subsince77 Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 I'm really scratching my head about the milage on this new Outback. I keep talking to people around here that say they get 28 to 30 on the highway with their 08 and 09 AT Outbacks. With a combination of town and rural highway driving I am only getting about 23.5. Today on a 120 mile road trip, 65 - 70 mph, we got about 25. My old car would have gotten at least 28 today, probably 29, or 30. I can't imagine that it could need plugs and wires at 18,700 miles. It seems to run well. I am wondering if there is any possibility of the timing being a bit retarded or something. We live at 8000 feet, but with the newer cars you don't ever change the base timing anyway do you? Any ideas out there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bheinen74 Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) Flat driving with increased tire air pressure, would get you about 27-28mpg avg about 55mph with using good quality gas without ethanol and a new airfilter. You are not flat driving you are in the mountains and you speed is above 55.. What type gas are you using, ethanol or neh? Synthetic oil will get you a slight increase as well. What oil type are you running? How new is your airfilter? Edited March 25, 2011 by bheinen74 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsince77 Posted March 25, 2011 Author Share Posted March 25, 2011 (edited) BTW, turned out we only got 23.8 on the highway today. Air filter is new, oil is Ashland oil ( Valvoline) synthetic 5/30. Syntheics in both diffs too. That is the same oil that was in the 97. Same road, same driver, same mountains, same gas. Gas does have ethanol. I can't get any without. The dealers tell me they can't get any without in the whole state. One of our stations kept ethanol free as long as he could, but he can't get it any more. I am running regular, which is 85 octane. The manual calls for 87, but so did my old one. At 8000' 85 is fine and 87 is pretty much non-existent. You are right about the mountains, but the other car was running the same mountains. The only real difference is the AT. The only reason I went with an AT, my first, is because of all the glowing reports I had read on this and other Subaru sites claiming that the new ones got as good or better milage than the manuals. I sure hope I dint make a big mistake with this 4eat. I love every other aspect of the car, but this is a big and expensive difference. Is there any such thing as advancing the timing any more? Edited March 26, 2011 by subsince77 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairtax4me Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Ignition timing is entirely controlled by the ECU and there is no way to manually change it. There are some performance "tuners" out there who can play around with ECU programming and probably change ignition timing, but I doubt there are any that support a vehicle that new. The dealer might be able to, but they won't unless Subaru tells them they need to. That does seem a bit low. But it's spot on the EPA estimated 24 highway. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsince77 Posted March 26, 2011 Author Share Posted March 26, 2011 Humph... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyewdall Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 I've got a buddy who just got a 2011 outback with the 6 speed automatic, and he claims he's getting close to 30 in mountain driving.... alot more than his 2009 forester with the 4eat (I think). I've never had something that new, but my old ones (EJ22's and EA82's) always dropped at least 10 to 20% in mountain driving vs flatter highways (flooring it up the canyons......). I'd easily get 30/31mpg on trips on I70 over to utah (even counting the passes), but commuting between boulder and ward, more like 26 in the EA82's, and 23 in the EJ22's. The Justy drops from about 40mpg highway to aroudn 32mpg commuting in the mountains. I've taken a 2007 outback with the 4eat on the same I70 trip, and only averaged about 27mpg, but I was probably going faster too... if I wound out the old EJ22 to 80mph the whole way, it also dropped to around 27/28. I wonder if the greater weight of the newer ones is giving them a bigger penalty for hills though? I think the greater horsepower definitely does, because you can go up hills faster... using more gas... where the old EA82's just didn't go up the hill any faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster2 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Try pumping up the tires to 37 psi on all four tires. That creates less rolling resistance, so a little better millage. Your Subie will ride a little firmer, and you will feel road bumps a little more, but it is worth a cheap try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsince77 Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 37 on all four tires? Aren't we supposed to keep the rears a couple of pounds lower than the fronts? The more I drive it, the more it think part of it is exactly what zyewdall was saying. I noticed today that although I am not intensionally pushing it harder, I think I have actually been going up the passes faster than I was in the 97. If the car is that much heavier, then certainly that would be a factor. Also, I am still getting used to the different power curve, and where the transmission is going to shift, since I have always picked the shift points myself before. I think I have been pushing it more than I thought. Today, I spent more time just trying to feel where the car was comfortable. I found myself at a little lower rpm, going up just as fast as I used to, and I got 28.8 on the leg of the trip that had more downhill in it. We came back up, and I haven't refilled yet, but judging by the gauge and the miles, I'll bet it will be between 24 and 25. That would mean an up and downhill combined average of around 26. With two adults, a dog, some gear, two bikes on a hitch rack, and an empty rack on top, I could live with that. Especially since everything else about the car is SO STINKING NICE!