Subaru AWD Fuel Consumption question

transfixed wrote in news:8tKdnS_z4N59ydzfRVn- snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

From

In the 1980s, an EPA study found that drivers were typically achieving lower fuel economy than predicted by EPA laboratory tests. As a result, EPA required the laboratory-derived city and highway MPG estimates posted on the labels of new vehicles to be adjusted downward by 10 percent for city estimates and by 22 percent for highway estimates to better reflect the MPG real-world drivers can expect.

19.615384615385 mpg winter

feel free to round up or down ;-) these are not averages but representative samples...

florian

What kind of engine does the 1998 Legacy GT have?

EJ25 2.5l DOHC

florian

Well, I like my new (old) Legacy L wagon. I've had it since March 2. I guess I have to say that fuel consumption is not on my list of reasons I like it. My average is about the same as yours. It also has the 2.5l engine.

It's no Prius, that's true.

I used to get 25+ mpg out of the 2.2l Legacy L without even trying.

That car is a couple of hundred pounds lighter, had narrower wheels and a manual transmission. [IIRC, the final gear ratio is relatively similar ~ 3000 RPMs @ 65mph]. The FWD version got slightly better mileage still (I remember reading

The 2.5l was designed to compete with the low-end torque of V6-equipped cars in the same class in the US American market. Sadly but not surprisingly, the fuel efficiency went down the toilet.

florian

Well, I suppose it competes well in power. I am definitely happy with the power output of the engine. Someone here wrote that it's lacking, and it's funny to me, because I realize it's totally subjective. I guess I'm not a power maven.

But the car I'm selling is a 1995 Saab 9000CS, rated at 170 hp (5 more than the Subaru). The cars accelerate very similarly, but the Saab gets better mileage. They weigh about the same. The difference might be because the Saab's engine is slightly smaller (2.3l) and turbocharged. Also, it's FWD.

My most recent fillup with the Subaru yielded 23.5 mpg, and that's better than the previous three fillups.

We have a 2000 Forester automatic, we get about 21 mpg around town (lots of hills) and 24-26 on the highway. The AWD and the boxy shape hurt highway mileage. But we need the AWD as we live in the snowbelt. There are days here when only 4 x 4 pickups and Subarus are getting through. Yesterday we had that freak snowstorm that dumped 12" of snow. My wife made it out our hilly, unplowed dirt road. The ground clearance of the Forester helps on snowy roads. The Forester is torquey and maneuverable in city and suburban driving. This car is less fun on straight highways because of the short wheelbase and engine drone. Subaru just can't seem to understand an overdrive that gives low RPM at highway cruising speeds or say 70 MPH. Also the back seat leg room is short. So it all depends on where you drive and whether the rear leg room is a requirement.