why are our cars so bad on gas?
11 October 2015, 10:38 AM
#32
Funny thing is most owners who comment have had a wrx,myself included so know the sti envy the wrx boys spout is utter rubbish.
Wrx got nowhere near the claimed mpg above, it was slightly better on fuel than the sti we had parked next to it but was nowhere near the performance and handling of the sti hence it was sold first.
People buy the impreza for the performance and the sti is streets ahead.
Wrx got nowhere near the claimed mpg above, it was slightly better on fuel than the sti we had parked next to it but was nowhere near the performance and handling of the sti hence it was sold first.
People buy the impreza for the performance and the sti is streets ahead.
11 October 2015, 10:54 AM
#33
Funny thing is most owners who comment have had a wrx,myself included so know the sti envy the wrx boys spout is utter rubbish.
Wrx got nowhere near the claimed mpg above, it was slightly better on fuel than the sti we had parked next to it but was nowhere near the performance and handling of the sti hence it was sold first.
People buy the impreza for the performance and the sti is streets ahead.
Wrx got nowhere near the claimed mpg above, it was slightly better on fuel than the sti we had parked next to it but was nowhere near the performance and handling of the sti hence it was sold first.
People buy the impreza for the performance and the sti is streets ahead.
I've had uk2000,wrx and sti and they are all great cars!
The sti is the most highly tuned of them all in every way so how can it possibly be below the wrx on performance??
11 October 2015, 11:24 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Joking aside, someone posted a MPG thread on here (last year I believe) and my claims were quite modest going on the figures other WRX owners were quoting. Especially considering their's won't be as lights as mine.
I'll try and dig it out as I doubt all the claims were bs.
Both cars are great, it's like comparing a Cheetah to a Lion, Bomb proof STI is far sexier, I just think the WRX has an unfair rep.
I'll try and dig it out as I doubt all the claims were bs.
Both cars are great, it's like comparing a Cheetah to a Lion, Bomb proof STI is far sexier, I just think the WRX has an unfair rep.
11 October 2015, 11:31 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: W / London
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joking aside, someone posted a MPG thread on here (last year I believe) and my claims were quite modest going on the figures other WRX owners were quoting. Especially considering their's won't be as lights as mine.
I'll try and dig it out as I doubt all the claims were bs.
Both cars are great, it's like comparing a Cheetah to a Lion, Bomb proof STI is far sexier, I just think the WRX has an unfair rep.
I'll try and dig it out as I doubt all the claims were bs.
Both cars are great, it's like comparing a Cheetah to a Lion, Bomb proof STI is far sexier, I just think the WRX has an unfair rep.
11 October 2015, 11:37 AM
#36
I'm sure a tune for economy would get in the 30's mpg but wouldn't make for a quick car.
I personally think the wrx has a well deserved good rep,the UK cars maybe not so much in their standard form.
I love them all and will always be a great drivers car
I personally think the wrx has a well deserved good rep,the UK cars maybe not so much in their standard form.
I love them all and will always be a great drivers car
11 October 2015, 11:57 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
A stiffer arb and drop links improved economy off-boost as it negated the need to slow down for moderate corners.
Several new WRX's over the years have recorded faster times than the new STI ?
The WRX ratios are better for drag racing?
The STI is circa 80kg heavier?
The heavier STI gearbox, brake discs etc incurs extra transmission losses?
The Styling of the STI increases drag?
RS_Matt's 332.6 bhp 2003 WRX ran 12.6 with muddy wet tyres and fat_thomas' 2004 STI ran 12.8 with 430bhp?
The STI has no less than 11 stickers and badges on its exterior which doesn't juxtapose well with the fact STI owners detest such items?
Which is untrue?
11 October 2015, 12:13 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
When you consider the performance, the turbo, the fact that 4 wheels are driven etc I think that the MPG is fairly reasonable for Imprezas.
