2005 Legacy fuel efficiency

[tcassette]

In the US, the Legacy/Outback is available with a turbo 4-cylinder with 250
hp, or a 6-cylinder with 250 hp. I'm interested in which gets the better
overall gas mileage, since they are both rated the same with automatic
transmissions. What has been your experience?

 

[Bob H]

In the US, the Legacy/Outback is available with a turbo 4-cylinder with
250 hp, or a 6-cylinder with 250 hp. I'm interested in which gets the
better overall gas mileage, since they are both rated the same with
automatic transmissions. What has been your experience?

2005 LGT
5,700 miles on odo
using 93 octane
5speed EAT
34lbs front and rear

I have been getting ~23 mpg in roughly 75/25 highway/local driving.
Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, some of the higher mileage is
generated in local driving at less than highway speeds (moderate
stop-and-go) with the usual smattering of stop signs and lights. The trip
computer is very useful in determining one's average mileage. The paper
computations agree very closely with the trip computer's results.

The highway driving consists of cruising at 80mph about half the time with
some bursts higher, with the other half at 65-75, with several "blow your
doors off" runups per tankful to shake loose those who would dare challenge
the boxer's beastiness. My favorite victims are new/newer trucks with loud,
powerful V-8's that can't get out of their own way, and BMW drivers who
can't get past 90 mph. I don't waste fuel on kids in modded Honda's, etc.

If you don't like the turbo's "characteristics", get the six, but I think it
has a busier maintenance schedule. Use full synthetic oil unless you're
doing all local driving and are religiously changing your oil under the
severe regimen.

 

[Tom Reingold]

In the US, the Legacy/Outback is available with a turbo 4-cylinder with 250
hp, or a 6-cylinder with 250 hp. I'm interested in which gets the better
overall gas mileage, since they are both rated the same with automatic
transmissions. What has been your experience?

I don't have experience with either engine, but I would expect engine
displacement to be a very rough predictor of fuel efficiency. So if you
are concerned about efficiency, get the smaller engine, which is the
four-cylinder, right? I've had a couple of turbocharged Saab cars, and
they get pretty good mileage if you keep your foot light. I noticed a
30% difference using two deliberately different driving styles, while I
was experimenting. I drove hard for two tankfuls and gently for two more.

 

[Edward Hayes]

All the cars I've owned have agreed with the EPA tests so I would
compare using those results rather than a neighbors calculations which
may vary wildly from person to person. ed

 

[dom]

I am driving a 3,0R automatic and cunsumption is around 10 liter per
100 kms on highway and 16 in town. on average i am at 13,2 liter, 98
octane here in europe.

Not an economy car

 

[jakkerma]

I am driving a modest 2l impreza automatic in Europe, and its fuel
consumption is
around 11 liter per 100km average, so you are not doing bad..

 

[Zelidar]

One can often read that a smaller engine enhanced with a turbo is a
more efficient powerplant than a larger one. I too would be interested
to know if there is a gas mileage difference here.

I now drive a 6-cylinder 3.0R automatic Legacy wagon with 245hp in
Europe and, someone else said, I confirm that my gas mileage figures
match those calculated by the built-in computer. Roughly they are the
following: 8-10 liters per 100 km on highway, 10-14 in town. I average
12 liters (around 20 mpg). I can have a very soft driving but I doubt I
will ever reach below 8 (or above 29.4 mpg). All this with 95 octanes
as I guess that the turbo version needs 98.

When I first looked at my own figures I was a bit surprised but my
researches showed that, when moving a 1680kg 4x4 245hp vehicle with
lots of bells and whistles, the other manufacturers do not make
miracles as well.

I love that car but my next one will definitely be hybrid or any better
technology to come.

Zaid

 

[BillRadio]

All things being equal, as the EPA figures are, if there was to be any
difference, the nod would go to the lighter vehicle, which would then
have the potential to get better mileage. If the specs show equal
weight, I'd just shop for the best price.

If it were me, I'd go w/turbo, there's less to maintain.

 

[amanda992004]

You guys are talking in terms of km and liters instead of miles per
gallon.

Though conversion factors (km to mi and liter to gallon) can be
obtained, it's just not much fun to stop reading the thread to do
calculation.

 

[H]

That's because most of the world thinks in terms of km, litres etc. You
should check into the metric system, It's far more practical even if it was
invented by the french.

Canadian eh.

 

[YKhan]

It's exceedingly easy to convert between L/100km & mpg, just do it
through Google's math functions.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=10+l+...ient=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

or

http://tinyurl.com/ca62a

 

[Tom Reingold]

All things being equal, as the EPA figures are, if there was to be any
difference, the nod would go to the lighter vehicle, which would then
have the potential to get better mileage. If the specs show equal
weight, I'd just shop for the best price.

If it were me, I'd go w/turbo, there's less to maintain.

How do you figure there's less to maintain? I am under the impression
that a two headed engine is more maintenance than a one headed engine,
but all Subarus have two headed engines. Does adding a couple of
cylinders really add to maintenance?

I've had two turbocharged cars and had to replace turbos in both of
them, which was painfully expensive. On the other hand, I don't
recommend against turbos. You get a great balance of power and fuel
economy. When you don't put your foot down too hard, your fuel
efficiency can go up sharply.

Tom

 

[Matthew Gallen]

I have a 2004 2.0i legacy wagon and am getting 30 - 32mpg out of it. I don't
nurse it either, so thats pretty good going.

 

[Tom Reingold]

I have a 2004 2.0i legacy wagon and am getting 30 - 32mpg out of it. I don't
nurse it either, so thats pretty good going.

Does NZ really use gallons, or did you make that conversion for our
convenience?

Bear in mind that an imperial gallon is 1.25 US gallons. Canada uses US
gallons, if it uses gallons at all. So you are getting 24 to 25.6 miles
per US gallon.

Tom
Noo Joizy
You Ess Ay

 

[nothermark]

Does NZ really use gallons, or did you make that conversion for our
convenience?

Bear in mind that an imperial gallon is 1.25 US gallons. Canada uses US
gallons, if it uses gallons at all. So you are getting 24 to 25.6 miles
per US gallon.

Tom
Noo Joizy
You Ess Ay

When did Canada change? They used Imperial before they went metric,
the last I heard they use litres.

 

[Tom Reingold]

When did Canada change? They used Imperial before they went metric,
the last I heard they use litres.

Oh, I probably assumed incorrectly that Canada used US gallons. As Emily
Litella said, never mind.

Tom

 

[Moon Guy]

Bear in mind that an imperial gallon is 1.25 US gallons.

Correct.

Canada uses US

gallons, if it uses gallons at all.

INCORRECT! Canada has been using metric litres since June 1981.
FYI the UK has been using metric litres since the spring if 1981, but
they still use imperial miles- how stupid!

Believe it or not, I once filled up at a filling station using litres in
the SW USA.