SUBARU IMPREZA Vs AUDI A3 - why the poor MPG on the scooby?

[buzzer]

I have had a drive of both recently... Why is the Subaru so shockingly bad on MPG? a quick comparison shows...



2010 SUBARU IMPREZA 2457 cc WRX 2.5

Fuel consumption (urban) 19.8 mpg
Fuel consumption (extra urban) 34.4 mpg
Fuel consumption (combined) 27.2 mpg
0 - 62 mph 6.5 seconds
Top speed 130 mph
Cylinders 4
Valves 16 v
Engine power 230 bhp
Engine torque 236 lbs/ft



2008 Audi A3 2000 cc S3 Quattro 3dr

Fuel consumption (urban) 23.9 mpg
Fuel consumption (extra urban) 42.8 mpg
Fuel consumption (combined) 33.2 mpg
0 - 62 mph 5.7 seconds
Top speed 155 mph
Cylinders 4
Valves 16 v
Engine power 265 bhp
Engine torque 258 lbs/ft

The Audi is also 95KG heavier so its no the weight... Is the Scooby engine just an old crap design?

[VB]

Different type of transmission I would imagine is the cause of it. The WRX is full-time 4wd (Viscous coupled), and the S3 is 2wd until required.


Plus it's 500ccs bigger than the Audi

BTW, those figures on the S3 are laughable. I've has a Cupra with that very engine fitted & it managed a paltry 24 (27mpg at a push) at 60mph. 42mpg??? on over-run perhaps

Edited by VB on Saturday 16th July 15:47

[Chicane-UK]

Aren't the Impreza's generally acknowledged to be putting out more than advertised? Or is that a thing of old?

Plus agreed on the comments about the fuel economy. I borrowed a Scirocco R last year for a weekend and am pretty sure I didn't see those kinds of figures - near identical power plant, but of course no 4WD on the Scirocco!

[SubaruSteve]

Looking at the data you provided I would say gearing has as much to do with it.

[MK4 Slowride]

If you buy a Subaru, especially modified sports ones expect ste fuel economy. I wooped with joy at getting 200 miles out of £70 full tank the other week. Normally I get circa 150 miles out of a tank.

[SubaruSteve]

SubaruSteve said:

Looking at the data you provided I would say gearing has as much to do with it.

Having looked up the STI version with a longer 6 speed box.... the mpg is worse, so it is just rubbish whichever way!

I only drive mine for 45secs at a time luckily!

[diddly69]

I think the WRX in hatch back form is a very handsome car I'm sure many will disagree!

[pilchardthecat]

VB said:

Different type of transmission I would imagine is the cause of it. The WRX is full-time 4wd (Viscous coupled), and the S3 is 2wd until required.

Viscous couplings are used in the 'part-time' 4wd systems (haldex etc) used on the Audi.

I would imagine the scooby has a mechanical centre diff

[rigga]

diddly69 said:

I think the WRX in hatch back form is a very handsome car I'm sure many will disagree!

I certainly agree with that ......

[johnbanks]

2.0T is direct injection and higher compression.

The EJ257 is an inefficient, wobbly piece of junk, that punches well below its capacity in terms of power band on a given turbo.

I love Scoobies, but in this comparison the S3 is a superior machine in almost all respects I can think of except for ECU choice, tuning costs.

Edited by johnbanks on Saturday 16th July 16:50

[y2blade]

buzzer said:

I have had a drive of both recently... Why is the Subaru so shockingly bad on MPG? a quick comparison shows...