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olnick Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 . . . but judging by the gauge and the miles . . . Yikes! Maybe they've improved in modern times but I'd never judge anything based on a Subaru gas gauge! Only way to really know actual mpg is to measure gallons fill-up to fill-up and divide into mileage from the odometer. On the bright side, it sounds like you're busy learning all you can about your beautiful new wheels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsince77 Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 Right nick, no final conclusion until I fill up again tomorrow. I don't believe the computer either. It has never been closer than +-2 mpg so far. But I have been so fixated on how many miles I am getting by 1/4 tank, and 1/2 tank, that I can guess pretty close on how much the fill will be at the particular tick that the needle is nudging right now. I've got to get a life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyewdall Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 The more I drive it, the more it think part of it is exactly what zyewdall was saying. I noticed today that although I am not intensionally pushing it harder, I think I have actually been going up the passes faster than I was in the 97. If the car is that much heavier, then certainly that would be a factor. Yeah... I didn't realize this at first, and thought that EA82's and EA81's just got much better mileage than EJ22's and newer.... but on the highway they are about the same even though the newer ones are lower in the mountains. It's just that you can go so much faster in the mountains with the EJ22's (and proportionately faster with the new EJ25's) that you use more gas because of that, I think. When I drive my older cars I realize that I have gotten used to going at highway speeds up hills now.... which never used to happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsince77 Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 Yeah... I didn't realize this at first, and thought that EA82's and EA81's just got much better mileage than EJ22's and newer.... but on the highway they are about the same even though the newer ones are lower in the mountains. It's just that you can go so much faster in the mountains with the EJ22's (and proportionately faster with the new EJ25's) that you use more gas because of that, I think. When I drive my older cars I realize that I have gotten used to going at highway speeds up hills now.... which never used to happen Exactly. I started out crawling up hills with a VW bug, 40 hp, later 60 hp, but always making sure to keep it reved up and cool. We moved to the 77 Subaru DL, very slow but a great car, a 1.8 liter Isuzu Trooper. That poor thing couldn't hold 55 on flat ground in a head wind. Even our 1985 Nissan pickup went up passes in second. The 97 Outback flew from my perspective. For the first time I could actually pass people without risking my life. It was a revelation. That's why when people complain about the power in these cars I know they are coming from a different world than I did. This car has plenty of power for me. But, the gearing is very different than what I have been driving for the last 10 years, so it is taking some time to get used to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heartless Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 I'm really scratching my head about the milage on this new Outback. I keep talking to people around here that say they get 28 to 30 on the highway with their 08 and 09 AT Outbacks. With a combination of town and rural highway driving I am only getting about 23.5. Today on a 120 mile road trip, 65 - 70 mph, we got about 25. My old car would have gotten at least 28 today, probably 29, or 30. I can't imagine that it could need plugs and wires at 18,700 miles. It seems to run well. I am wondering if there is any possibility of the timing being a bit retarded or something. We live at 8000 feet, but with the newer cars you don't ever change the base timing anyway do you? Any ideas out there? Seems to me you are also talking about a difference between manual trans and auto trans - and yes, it DOES make a difference! fuel mileage will 9 times out of 10 be better with a manual than with an auto. difference in weight of the two cars is also a big factor. so comparing a 1997 to a 2010-11 - even tho both are Subaru - is almost like comparing apples to oranges - the differences are enough that it can, and will, be noticed in the fuel consumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1-3-2-4 Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 The 97 Outback flew from my perspective. For the first time I could actually pass people without risking my life. It was a revelation. That's why when people complain about the power in these cars I know they are coming from a different world than I did. This car has plenty of power for me. But, the gearing is very different than what I have been driving for the last 10 years, so it is taking some time to get used to it. Reminds me when i went from a 1.8L impreza FWD to my 2.2 Legacy I was like wow finally more power! Now I'm thinking about going to a 2.5L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bheinen74 Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Subaru really should offer a 2.0 option (across the car lineup), not everyone needs the power and lower mpg a 2.5 gives..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsince77 Posted March 29, 2011 Author Share Posted March 29, 2011 My last two fillups were better. A 28.8, and a 25 something. The two averaged out to 26.9. That was a combination of highway miles with climbs and descents, and around town. Three changes have been made. First I am getting more used to the gearing on the car, and I think I am simply driving it better. Second, I took off the roof top box for a week or two. That doesn't affect my comparisons to my old car because it always had the same box on it. Also, on the old car the roof top box made exacty 1 mile per gallon difference. Third, I ran a bottle of BG 44K through it. I suspect that my driving habits are making the biggest difference. In a couple of weeks when I put the box back on, I will see if I lose 4 mpg. If so it just rides differently and catches more air on this car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsince77 Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share Posted April 1, 2011 My wife took the car on a 320 mile road trip today. The first 