Ask the Car People.SM


2012+ Subaru Impreza Real World Fuel Economy

139 messages,  Last post on Apr 26, 2013 at 10:05 AM

You are in the Subaru Impreza Forum.

What is this discussion about? Subaru Impreza, Subaru Impreza WRX STi, Gasoline, Fuel Efficiency (MPG), Sedan, Wagon

Messages Page 10 of 15

#88 of 139 Re: 2012 Disappointment [fredjohnson] by tpyne377

Jan 01, 2013 (8:34 am)

Replying to: fredjohnson (Dec 21, 2012 9:12 pm)
We have owned 6 previous Subarus before our 2012 Impreza Hatchback Base 2.0i model. We pre-ordered ours because we had been so satisfied with our Subaru products to date. (Big mistake!)
 
This model was rushed to market. A number of things have become evident in the year that we have owned this car. Don't get me wrong. This can be a great car but Subaru simply did not take enough time to find its early shortcomings and fix them. (Very unlike Subaru. What were they thinking?)
 
1) We can only get close to the promised 36mpg under very specific circumstances. Not too hot; not too cold; dry pavement; no wind and no hills. (Does this really sound like Maine?) 30mpg is more realistic with the base model version of the CVT. Other models should be able to squeak out a bit more.
2) The shift logic used by the Base 2.0i CVT transmission is less than optimal. This REALLY needs to get this updated. It hurts MPG and the driving experience substantially. Those who have shifting paddles found in the more expensive models can take control of shifting and do much better than the "computer brain" controlling the CVT in the Base 2.0i. A few have mentioned getting logic updates, I think it should be a required service recall.
3) The computed average MPG on the dash is always overstated by about 7 to 10%. It kind of makes you wonder about the math skills of their engineers.
4) The standard tires (Yokohama Avids) are NOT suited for snow & ice in the northern tier states. They are quite good for typical wet/dry conditions. Subaru should have used another tire model for vehicles delivered to the the snow belt. I get the sense that this decision was made by an accountant and not an engineer.
5) Subaru of America does not appear to want to help its customers out. They cannot admit they made a few mistakes and then propose how to fix them. They seem to be in denial about this model's issues. (This does not make a good customer experience!) So, my advice ... get your facts; have them on paper; know what solutions are acceptable to you and then just keep pushing. Subaru will make it right eventually.

#89 of 139 Re: 2012 Disappointment [tpyne377] by ateixeira

Jan 01, 2013 (8:59 am)

Replying to: tpyne377 (Jan 01, 2013 8:34 am)
Send them feedback. The new Outback had no folding mirrors but they fixed that in one year. The roof racks were too close and they fixed that too.
 
They can and do listen.

#90 of 139 Re: 2012 Disappointment [tpyne377] by wvw

Jan 05, 2013 (4:50 pm)

Replying to: tpyne377 (Jan 01, 2013 8:34 am)
It's reassuring to see you post this as this has been my experience, too. I like the car a lot, but did as well or better on MPG with my Hyundai Elantra that was supposed to get 3 MPG less than the Impreza hatchback.

#91 of 139 Re: 2012 Disappointment [wvw] by ateixeira

Jan 06, 2013 (8:28 am)

Replying to: wvw (Jan 05, 2013 4:50 pm)
Hyundai got in trouble over that.

#92 of 139 Re: 2012 Disappointment [ateixeira] by wvw

Jan 06, 2013 (3:04 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Jan 06, 2013 8:28 am)
That was a 2008 that got close to 2MPG more than what the sticker said.

#93 of 139 Happy MPG numbers by jd_24

Jan 07, 2013 (10:55 am)

My 2012 with CVT has dropped a bit in the MPG numbers. The last two tanks have been just under 30mpg. With the colder weather (10F and colder) and increased short trips the drop was expected. Still very happy since its better than the 24ish my 2001 Outback would get in the winter.
 
Lowest tanks have been 29 to 30mpg.
Highest tanks were last summer and in the 35 to 37 range.
 
15,000+ miles so far.

#94 of 139 Re: Happy MPG numbers [jd_24] by once_for_all

Jan 09, 2013 (10:59 am)

Replying to: jd_24 (Jan 07, 2013 10:55 am)
my same numbers too! 18k on the odometer. CVT hatch.
 
But, a very big difference when I drive vs my wife or son. They are typically 3 mpg lower. When I watch my son drive (more like, when I look out the window while he is driving), he will usually hit 3500 rpm off a stop. I find if I can keep it below 2000 rpm from a stop, it will maximize mpg. My wife will usually hit 3000 rpm. Neither of them is OCD, like I tend to be.

#95 of 139 Re: Happy MPG numbers [once_for_all] by once_for_all

Jan 21, 2013 (9:32 pm)

Replying to: once_for_all (Jan 09, 2013 10:59 am)
488 mile trip over 2 days, 65-70 mph, 34.6 mpg from the fill numbers. Trip odo said 36.9 mpg. Hatch/cvt.
 
It's amazing the mpg difference between 60 and 70 mph, my guess is 3-4 mpg.

#96 of 139 Interstate? no way by spurfan53

Feb 02, 2013 (7:52 am)

the Impreza Sport Limited is not made for road trips. The optimistic MPG computer gave readings of 22-24 mpg with the cruise set to 75mph on a recent trip from Mpls to Fargo, ND. This car is not made to drive in the interstate it is underpowered and easily overwhelmed. The same trip in summer the mpg #s were near 28 far below the advertised 36 mpg! My 07 Jetta could do the same trip at 85 mph and not see any dip in hwy fuel economy.

#97 of 139 Re: Interstate? no way [spurfan53] by ateixeira

Feb 02, 2013 (7:55 am)

Replying to: spurfan53 (Feb 02, 2013 7:52 am)
Sounds unusually low. Is that an uphill grade?

Messages Page 10 of 15

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement