get the six, but I think it has a busier maintenance schedule. Use full synthetic oil unless you're doing all local driving and are religiously changing your oil under the severe regimen.

I don't have experience with either engine, but I would expect engine displacement to be a very rough predictor of fuel efficiency. So if you are concerned about efficiency, get the smaller engine, which is the four-cylinder, right? I've had a couple of turbocharged Saab cars, and they get pretty good mileage if you keep your foot light. I noticed a

30% difference using two deliberately different driving styles, while I was experimenting. I drove hard for two tankfuls and gently for two more.

I am driving a 3,0R automatic and cunsumption is around 10 liter per

100 kms on highway and 16 in town. on average i am at 13,2 liter, 98 octane here in europe.

Not an economy car

I am driving a modest 2l impreza automatic in Europe, and its fuel consumption is around 11 liter per 100km average, so you are not doing bad..

"dom" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

One can often read that a smaller engine enhanced with a turbo is a more efficient powerplant than a larger one. I too would be interested to know if there is a gas mileage difference here.

I now drive a 6-cylinder 3.0R automatic Legacy wagon with 245hp in Europe and, someone else said, I confirm that my gas mileage figures match those calculated by the built-in computer. Roughly they are the following: 8-10 liters per 100 km on highway, 10-14 in town. I average

12 liters (around 20 mpg). I can have a very soft driving but I doubt I will ever reach below 8 (or above 29.4 mpg). All this with 95 octanes as I guess that the turbo version needs 98.

When I first looked at my own figures I was a bit surprised but my researches showed that, when moving a 1680kg 4x4 245hp vehicle with lots of bells and whistles, the other manufacturers do not make miracles as well.

I love that car but my next one will definitely be hybrid or any better technology to come.

Zaid

All things being equal, as the EPA figures are, if there was to be any difference, the nod would go to the lighter vehicle, which would then have the potential to get better mileage. If the specs show equal weight, I'd just shop for the best price.

If it were me, I'd go w/turbo, there's less to maintain.

You guys are talking in terms of km and liters instead of miles per gallon.

Though conversion factors (km to mi and liter to gallon) can be obtained, it's just not much fun to stop reading the thread to do calculation.

That's because most of the world thinks in terms of km, litres etc. You should check into the metric system, It's far more practical even if it was invented by the french.

Canadian eh.

It's exceedingly easy to convert between L/100km & mpg, just do it through Google's math functions.

or

How do you figure there's less to maintain? I am under the impression that a two headed engine is more maintenance than a one headed engine, but all Subarus have two headed engines. Does adding a couple of cylinders really add to maintenance?

I've had two turbocharged cars and had to replace turbos in both of them, which was painfully expensive. On the other hand, I don't recommend against turbos. You get a great balance of power and fuel economy. When you don't put your foot down too hard, your fuel efficiency can go up sharply.

Tom

I have a 2004 2.0i legacy wagon and am getting 30 - 32mpg out of it. I don't nurse it either, so thats pretty good going.

Does NZ really use gallons, or did you make that conversion for our convenience?

Bear in mind that an imperial gallon is 1.25 US gallons. Canada uses US gallons, if it uses gallons at all. So you are getting 24 to 25.6 miles per US gallon.

Tom Noo Joizy You Ess Ay

When did Canada change? They used Imperial before they went metric, the last I heard they use litres.

Oh, I probably assumed incorrectly that Canada used US gallons. As Emily Litella said, never mind.

Tom

Correct.

Canada uses US

INCORRECT! Canada has been using metric litres since June 1981. FYI the UK has been using metric litres since the spring if 1981, but they still use imperial miles- how stupid!

Believe it or not, I once filled up at a filling station using litres in the SW USA.