I used to have BMW 325ci sport and used the get 36 MPG out of that in a long run. In my impreza I got 33.9 MPG on a long run. Not bad considering it was powering twice as many wheels!
I used to have BMW 325ci sport and used the get 36 MPG out of that in a long run. In my impreza I got 33.9 MPG on a long run. Not bad considering it was powering twice as many wheels!
Whats the best fuel consumption figures you ever got?
Had my classic from new (13 years) and have now done 137,000 miles. Mass airflow sensor went dodgy at 60k miles as expected. Just changed again as a matter of course since I've done 77k on it. At the same time switched to Tesco Momentum 99 octane and did an ECU reset.
Last weekend went down to my folks in East Sussex from the midlands. Did 36mpg taking it easy at 70mph on motorway with about 20 miles of towns/country lanes at the end. On return journey topped up before motorway and same again at end of journey. Stuck religiously to 70mph for motorway 133 miles. 38.33mpg.
James
Had my classic from new (13 years) and have now done 137,000 miles. Mass airflow sensor went dodgy at 60k miles as expected. Just changed again as a matter of course since I've done 77k on it. At the same time switched to Tesco Momentum 99 octane and did an ECU reset.
Last weekend went down to my folks in East Sussex from the midlands. Did 36mpg taking it easy at 70mph on motorway with about 20 miles of towns/country lanes at the end. On return journey topped up before motorway and same again at end of journey. Stuck religiously to 70mph for motorway 133 miles. 38.33mpg.
James
Last edited by RS_Matt; 11 October 2015 at 12:16 PM.
11 October 2015, 12:23 PM
#41
Like what? That the manufacturer and car sales list the WRX as averaging 30mpg?
A stiffer arb and drop links improved economy off-boost as it negated the need to slow down for moderate corners.
Several new WRX's over the years have recorded faster times than the new STI ?
The WRX ratios are better for drag racing?
The STI is circa 80kg heavier?
The heavier STI gearbox, brake discs etc incurs extra transmission losses?
The Styling of the STI increases drag?
RS_Matt's 332.6 bhp 2003 WRX ran 12.6 with muddy wet tyres and fat_thomas' 2004 STI ran 12.8 with 430bhp?
The STI has no less than 11 stickers and badges on its exterior which doesn't juxtapose well with the fact STI owners detest such items?
Which is untrue?
A stiffer arb and drop links improved economy off-boost as it negated the need to slow down for moderate corners.
Several new WRX's over the years have recorded faster times than the new STI ?
The WRX ratios are better for drag racing?
The STI is circa 80kg heavier?
The heavier STI gearbox, brake discs etc incurs extra transmission losses?
The Styling of the STI increases drag?
RS_Matt's 332.6 bhp 2003 WRX ran 12.6 with muddy wet tyres and fat_thomas' 2004 STI ran 12.8 with 430bhp?
The STI has no less than 11 stickers and badges on its exterior which doesn't juxtapose well with the fact STI owners detest such items?
Which is untrue?
My old sti never had 430 bhp.... Ever.
Power made up by you.
Although it did run 12.8
11 October 2015, 12:45 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: W / London
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I actually cannot be even bothered to write a detailed reply. Another completely deluded WRX owner pulling facts and figures out of thin air in a desperate attempt to try and 'prove' that a WRX is the 'faster' car. Let's just skim over the STi''s power increase, better tyres, DCCD, far superior brake setup, better base for modifying etc etc and just drop in place the old "weighs a bit more" and "less aerodynamic" lines (because the standard WRX is obviously on par with the thrust SSC for aerodynamic effectiveness).
Next you'll be telling me a Rover is faster than a Ferrari.
Next you'll be telling me a Rover is faster than a Ferrari.
