RE: Subaru WRX STI: PH Fleet
Discussion
Husaberk said:
Not driven an Golf R then. For the record I love Imprezas (we still have one), evos, RS's and anything else that's great to drive whatever the badge. Chose my R on the back of a test drive confirming what the reviews have said about what it's like to drive.
Oh and people can stop knocking Imprezas for fuel consumption, the R uses as much super unleaded as an STI.
But how could the manufacturer EU test numbers ever be lying Oh and people can stop knocking Imprezas for fuel consumption, the R uses as much super unleaded as an STI.
Husaberk said:
Oh and people can stop knocking Imprezas for fuel consumption, the R uses as much super unleaded as an STI.
This makes me laugh as well. The new stuff is barely any more fuel efficient in reality despite manufacturers claims.I think the car looks really good. Real shame they can't be more competitive in lease deals as I think we'd see much more of them about. I think they are one of the last cars about with a real character. They feel like they have been honed over time with each generation, whilst still having the traditional quirks.
mmcd87 said:
Husaberk said:
Oh and people can stop knocking Imprezas for fuel consumption, the R uses as much super unleaded as an STI.
This makes me laugh as well. The new stuff is barely any more fuel efficient in reality despite manufacturers claims.(In reality, you need to burn a certain amount of fuel to make 300bhp, no matter the type of engine in which you burn it in. The difference is that the rest of the time, when you only need 50bhp (ie 98% of road driving) a modern GDI turbo engine burns probably half as much fuel. This is why old skool scoobys pretty much do 25 mpg, no matter how you drive them, whereas a modern car, with a modern engine, can get into the 40s if driven carefully and not hooned around)
Max_Torque said:
it makes me laugh when people with no idea what they are talking about spout off on the internet too......... ;-)
(In reality, you need to burn a certain amount of fuel to make 300bhp, no matter the type of engine in which you burn it in. The difference is that the rest of the time, when you only need 50bhp (ie 98% of road driving) a modern GDI turbo engine burns probably half as much fuel. This is why old skool scoobys pretty much do 25 mpg, no matter how you drive them, whereas a modern car, with a modern engine, can get into the 40s if driven carefully and not hooned around)
Yep. But my Impreza will get 30mpg on a cruise. A Golf R 35mpg. Nowhere near what you are claiming.(In reality, you need to burn a certain amount of fuel to make 300bhp, no matter the type of engine in which you burn it in. The difference is that the rest of the time, when you only need 50bhp (ie 98% of road driving) a modern GDI turbo engine burns probably half as much fuel. This is why old skool scoobys pretty much do 25 mpg, no matter how you drive them, whereas a modern car, with a modern engine, can get into the 40s if driven carefully and not hooned around)
mmcd87 said:
Max_Torque said:
it makes me laugh when people with no idea what they are talking about spout off on the internet too......... ;-)
(In reality, you need to burn a certain amount of fuel to make 300bhp, no matter the type of engine in which you burn it in. The difference is that the rest of the time, when you only need 50bhp (ie 98% of road driving) a modern GDI turbo engine burns probably half as much fuel. This is why old skool scoobys pretty much do 25 mpg, no matter how you drive them, whereas a modern car, with a modern engine, can get into the 40s if driven carefully and not hooned around)
Yep. But my Impreza will get 30mpg on a cruise. A Golf R 35mpg. Nowhere near what you are claiming.(In reality, you need to burn a certain amount of fuel to make 300bhp, no matter the type of engine in which you burn it in. The difference is that the rest of the time, when you only need 50bhp (ie 98% of road driving) a modern GDI turbo engine burns probably half as much fuel. This is why old skool scoobys pretty much do 25 mpg, no matter how you drive them, whereas a modern car, with a modern engine, can get into the 40s if driven carefully and not hooned around)
2015 Subaru Sti 242g/km
Say no more!
Max_Torque said:
DanielSan said:
Max_Torque said:
2015 VW Golf R 165g/km
2015 Subaru Sti 242g/km
Say no more!
Given the half litre extra capacity it's hardly a surprise it produces slightly higher emissions... 2015 Subaru Sti 242g/km
Say no more!
