Legacy 3.0R realistic fuel consumption ?

[clintondane]

Our '01 Blitzen is almost ready to pick up after being reversed into a pole a couple months ago by Southern Motor Court. Anyway, its a bit long in the tooth and I don't like the idea of driving a vehicle that's been in a crash. That might sound silly but yea well, my family, my choice.

I wanna know what kinda fuel consumption people that own a 3.0R are getting, that sentence sounds like a pirate wrote it, lol. If anyone replies could you please tell me the year of the car and if it's auto or manual. Also if it's run on 95 or 98.

Thanks.

[gotasuby]

I get 12.5-13.1l per 100.day to day driving with short drives often. Long trips 9.5l per 100.i have a heavy foot. auto and 95.

[clintondane]

Based on just your experience I'm instantly wondering whether a 3.0R is a good option or if I should just look at at a Spec B turbo? Driven both and like both but really conscious of fuel consumption considering the ever rising price of petrol. I know some will say, "Don't get a subie then, get a Mazda demio". I believe it is possible to have your cake and eat it too so I'm looking forward to others' results.

[gotasuby]

I love the 3.0r coming from a turbo legacy. Wouldn't go back. They are just as fast in a straight line. Auto vs auto. And don't need to run 3.0r on 98 like turbo one

[clintondane]

Drove a 2006 3.0R auto with SI-DRIVE and was properly impressed. I like the idea of no cam belt.to worry about as well as the fact it runs on 95. Also, no turbo, in my.mind equals less potential issues. Lol.

[funkytown]

 gotasuby said:

I get 12.5-13.1l per 100.day to day driving with short drives often. Long trips 9.5l per 100.i have a heavy foot. auto and 95.

i have a 2004 BPE outback and i get just the same as jase. they are great on the open road when you stretch their legs, cruise is v economical.

round town reasonably thristy, and very quick in a straight line.

[clintondane]

Thanks mate, tough decision to make me thinks.

[mitSUBishi-guy]

The turbo will give you slightly better fuel consumption - maybe 1/2 to 1L/100km less under normal driving. On the hammer there's probably little difference. The 3.0 is more responsive at low revs, as you'd expect. The turbo is most definitely faster but by the time you're pulling away you're in serious instant disqualification territory.

Less trouble? That's really going to come down to the car's history and unless you bought it new, it will always be a lottery. My BP turbo - sweet. My cousin's BP 3.0R has been giving him a bit of trouble lately. Both NZ new 6-speed manuals. What you save from not having a cambelt change is probably eaten away by greater fuel consumption in the long run. Plus 3.0's tend to chew out front tyres a little quicker than turbos due to heavier engine. And an extra 2 plat plugs. Etc. In the end, both great cars. If buying turbo try and get a facelift - uprated to 6 speed manual box, SI drive, and they look sharper (I don't actually like the SI drive - gimmicky). If I was to buy a BP again, I'd go 3.0R facelift just cos I like the low rev responsiveness. And the opportunity to get a great sounding exhaust note out of it.

[DacerX]

I agree with gotasuby and funky, and mine has high km and auto and still runs like a dream and I'm getting the same economy as them, and having cruise control and gear select on the wheel is a nice feeling

[Jesus]

8.2L/100km open road cruise in my 2002 with 2006 3.0R motor. Manwell on a Link G4 tho. About 10.5-12L/100km squirting it around town. Have 2 years and $7,000 worth of fuel receipts to back up the numbers.

[NotAWhiteGTB]

I think its time for my bi annual post.

2007 I drive leggy 3.0r

In I mode, open road - 9.2 to 9.7L/100km

In sport #, the most uneconomical i have ever had it was 11.2L/100km

[calibre]

My 2004 3.0r wagon, auto, running on 98 I seem to always get better economy, I happy with the mileage I get on the highway (all things considered) averaging aprox 8.5lt/100km that's with a bit of spirited overtaking included, you'll be lucky to see more than 350-400kms from a tank purely city driving, but I can easily get 550kms from a tank mixed mostly motorway and town without being too careful.

Giving it heaps in sport mode you can pretty much watch the fuel gauge emptying, but its worth it

2c

[lunchie]

my brother had one for 3 years, he said he got 12-13ltrs per 100kms around town and 9-10ltrs per 100kms open road

also during that time not a thing went wrong (except when he didn't attach the tailor properly and it came off on a bump and when he stopped at a light it caught up and went through the back hatch and totally smashed everything lol)

never laughed so hard in my life (except when he replaced it with a Q7 and had to pay 1800 bucks for 4 tires on its first service) 22s.... ouch

[mac]

;D 2002 rs30 run it on98 get 8.7 on open road 10-11 round town but i live in small country town, an its auto 4 speed. :

[duddley]

I consistantly get around 11L per 100km in my 02 gt30 and this is with two ladders on the roofracks and a boot full of gear and I always use bp98

[GorGasmSpecB]

Lol if it's the car I'm thinking of then I hardly think that little touch with the pole is a "crash" worthy of ditching a car for.

The 3.0r Manual and 2.0GT auto get the same fuel consumption in mixed driving. The GT is slightly better on the open road and the 3.0R slightly better in town.

[GorGasmSpecB]

 lunchie said:

(except when he replaced it with a Q7 and had to pay 1800 bucks for 4 tires on its first service) 22s.... ouch

$1800 is cheap. I paid nearly 2k for my 19" tyres.

[clintondane]

Sounding better and better is the 3.0R, which is good considering that since I picked our car up it's just not felt right but the worsr thing is the gearbox is foing something really odd. It misses 3'rd gear on both upshift and downshift. Hmmm.................. Southern Motor OCurt can pay to have that repaired, sure as shit I'm not paying for it.

[Ez30_R]

I know this is a old post but wanted to add my 2cents. I have a facelift 2006 outback 3.0r 5 speed auto with si drive and absolutely love it. It's done 275ks and still runs like a dream. On a long trip its excellent I'm getting 8.3L/100k ( about 750ks to a tank ) Round town its about 12... I leave it in sports mode . Sports sharp is to aggresive and holds gears to long . Intelligence mode dulls the power and offers no fuel economy gain on the open road. Has decent low down torque but doesnt really wake up till about 3k then pulls hard all the way to 7k much like a turbo lol. Always ran on e10 98 gull. Only down fall is the trans thumps into 3rd when downshifting at 80+kmh while going downhill ( off the throttle) No issues while on the gas

Edited March 4, 2021 by Ez30_R
Made 1 typo error

[Bugle]

Puts the spec c fuel consumption numbers in a zip lock bag and backs away without making eye contact...

[Andy_Mac]

On 5/03/2021 at 10:41 AM, Bugle said:

Puts the spec c fuel consumption numbers in a zip lock bag and backs away without making eye contact...

 

Are you still running stock injectors? Mine is terrible too, somewhere in the 13+L/100km according to one of those fuel tracking apps but I have only filled up a couple of times with it so I'm quietly hoping it might come down over time 

[Bugle]

Yup, stock as a rock

 

Mine appears to be running a bit rich at the moment but I wouldn't be surprised if its more than 13L/100km anyway, it's allowed out of the garage once a week 🙃

 

Reflash the gauge in the dash to just display a scale of dollar signs based on depth of pedal application vs displaying 'economy' would be a better use of the pixels

[Andy_Mac]

1 hour ago, Bugle said:

Yup, stock as a rock

 

Mine appears to be running a bit rich at the moment but I wouldn't be surprised if its more than 13L/100km anyway, it's allowed out of the garage once a week 🙃

 

Reflash the gauge in the dash to just display a scale of dollar signs based on depth of pedal application vs displaying 'economy' would be a better use of the pixels

 

My display is just pegged at 50 due to the bigger injectors/different ECU so I don't get to watch it look terrible atleast 

[Bugle]

Display says 7.8Km per liter is the average consumption, Google tells me this is 12.8 liters per 100km so 13 could well be right with your setup