11 October 2015, 02:11 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
I actually cannot be even bothered to write a detailed reply. Another completely deluded WRX owner pulling facts and figures out of thin air in a desperate attempt to try and 'prove' that a WRX is the 'faster' car. Let's just skim over the STi''s power increase, better tyres, DCCD, far superior brake setup, better base for modifying etc etc and just drop in place the old "weighs a bit more," "Unusable short ratios when going over 350bhp," "stupidly heavy gearbox that causes substantial transmission losses" and "less aerodynamic" lines (because the standard WRX is obviously on par with the thrust SSC for aerodynamic effectiveness).
Next you'll be telling me a Rover is faster than a Ferrari.
Next you'll be telling me a Rover is faster than a Ferrari.
WRX
At the end of the day 350bhp WRX>450bhp STI and the kick in the teeth is 18mpg v 36mpg.
...but hey, the WRX driver won't be laughing when he has to fork out £200 for a new gearbox.
11 October 2015, 02:35 PM
#44
Better brakes to haul in the extra 180lbs. I can pull out facts, quotes and media reviews all day (and have done on a plethora of threads) that point to the WRX being faster and more efficient.
WRX
At the end of the day 350bhp WRX>450bhp STI and the kick in the teeth is 18mpg v 36mpg.
...but hey, the WRX driver won't be laughing when he has to fork out £200 for a new gearbox.
WRX
At the end of the day 350bhp WRX>450bhp STI and the kick in the teeth is 18mpg v 36mpg.
...but hey, the WRX driver won't be laughing when he has to fork out £200 for a new gearbox.
11 October 2015, 02:45 PM
#45
Better brakes to haul in the extra 180lbs. I can pull out facts, quotes and media reviews all day (and have done on a plethora of threads) that point to the WRX being faster and more efficient.
WRX
At the end of the day 350bhp WRX>450bhp STI and the kick in the teeth is 18mpg v 36mpg.
...but hey, the WRX driver won't be laughing when he has to fork out £200 for a new gearbox.
WRX
At the end of the day 350bhp WRX>450bhp STI and the kick in the teeth is 18mpg v 36mpg.
...but hey, the WRX driver won't be laughing when he has to fork out £200 for a new gearbox.
11 October 2015, 03:04 PM
#46
I have never understood all this bickering about whats better WRX or STI,its simple the STI is the better model.When I was looking into buying one I researched both models of the Impreza and the STI made for a better performance car in every way.My wife had a wrx and she loved her car but when the upgrades came,she still preferred the way my car drove,that's why her car is now running full STI engine and running gear.No one buys a performance car to talk about how good their MPG is.....SJ.
11 October 2015, 03:08 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: W / London
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attention Scoobynet STi owners.....
Please read the following information with great interest. Carrying out the following modifications to your car will make it quick, VERY quick, almost WRX quick. After years of owners testing different setups and modifications, not to mention spending thousands of pounds, it appears that a few simple changes are all that is required to make your STi untouchable. Ladies and gentleman, behold.................
1). Replace your STi arb and drop-links with WRX ones
2). Get rid your STi brembo setup, as found on other performance cars, and replace with stock WRX calipers, discs and pads to save weight
3). Replace your 6 speed DCCD box with a WRX one
4). Get rid of the high level spoiler and larger front bonnet scoop to aid aerodynamics in a car that has almost 0% aerodynamic effectiveness in a straight line anyway
5). Stick on some standard WRX tyres in place of your RE070's and make sure they're covered in wet mud.
6). Modify your current STi to 450bhp, then de-mod it to 350bhp to make it quicker once you've added all the WRX bits.
Please read the following information with great interest. Carrying out the following modifications to your car will make it quick, VERY quick, almost WRX quick. After years of owners testing different setups and modifications, not to mention spending thousands of pounds, it appears that a few simple changes are all that is required to make your STi untouchable. Ladies and gentleman, behold.................
1). Replace your STi arb and drop-links with WRX ones
2). Get rid your STi brembo setup, as found on other performance cars, and replace with stock WRX calipers, discs and pads to save weight
3). Replace your 6 speed DCCD box with a WRX one
4). Get rid of the high level spoiler and larger front bonnet scoop to aid aerodynamics in a car that has almost 0% aerodynamic effectiveness in a straight line anyway
5). Stick on some standard WRX tyres in place of your RE070's and make sure they're covered in wet mud.
