Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Wagons Subaru Crew Subaru Forester Subaru Forester MPG-Real World Numbers
174 messages, Last post on May 13, 2009 at 4:45 PM
You are in the Subaru Forester Forum. Your Host is kcram
|
Replying to: nhnissaninva (May 23, 2006 6:56 pm) Two real-life examples: I have a commute that occasionally goes 28 miles one-way. In my prior car (an old BMW), I could see the difference in economy by watching the range (miles to empty) number during the commute. This number would drop steadily over the first 10-12 miles, then start holding steady and then increase slowly over the second half of the trip. Wife has a Prius with an LCD display with MPG charting capability. It shows the MPG in a bar chart. Each five minutes another bar pops up with the previous 5-minutes measurement, and so after 30 minutes you'll see 6 bars showing the MPG for each 5 minutes during that span. The first bar always shows about 25 MPG, the next one is about 40 MPG, then each succeeding bar shows 45-55 mpg depending on the terrain. Should it be any surprise that said wife gets under 40mpg for her 2-mile commute when I get 50 or better on weekend jaunts over longer distances? (EPA for '02 Prius - 52 city/48 hiway). Granted, the Prius is an extreme example since the gas engine doesn't run all the time, so it should take a bit longer to get to maximum operating efficiency. (It runs for a minute or two at startup to heat up the cat converter, then it runs as needed afterwards.) Bottom line, you really need to be driving longer distances in order to see MPG numbers approaching the published EPA numbers. Say, 15-30 miles at a time, not 6 miles. Break-in. 10,000 to 15,000 miles is a more realistic break-in period. You'll see a gradual rise over that time, I'd say about 1-2mpg, eveything else being equal.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: growler5 (May 24, 2006 9:46 am) I love this car, it just feels unusually solid and smooth. When your biggest gripe is that the radio blanks for a half second coming off "scan", I'm really having to stretch to find anything to not like  The big moonroof, feel like I'm just a notch down from a convertible. First few days with the new Forester, had this weird feeling that I could almost forget that it needed to be driven. The old 92 Loyale never felt that way, kept me on my toes. Do boxers minimize thermal mass, standing coolant in the engine? Warm up time is amazingly fast, the old Loyale was great that way too.
|
|
|
Replying to: nhnissaninva (May 24, 2006 7:57 pm) The car it replaced (old Beemer 525i) took an extra 2 miles to get to the same point. Dunno why, I'm thinking the Beemer had a bigger radiator. 2.5 liter engines in both.
|
|
|
Replying to: growler5 (May 25, 2006 5:26 am) -juice |
|
|
Replying to: nhnissaninva (May 23, 2006 6:56 pm) |
|
|
Just for the heck of it, during a day on the turnpike I was curious to see what it cost to run the AC. (2001 Forester S, AT.) Filled up, then took it down to exactly the first quarter tank mark. 108 miles without AC.(It was just cool enough to run with windows closed.) Upon next fill up, I did it again, but ran the AC on number 2 setting. 86 miles to the quarter mark. Pretty significant, I say. Joe
|
|
|
Replying to: joseph50 (Jun 30, 2006 12:14 pm) Try a full tank, and even then, just one tank isn't really significant. I track my mileage, and I've found that in the summer my average dips about 1 mpg, likely due to the A/C. But...in the winter, my average dips about 2mpg, due to having to warm it up longer is my guess. So the A/C puts less of a burden overall than having to warm up from freezing temps. -juice |
|
|
In doing my homework to decide between an XT or XS Premium Package I keep having nightmares about lousy gas mileage with the XT. I live in the Boston area and the "get up and go nature" of the turbo is almost a life/death highway merging necessity ... but at what price? Is the XT's gas mileage really that much worse than the XS? I also noticed that 91 octane is required for the XT (ouch). Any cheap "real world" advice out there? Thanks,
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: mshelley (Oct 07, 2006 9:18 pm) For city driving, the non-turbo certainly doesn't lack power, and I also do a fair amount of mountain driving with it, from Reno to Lake Tahoe, a 40 minute trip. And it uses regular unleaded. 
|
|
|
Replying to: terry92270 (Oct 07, 2006 9:57 pm) I test drove both models yesterday and yes I was very impressed with the power on the XS. My previous 4 cylinder experiences include Ford Bronco II & Ford Pintos (ok stop laughing) ... so I was curious to see how far the 4 cylinders of today have come. Today's 4 cylinders are not those of the mid 80s for sure. But then I drove the XT and oh my gawwwwwd (I used to have a Turbo Trans AM as well) it was extremely impressive and I've seen its 0-60 ratings at around 6 seconds. I'm trading in a 6 cyl Grand Cherokee for a Forester and like I mentioned before, Massachusetts drivers are known as Massholes (sorry) for a reason ... they don't let you merge onto the highway ... you have to earn your way onto the road or  else. Thanks again!
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Wagons Subaru Crew Subaru Forester Subaru Forester MPG-Real World Numbers
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Subaru Forester
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