2010 SUBARU IMPREZA 2457 cc WRX 2.5

Fuel consumption (urban) 19.8 mpg
Fuel consumption (extra urban) 34.4 mpg
Fuel consumption (combined) 27.2 mpg
0 - 62 mph 6.5 seconds
Top speed 130 mph
Cylinders 4
Valves 16 v
Engine power 230 bhp
Engine torque 236 lbs/ft



2008 Audi A3 2000 cc S3 Quattro 3dr

Fuel consumption (urban) 23.9 mpg
Fuel consumption (extra urban) 42.8 mpg
Fuel consumption (combined) 33.2 mpg
0 - 62 mph 5.7 seconds
Top speed 155 mph
Cylinders 4
Valves 16 v
Engine power 265 bhp
Engine torque 258 lbs/ft

The Audi is also 95KG heavier so its no the weight... Is the Scooby engine just an old crap design?

is this a trick question? or do you really not know?

[frosted]

MK4 Slowride said:

If you buy a Subaru, especially modified sports ones expect ste fuel economy. I wooped with joy at getting 200 miles out of £70 full tank the other week. Normally I get circa 150 miles out of a tank.

A diesel with 200 bhp can get you near on 3 times more mpg I know , I know . I was just putting it out there

[parapaul]

MK4 Slowride said:

If you buy a Subaru, especially modified sports ones expect ste fuel economy. I wooped with joy at getting 200 miles out of £70 full tank the other week. Normally I get circa 150 miles out of a tank.

Holy. Crap.

[Hysteria1983]

buzzer said:

I have had a drive of both recently... Why is the Subaru so shockingly bad on MPG? a quick comparison shows...



2010 SUBARU IMPREZA 2457 cc WRX 2.5

Fuel consumption (urban) 19.8 mpg
Fuel consumption (extra urban) 34.4 mpg
Fuel consumption (combined) 27.2 mpg
0 - 62 mph 6.5 seconds
Top speed 130 mph
Cylinders 4
Valves 16 v
Engine power 230 bhp
Engine torque 236 lbs/ft



2008 Audi A3 2000 cc S3 Quattro 3dr

Fuel consumption (urban) 23.9 mpg
Fuel consumption (extra urban) 42.8 mpg
Fuel consumption (combined) 33.2 mpg
0 - 62 mph 5.7 seconds
Top speed 155 mph
Cylinders 4
Valves 16 v
Engine power 265 bhp
Engine torque 258 lbs/ft

The Audi is also 95KG heavier so its no the weight... Is the Scooby engine just an old crap design?

Having owned a subaru, and loved it to bits, i find the question rather funny. The words 'Subaru' and 'shocking MPG' isn't exatly a good sales pitch, but to be honest, if you are after good MPG, you are in the wrong ballgame with a Subaru!

Given that I haven't owned oan A3, I have owned a leon FR and its pretty much a similar car to the A3 but nothing beats the scoob. The mpg will never be good in a scoob... too much right foot?!

[wolves_wanderer]

MK4 Slowride said:

If you buy a Subaru, especially modified sports ones expect ste fuel economy. I wooped with joy at getting 200 miles out of £70 full tank the other week. Normally I get circa 150 miles out of a tank.

Get an RX8 for long journeys , I easily get 200 miles from £70

[ejenner]

Echo. Subaru and fuel economy don't mix and it is to do with the engine design. Used to have a Forrester.

[waxaholic]

The scooby was not designed with fuel economy in mind, Simples

[garycat]

buzzer said:

I have had a drive of both recently... Why is the Subaru so shockingly bad on MPG? a quick comparison shows...



2010 SUBARU IMPREZA 2457 cc WRX 2.5

Top speed 130 mph

Engine power 230 bhp
Engine torque 236 lbs/ft

130mph with 230bhp ? That is very pessimistic. The hawkeye with the same engine could reach ~150.

[Legacywr]

The JDM 2.0 twinscroll like I have is reasonably economical for a Subaru, why they wont sell it to the rest of the world I don't know?

[Mastodon2]

garycat said:

130mph with 230bhp ? That is very pessimistic. The hawkeye with the same engine could reach ~150.

Depends what the gearbox is like I suppose, but that does seem very low for an Impreza. I think the old Type R Imprezas with the shorter gearing used to top out around 130mph, but unless it's a special edition I would not expect to see a gearbox like that in a regular Impreza.