why are our cars so bad on gas?
13 October 2015, 09:07 PM
#62
Scooby Regular
13 October 2015, 09:12 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
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.
For example of WRX superiority these 1/4 times by SN STI drivers: (times echoed all around the world)
1.) ET 11.5 @124 - H4RDY-P1 2003 STI 500bhp
2.) ET 11.5 @*** - Billet 2007 STI 605bhp
3.) ET 12.6 @104 - Matt_RS 2003 WRX 330bhp
4.) ET 12.8 @ *** - fat-thomas 2004 STI 430bhp
5.) ET 13.0 @*** - ScoobyMark 2005 STI 369bhp
13 October 2015, 10:38 PM
#69
STI 'envy' is something made up by STI owners 
If I wanted an STI, I'd buy one. In the last 5 years I've paid an extra £40k off my mortgage and I've got no other debts. I could by loads of cars better than a newage cheap track STI with my debit card tomorrow. or should I go out and buy a cheap track and brag that I've got an STI?
genuine questions -
- Which weighs less?
A - newage WRX, or
B - Newage STI?
- Which gets better MPG?
A - newage WRX, or
B - Newage STI?
-what is faster?
A- 330bhp WRX or
B - 330bhp STI?
If I wanted an STI, I'd buy one. In the last 5 years I've paid an extra £40k off my mortgage and I've got no other debts. I could by loads of cars better than a newage cheap track STI with my debit card tomorrow. or should I go out and buy a cheap track and brag that I've got an STI?
genuine questions -
- Which weighs less?
A - newage WRX, or
B - Newage STI?
- Which gets better MPG?
A - newage WRX, or
B - Newage STI?
-what is faster?
A- 330bhp WRX or
B - 330bhp STI?
13 October 2015, 10:43 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: W / London
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. I couldent give a to$$ if a WRX gets a few MPG more than my STi. I have no interest in what my STi does to the gallon whatsoever. I put fuel in it when required, that's it.
14 October 2015, 12:09 AM
#73
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 7,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I throw JDM envy into the mix, how will a JDM WRX and JDM STI fare? The lower ratios on the JDM STI box will be worse still on MPG's, but then will twin scroll make it more efficient and counter the gear box ratios? 
14 October 2015, 01:07 AM
#74
If you actually compare our "real life" mpg with new cars of similar horse power - RS3, CLA AMG etc. you will find that the mpg is extremely similar.
However, the publicised mpg for these new cars is much higher than actual.
Clearly the CO2 emissions for the Subaru is still higher than the rest, but mpg wise the latest Subaru cars are far more economical than any that have gone before.
I can get 30mpg out of my 340R but normally get about 27, my 2006 STi I got 23-25,my RB5 I got 25 to the gallon and my 97 Turbo I got 23 or less if I was hooning as low as 16.
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/audi/rs3-2011
However, the publicised mpg for these new cars is much higher than actual.
Clearly the CO2 emissions for the Subaru is still higher than the rest, but mpg wise the latest Subaru cars are far more economical than any that have gone before.
I can get 30mpg out of my 340R but normally get about 27, my 2006 STi I got 23-25,my RB5 I got 25 to the gallon and my 97 Turbo I got 23 or less if I was hooning as low as 16.
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/audi/rs3-2011
Last edited by Beastie; 14 October 2015 at 02:05 AM. Reason: added link
14 October 2015, 08:54 AM
#81
The car was mapped by Dunc and made 352 from memory then ran 12.8 the one and only time it went on a drag strip back around 2013.
Strangely enough it was up against my Mrs 290 bhp wrx that ran 14 seconds ish
God knows where he got the made up 430 bhp from especially as the one and only time it was on the RR was at RCM when it was mapped by Dunc that made the 352 bhp.
I guess if he posted the real figures it would ruin his sti envy drag time board
14 October 2015, 09:31 AM
#82
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: In the fast lane
Posts: 3,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However it will depend largely on what size ARB you have fitted.
Don't laugh, it's true.
Just ask professor aR5e_Matt
14 October 2015, 11:25 AM
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example of WRX superiority these 1/4 times by SN STI drivers: (times echoed all around the world)
1.) ET 11.5 @124 - H4RDY-P1 2003 STI 500bhp
2.) ET 11.5 @*** - Billet 2007 STI 605bhp
3.) ET 12.6 @104 - Matt_RS 2003 WRX 330bhp
4.) ET 12.8 @ *** - fat-thomas 2004 STI 430bhp
5.) ET 13.0 @*** - ScoobyMark 2005 STI 369bhp
1.) ET 11.5 @124 - H4RDY-P1 2003 STI 500bhp
2.) ET 11.5 @*** - Billet 2007 STI 605bhp
3.) ET 12.6 @104 - Matt_RS 2003 WRX 330bhp
4.) ET 12.8 @ *** - fat-thomas 2004 STI 430bhp
5.) ET 13.0 @*** - ScoobyMark 2005 STI 369bhp
14 October 2015, 11:38 AM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't we just banish him to SIOC? Originally some of his theories on tuning were quite funny (some still are, like the thread on low friction oils to minimise frictional losses in the engine/drivetrain) but they are becoming more and more annoying.
14 October 2015, 11:57 AM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts