why are our cars so bad on gas?
 

Why is the impreza so bad? I know the boxer layout and permanent 4 wheel drive don't help but let's face it we must be competing with some supercars and 8 cylinder cars as far as mpg goes.

If u ain't going to answer a valid question about why there so inefficient I suggest you don't post here

With the close ratio box and extra weight of you and your sti I thought you would feel the struggle

ill post anywhere i like thanks.
more to the point if you are so thick you cannot work out why a fifteen year year old technology permanent four wheel drive turbo charged car uses more fuel than a new lightweight haldex 4wd system car with stop start technology etc. then you really do have special needs :thumb:

I said the 4wd systems partly to blame but the semetrical layout must be eficent by design and the car is not overly heavy. Aero is not great esp on a blob sti. But the answer to my question must lie in the engine

Ur right in a way subaru is dead as a brand now. nowadays who's gonna buy a brand new 2.5 sti over the competition? someone with special needs

Responses like this is the reason that I'm on Scoobynet less and less these days.

OP, it's accumulative. As you said four wheel drive doesn't help but the engines are not the most efficient. I had a non turbo back in 1999 and that was poor too, getting low 30's on a long run. My Type R only gets mid 20's taking it easy and pushing on a bit into the low teens.

I think it's due to the fact that most scooby driver's suffer from this affliction ;)

Attachment 41839

Can't comment on gas mpg as I run my car on petrol and not LPG. But certainly on petrol I don't find it and at all, 27mpg in the summer, 25mpg in the winter and 30+ on a run. Really can't complain

The pedal on the right adds fuel, the more you press it down to the floor the worse mpg gets,

In all seriousness though, if youve ever tried to push a scoob by hand youll realise how much drag the 4x4 has, couple that with a 2.0 turbo charged engine, dont be fooled by the new engines, ive had 3 2.0tfsi in various guises and not one has done close to 30mpg round town, if you want fast with good mpg took at hybrids

Fcuk me there are some class A pr1cks in this place.

Newage WRX is good on fuel for a performance 4x4 that's still pretty heavy.

30mpg stock (official figures) and as high as 38mpg after tuning.

Now the STI. Avoid. Heavy Gearbox saps most of the power making the car much slower and thirstier than the WRX.

The UK is only a very small part of the Subaru market hence the lack of investment. The US and Asian markets are the main areas but Subaru did not invest in diesel tech as much as the other car makers. Diesel sales account for less than 3% of the JDM market and is likely to decline, Nissan use French diesels.


If you believe all modern performance cars are fuel efficient then you have swallowed the advertisers spin or don't read the reviews properly. Haldex and many of the other 4x4 systems are torque vectoring or electronically controlled, so not true AWD like Subaru hence the fuel efficiency.


Until the DI engines are introduced then either buy another car or suck up the low MPG.

Still deluded I see.........40+mpg with an uprated anti roll bar wasn't it? :cuckoo:

This is really what has sent SN down hill, eejits spouting nonsense.

Official from VW :wonder:

We had a wrx and sti at the same time and the mpg was near enough the same.
Nowhere near what the idiot above claims on either car.

And meanwhile in reality...

Well, that's it then, it's official. After months of speculation on SN, the WRX is faster than the sti because of the heavy gearbox.

Anyone wanna swap their WRX for my STi? Cash your way too :freak3:

if mpg is of any concern why buy any type of performance car ?

Does anyone remember jackanory...::...:Whatever_

my wagon does 8 mpg on track, 14 mpg pulling the caravan around the south coast but I blank the number of times I fill up normally

Lol!! :lol1::notworthy:lol1:

I thought it was all about the smiles per gallon in these cars

WRX owner: WRX is faster to 60
STI fanboys: No it fcuking isn't you w4nker
STI owners after facts: Yes it's the gearing

WRX owner: WRX manages 30-38mpg dependent of tune. (STI 18-25mpg)
STI fanboys: No it fcuking doesn't you w4nker
STI owners after facts and many links to WRX owners confirming the manufacturers claimed 30mpg.....

Love how he acknowledges the WRX is faster than the STI. He must think it's the extra drag, curb weight, extra transmission losses or gear ratios though.

;)

I know, it must be hard for the STI fanboys, not only is their car sh!t slow it's also far inferior on fuel to the significantly more efficient WRX.

Hmm, slower, stronger box and crap on fuel. There's times I think STI fanboys should by a tractor.

http://sp7.fotolog.com/photo/55/25/8...82387746_f.jpg

Simple really, isn't it. :thumb:

Some folks just want their cake and eat it too :freak3:

When fuel was 149.9 I was averaging 32mpg and now it's 117.9 I'm averaging 25mpg.

Psychology!

So, anyone who owns an STi is a "STi fanboy", and anyone who owns a WRX is an "owner"? :freak3:

You do know Ditchy, right?

A lot of STI owners have left the marque because of stickers. So I just loosely use the term fanboy.

I doubt it's purely STi owners though. A lot of folk have left the Impreza brand, no doubt mainly due to subarus ridiculous prices of new cars and the good ol' 2.5 problems.

I'm still here waiving the flag though.....like the last person left on a battlefield lol