165 miles is up over one pass then fairly flat to slightly downhill. The roads are mostly 65 to 70 mph. They may have had a slight tail wind, I'm not sure, but she got 31.48 mpg. This was with three adults and luggage. So all is well with the car. It doesn't do quite as well around town, but the same or slightly better on the road. Good enough:banana: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 I'm really scratching my head about the milage on this new Outback. I keep talking to people around here that say they get 28 to 30 on the highway with their 08 and 09 AT Outbacks. With a combination of town and rural highway driving I am only getting about 23.5. Today on a 120 mile road trip, 65 - 70 mph, we got about 25. My old car would have gotten at least 28 today, probably 29, or 30. I can't imagine that it could need plugs and wires at 18,700 miles. It seems to run well. I am wondering if there is any possibility of the timing being a bit retarded or something. We live at 8000 feet, but with the newer cars you don't ever change the base timing anyway do you? Any ideas out there? Define NEW and define OLD. Ethanol can be a wild card, but depending upon how new it is it shouldnt be an issue. Newer outbacks are heavier then older outbacks hence the MPG difference between the two cars. Your driving habits from the old car may not bode well with the new car. Try staying at 65 as the tipping point for some subarus is 68 where the MPG drops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsince77 Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share Posted April 1, 2011 Define NEW and define OLD. Ethanol can be a wild card, but depending upon how new it is it shouldnt be an issue. Newer outbacks are heavier then older outbacks hence the MPG difference between the two cars. Your driving habits from the old car may not bode well with the new car. Try staying at 65 as the tipping point for some subarus is 68 where the MPG drops. New is an 09, Old is the 97 I drove until three weeks ago. I had already seen the big drop in mpg due to ethanol on the 97. That whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. Add 10% ethanol, lose at least 10% in milage ( I know people with 2010 vehicles that still lose that), use at least 10% more fuel, pay more at the pump and the grocery store.... Anyway, I think the biggest difference was in trying to drive the auto the same way I have always driven the manuals. It has taken a thousand miles to get the feel of the car, and the new shift points. If you read through the thread, you can see the progression. It seems to be doing fine now. Also, yes, speed is a big deal. Both the 97 and this one seem to drop drastically right around 70, maybe before. most of our driving around here is at lower speeds though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsince77 Posted April 3, 2011 Author Share Posted April 3, 2011 Ok, I will stop flogging this thread now, this is my last post. My wife just got back from a 700+ mile trip. 300 miles of 65 to 70 mph highway, over some mountains, then rolling but slightly downhill - 100 miles of city driving - then 300 miles of rolling slightly uphill and back over the mountains on the way home. Over the entire trip, the 09 Outback averaged 28.7 mpg. Again, that was with 3 adults and luggage on board. So, I think that was great. Around town it only gets about 24, but this is very acceptable to me. I did run the 44K injector cleaner through it, and I changed the air filter, and put synthetics all the way around. But I think the biggest difference was just us learning how the car likes to be driven, as opposed to our 97 MT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bru73 Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 first of all what year is this car and what is the millage i have a 98 outback with 198xxx on itit whent down to 19.2 mpg used my scanner and watched my o2s very slow changed both cleared ecm and millage is coming back up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsince77 Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 You would probably do best to read the thread. The car in question is an 09 AT, our old one that I was comparing it to was a 97 MT. But everything is working well now, and the car is getting decent milage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWDfreak Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I've got a buddy who just got a 2011 outback with the 6 speed automatic... I'm 100% sure you're either talking about the CVT or the 5EAT in the H6. The CVT has 6 "speeds" for the paddle shift mode for those more used to manual shifting. It technically isn't a 6 speed, but an infinite amount of ratios between two ratios which are the limits of the CVT's "gear" ratios. Just a bit of a clarification for those reading. Subaru really should offer a 2.0 option (across the car lineup), not everyone needs the power and lower mpg a 2.5 gives..... As nice as that would be, Subaru of America would never do that as the 2.5 is more inline with "American tastes". Japan and the rest of the world get the naturally-aspirated 2.0, but unfortunately we do not.. Hmmmm, interesting read, thanks for creating this thread. The MPG isn't too bad as long as once doesn't have leadfoot syndrome (which is why I've never managed any higher than 25-30 MPG). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsince77 Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 Hmmmm, interesting read, thanks for creating this thread. The MPG isn't too bad as long as once doesn't have leadfoot syndrome (which is why I've never managed any higher than 25-30 MPG). 25 to 30 isn't bad considering all the advantages I get from this car, especially in the winter. I have always felt that I have plenty of passing and uphill power, so I'm happy with it. It was just when it was looking like I was going to struggle for 22 that I was concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legback Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 first of all what year is this car and what is the millage i have a 98 outback with 198xxx on itit whent down to 19.2 mpg used my scanner and watched my o2s very slow changed both cleared ecm and millage is coming back up WHAT?? How does an ECM get "cleared"?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.