6). Modify your current STi to 450bhp, then de-mod it to 350bhp to make it quicker once you've added all the WRX bits.
Last edited by Peedee; 11 October 2015 at 03:10 PM.
11 October 2015, 03:58 PM
#49
11 October 2015, 04:05 PM
#50
11 October 2015, 05:17 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Attention Scoobynet STi owners.....
Please read the following information with great interest. Carrying out the following modifications to your car will make it quick, VERY quick, almost WRX quick. After years of owners testing different setups and modifications, not to mention spending thousands of pounds, it appears that a few simple changes are all that is required to make your STi untouchable. Ladies and gentleman, behold.................
1). Replace your STi arb and drop-links with WRX ones
2). Get rid your STi brembo setup, as found on other performance cars, and replace with stock WRX calipers, discs and pads to save weight
3). Replace your 6 speed DCCD box with a WRX one
4). Get rid of the high level spoiler and larger front bonnet scoop to aid aerodynamics in a car that has almost 0% aerodynamic effectiveness in a straight line anyway
5). Stick on some standard WRX tyres in place of your RE070's and make sure they're covered in wet mud.
6). Modify your current STi to 450bhp, then de-mod it to 350bhp to make it quicker once you've added all the WRX bits.
Please read the following information with great interest. Carrying out the following modifications to your car will make it quick, VERY quick, almost WRX quick. After years of owners testing different setups and modifications, not to mention spending thousands of pounds, it appears that a few simple changes are all that is required to make your STi untouchable. Ladies and gentleman, behold.................
1). Replace your STi arb and drop-links with WRX ones
2). Get rid your STi brembo setup, as found on other performance cars, and replace with stock WRX calipers, discs and pads to save weight
3). Replace your 6 speed DCCD box with a WRX one
4). Get rid of the high level spoiler and larger front bonnet scoop to aid aerodynamics in a car that has almost 0% aerodynamic effectiveness in a straight line anyway
5). Stick on some standard WRX tyres in place of your RE070's and make sure they're covered in wet mud.
6). Modify your current STi to 450bhp, then de-mod it to 350bhp to make it quicker once you've added all the WRX bits.
you've made my day 
11 October 2015, 05:43 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
12 October 2015, 07:09 AM
#56
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why are our cars so bad on gas?
I will not miss this ****e when my wrx is gone.
Trying work out if RSMatt believes what he says or if he just likes to talk Bollocks for the hell of it.
A question that will never be answered.
Trying work out if RSMatt believes what he says or if he just likes to talk Bollocks for the hell of it.
A question that will never be answered.
12 October 2015, 10:39 AM
#58
12 October 2015, 10:51 PM
#59
I get 36-37 mpg on a run, have done many times too. Got from Rotherham to Brighton on just over half a tank (230 miles) and from Rotherham to Newquay with a quarter of a tank left (350 miles).
If I wanted an sti, I'd buy one.
The sti is a better standard car, it is a better starting point if you want 450bhp. But, if you want a 500bhp track car, buy the cheapest good car you can find. You will uprated the brakes, roll bars, engine/block, ECU, and loads of other things anyway.
I had a race with a mate in a 352bhp classic, he wasn't pulling away, but I wasn't catching him. He just seemed to be changing gear all the time, I was just using 2nd and 3rd.
If I wanted an sti, I'd buy one.
The sti is a better standard car, it is a better starting point if you want 450bhp. But, if you want a 500bhp track car, buy the cheapest good car you can find. You will uprated the brakes, roll bars, engine/block, ECU, and loads of other things anyway.
I had a race with a mate in a 352bhp classic, he wasn't pulling away, but I wasn't catching him. He just seemed to be changing gear all the time, I was just using 2nd and 3rd.
