VinoGreen

Subaru Legacy 2.5L fuel consumption vs 2.0L Turbo

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, I'm new to everything here so if i mess up then sorry :D

My Subaru is a 2007 Legacy 2.5L Sedan  --> CarJam reckons the model is a 2.5i AUT LUX model (not sure what AUT means) and it should be getting 8.9L/100km. but anyway..

 

I got my first Subaru a month and a half ago and was warned about the fuel consumption that may come with it.

After a few weeks i did notice quite a high consumption which i tested to be 12.8L/100km mix of traffic, a bit of motorway and hard driving.

Was thinking of selling my current car and buying the Legacy 2.0L GT with the intent to get slightly better consumption (around 10-11L/100km which is what my mate claims to get) and upgrade in performance -

 

Is it worth upgrading to the 2L GT for a slightly lower fuel consumption average while also getting an increase of power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have a 2011 WRX 2.5L and with a mix of driving I have 10.2L p/100km. That’s with enjoying the car but also driving / shifting conservatively.

 

a 6 speed would save you more gas if you do open road driving. My 5 speed sits at 3k rpm at 100, a 6 speed sti would sit just above 2k rpm for example.

 

best I’ve seen is 8.9L p/100km cruising on the motorway Auckland to Hamilton.

 

I have an aftermarket air intake, top mount and tune for 98 gas - FYI

 

Reset your trip meter after every fill up to keep an accurate average.

 

tips:

 

keep a good tyre pressure, shift before boost, roll power on for passing, let your car roll when you can when you know you need to stop / turn (on the open road you can cover a fair bit of ground at idle) - braking is wasting energy.

 

Edited by Omsin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assume it is an auto and the AUT means that but they misspelled or ran out of characters.

 

Mine is usually 9-11L/100 depending on how conservatively I'm driving, currently 12+ since I keep messing with fuel parts so it's running a tad rich. 

With a tune the manual GT’s can be pretty efficient. Auto’s always use a bit more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dam that’s high fuel consumption for a NA. MY 2.5 turbo legacy uses 12.5 when I drive it hard around town but usually 11. NA really sucking fuel there

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some meters actually show km p/ L instead of L p/km

 

my ex gf had a 2L legacy NA manual which was usually very efficient AND extremely slow 😛

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2.5 turbo uses 10.9l/km around town average and 13l/km open road.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Omsin said:

Some meters actually show km p/ L instead of L p/km

 

my ex gf had a 2L legacy NA manual which was usually very efficient AND extremely slow 😛

 

Usually jap imports are Km/L and NZ new are L/100Km

 

If you're committed to cautious, smooth driving they can be efficient but most people just mash the noise maker and still go everywhere slowly but do so whilst using twice as much fuel as they could be using. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Car manufacturers go for small displacement with turbo now so to make their vehicles more efficient, as opposed to using a bigger engine to make sure that it is still powerful/torquey enough when fully loaded with passengers, fuel, crap in the back etc. This is because the cars now have more electronic devices, airbags/safety equipment which all add weight as safety and emissions testing is much more strict than what it was 20+ years ago. Based on how much they spent on R&D to come to that conclusion, I'm going to say small displacement with turbo is more fuel efficient than larger displacement...

 

That being said, there are more things to take into account - can small displacement turbo be run safely on 91, which is generally 15-25c  cheaper per litre? and how you drive is also to be considered as previously mentioned here. And really you may save in fuel consumption, but the average joe or joanne will not like to do regular oil changes with the expensive oil needed for turbo applications, and there is the added complexity of the turbo - more **** to go wrong. 

 

So as a v1 WRX owner, I'd say if you were after consuming less fuel and by extension money I'd go for NA. I get about 8.8km/l with majority of  those kms being spent on hilly backroads. Around town is terrible. Also those quoted km/l figures of new cars are grossly exaggerated imo take them with a pinch of salt, they must've drove like robots to get those figures. I've driven a 3-4 year old Corolla rental 6spd and got worse fuel economy than my 28 year old 2L NA MR2, both driven in similar ways and on similar roads.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Once you get a turbo car with an aftermarket intake or blow off valve, driving conservatively gets thrown out the window and it’s replaced with all sorts of good noises 

Edited by Omsin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get 8-9l/100km from my LGT turbo manual for highway cruising. Closer to 10l/100km for town driving. I dont get on boost very often. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.