It's a dinosaur! ;-)
Cotic said:
So - for a driver's car - this or the similarly priced BRZ?
Purely drivers car? BRZ I think. The BRZ feels light and nimble and I would say that it only needs better steering feel and better spread of power (note that I didn't say MORE power!) Lack of grip as standard makes it good fun in the wet and the sport mode on ESP allows RWD newbies like me to get the car sideways while still having an electronic cushion for when it gets a bit much.The STi is an easier car to drive really fast on the road but you need to be on track to exploit its limits. Lack of flexible ESP (it's on or off - no sport) means I'm having trouble assessing how the car behaves on the limit. I was at Oulton Park a couple of weeks ago and the different diff settings proved to be very interesting. I'll book a drift day at Oulton to learn more - too much grip on track!
Oh, and even though the steering is hydraulic assisted on the STi, I think feedback is very strange. I get mixed messages - much like in the electric assist BRZ. It would appear that putting the diff into manual changes this but I need to play more before coming to further conclusions!
Krikkit said:
Max_Torque said:
DanielSan said:
Max_Torque said:
2015 VW Golf R 165g/km
2015 Subaru Sti 242g/km
Say no more!
Given the half litre extra capacity it's hardly a surprise it produces slightly higher emissions... 2015 Subaru Sti 242g/km
Say no more!
It's a dinosaur! ;-)
Cheers,
Dan
Krikkit said:
Max_Torque said:
DanielSan said:
Max_Torque said:
2015 VW Golf R 165g/km
2015 Subaru Sti 242g/km
Say no more!
Given the half litre extra capacity it's hardly a surprise it produces slightly higher emissions... 2015 Subaru Sti 242g/km
Say no more!
It's a dinosaur! ;-)
My point is valid however in the context of the original comments! (which were "modern cars are no more efficient than old ones" which is quite blatantly false, as demonstrated by the near 50% increase in fuel consumption of the STi when driven in EXACTLY the same way as the Golf!)
You can stick an extra grand on the price to tax it too. And the fuel consumption makes it unbearable in real life... Half the road tax, 50% better fuel consumption, much better residuales... Of course people are buying German (and Ford, and Renault, and Fiat, and soon to be Honda)... If I'm doing 12k miles a year, I'd potentially save £1300 a year in fuel and tax (first year) if I bought a golf r, for instance (and that's not including depreciation, and factors in our currently cheap fuel).
It's up to Subaru to close the gap, to be honest. I'm sure they drive very well, but they drove very well in 2001!! Give us a boxer that can manage a realistic 40mpg+ on a run please! And play the bulls
t emissions laws a touch better too!
Putting everything down to soft touch plastics (no one cares except magazines) is glossing over the problems.
It's up to Subaru to close the gap, to be honest. I'm sure they drive very well, but they drove very well in 2001!! Give us a boxer that can manage a realistic 40mpg+ on a run please! And play the bulls
t emissions laws a touch better too! Putting everything down to soft touch plastics (no one cares except magazines) is glossing over the problems.
Someone has already posted the Golf R is no better than his old STI on fuel, so how is the fuel consumption of an STI unbearable but the Golf double the Subaru?
I've spent 4 months with a blob eye STI now and at no point is it unbearable on fuel, so far it's no worse than my S2000 was in the same usage.
I've spent 4 months with a blob eye STI now and at no point is it unbearable on fuel, so far it's no worse than my S2000 was in the same usage.
Max_Torque said:
I'd be surprised too!
My point is valid however in the context of the original comments! (which were "modern cars are no more efficient than old ones" which is quite blatantly false, as demonstrated by the near 50% increase in fuel consumption of the STi when driven in EXACTLY the same way as the Golf!)
Try to keep in mind I'm a very happy Golf R owner, the real world difference between it and the STI is insignificant. A few tenths of mpg that the Golf shades it isn't in any way a "blatant" difference. My point is valid however in the context of the original comments! (which were "modern cars are no more efficient than old ones" which is quite blatantly false, as demonstrated by the near 50% increase in fuel consumption of the STi when driven in EXACTLY the same way as the Golf!)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff