So my dad's thinking about getting a new car. . .
 

My dad is finally thinking about getting rid of his Forester and is looking for something new.

Here's the catch: he wants 40mpg, but he also wants AWD still. :lol:

I think he'd be ok with anywhere between 30-40mpg. Any ideas?

AWD + 40 mpg ... a forrester with 2 clogged fuel injectors?

Acura and Lexus both make Hybrid SUV's...as does Ford I believe...

yea, but even Prius owners have a hard time breaking 40mpg, so I would say a base outback or impreza.

If fuel economy is the only real reason he's selling, he should keep his Forester. It should be getting 25+ (if it's 5 speed) in mixed driving, and nothing with AWD will do much better than 30-32. And hell, a GC/GM RS will get that with a light flywheel, CAI, header, and catback... ;)

Oh, and any new car that has AWD and improves on a Forester is going to be down-market. Off the top of my head, only the Toyota Matrix is relatively decent at combining fuel economy and interior quality.

A used Justy is the only AWD car I can imagine that might get close to 40MPG.

The convertible is sweet...

MPG (city) 33
MPG (highway) 37
MPG (combined) 35

What about that new Suzuki mini car? SX4 or something like that...

What he really wants is one of the Subaru B5 hybrid hatchbacks that they were showing off in concept, and in the meantime I'm trying to convince him to lease an Impreza wagon or Outback.

I think he wants to get rid of the Forester (it's a '98 Forester L) to a) have something newer in terms of style and features, b) hopefully get better gas mileage, and c) not have to put much more money into keeping the Forester running. It needs a bit of brake and suspension work done and he seems to have decided that he'd rather have a new car to spend money on than have to drop money into replacing old parts on this one.

Hopefully he'll decide to go through with it - I want to buy it off him. I don't mind putting a bit of money into a used Subaru if I didn't pay a whole lot for it in the first place. :P

There is no magic. Nothing significant has happened to internal combustion since '98, and possibly 80 something when fuel injection became the norm.

A/F = A/F. The only way to get better mileage is to use less of both which means less power. Displacement, and forced induction use more of both.

So, find the lowest displacement NA AWD car, and buy it. But I can't think of a 1.6-2.0 litter NA engine AWD car off the top of my head.

And unless you do a lot of stop and go driving, Hybrids won't do much if at all better than a small displacement car. For the most part, they cheat to get their high numbers because in the EPA test, they get to start with a full charge, and the power loss due to all the conversion, and extra weight hurt.

In the mid 80s Honda made a 4wd Civic wagon, those things rock.

I've got FHI clear corners for it sititng new in the boxes if you do ;)

Saturn Vue Greenline will do 27/32 according to the EPA. Should be the best mileage you will get out anything AWD right now. A Legacy wagon will do 23/30 and is probably a much nicer driving car. The Toyota Matrix AWDs get really good mpg too but they are no longer made. It just depends on what he wants. The best combination of price, space, power, and fuel economy right now is a RAV4 IMO.

Downmarket.

Not true. Every year (well, with every new engine) the manufacturers get better and better at extracting more power from each mole of air-fuel mixture. why do you think we now have so many 250+ horsepower cars that get 25-30 mpg? Remember when 250hp was an unthinkable number for a "normal" car without a V8? Subaru went from turbocharged 1.8s that made 115hp to NA 1.8 that makes 118, 2.2 that makes 142, and 2.5 that makes 165+. Then there's the turbo EJ25 of the current generation. Combustion technology is definitely venturing into the land of diminishing returns as far as power and efficiency gains, but we haven't perfected it yet.

But for the most part, waht you are talking about fractional or maybe single digit percentages at best. O2 sensors, Fuel injection, and distributorless ignition are probably the last things that might have been anywhere close to double digit percentages.

Variable valve timing, small turbos, and such have increased performance in smaller displacments, but if you put your foot in it, it will use more gas, period. I have imperical evidence that shows a 2.0l 250HP WRX making single digit MPG under severe driving conitions. Any other engine producing that HP under those conditions is likely to be using damn close to the same amount of fuel. A/F burned = power regardless.

A 93-94 Justy makes more MPG than anything currently available anybody has come up with, and it is hardly "modern" or "technical" it is just a small displacement low HP car.

I used a half a tank of gas going up Kingsbury grade one night. 8)

Holy cow, you mean fuel economy is relative to how you drive? OMGWTFBBQ!

Okay Dean, we all knew that. I have (well, had) empirical evidence of my 170- 180? 190?- bhp RS getting 30-32 mpg over 350 miles daily, and I have gotten as little as 13 mpg at the track. The point I was making is that newer motors are good at being powerful when desired, and economical when desired, just not at the same time. All the Justy motor does is remove the "power" option from the table. Also, the Justy motor didn't get 40 mpg without that 1800 pound kerb weight. Let's stick an EJ251 into something that light and watch it get 35-38 mpg as well, while cutting the 0-60 time in half.

Back to the topic, I highly doubt Jeremiah's dad is looking for anything more than a couple years old, so let's limit our discussion of his options to, say, MY02 vehicles and newer. I would bet he would prefer new though. given that, we need to realize that he CANNOT save money by selling his Forester. The way I read it, he wants a new car and while he's at it, he wants something as economical as possible. Hybrids do help this, but unless he's got a significant commute in heavy traffic, the added purchase cost will outweigh the gas savings. Which brings his options back to NA Subarus, the RAV4 and a few other small SUVs, the Suzuki Aerio and SX4. The Suzukis are by far the cheapest AWDs on the market, but the build quality reflects that, even though they are mechanically reliable like everything else on the US market ATM.

Lastly, nobody has asked this yet- Jeremiah, is your dad's Forester an automatic? If so, buying something new with a stick actually might save him a significant amount on his fuel costs. Maybe as much as 20-25%. Not to mention saving $900-1300 on the cost of the car if it's new.

Same here. I think the tow truck that pulled me out of the ditch got better gas milage. :|

+1 and add 431 :lol:

This comparison really makes the RAV4 look good from a $$$ standpoint.

http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGui...jsp?reqseg=suv

The prices and fuel economies listed are for FWD models (except of course the Forester). The AWD versions have a small mpg penalty and significant cost increase.

2006 Audi A3 2.0 T

Gas Mileage:24 mpg city / 32 mpg hwy

http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/audi_...br8aU4Pj9Fc78F

http://www.lotpro.com/cars/2006/audi/a3/

Edit: I guess those mpg ratings are for fwd versions though. :(

Edit 2: Kevin=right

I think the 2.0 versions are 2WD, although I can't verify it because I can't find anything on yahoo autos or audi's website that mentions Quattro on them. The 3.2 mentions standard AWD though.

From consumerreports.org:
So you have to get the big motor if you want AWD. :(

Your point appeared to be that my A/F comment was incorrect, and that newer engines were significantly more fuel efficient. I continue to contend that since fuel injection & electronic engine managemnt, the gains have been miniscule. Yes, they can make more power from smaller engines, but we are not talking about power/displacement, we are talking about MPG! There is no magic pill they have found that changes the optimal A/F ratio or extracts significantly more HP/unit of fuel.

My recomendation that he find the smallest displacement NA engine AWD car is still accurate, or are you contesting that?

So what was your point if that was not it, and what evidence do you have for significant increases in gas millage since the introductions I referenced?

My point is that your assertion that a smaller engine is more fuel efficient is not necessarily correct. AFRs have nothing to do with it. A larger engine which is running at very light loads (and no 4 cylinder on the market could really be called "large") is as efficient as a smaller one being asked to make the same amount of torque at a given time. The efficiency of the engine has to do with how well it turns each mole of fuel into heat, and then how efficiently it converts that heat into mechanical force. In a general sense, smaller engines are more efficient only because they can't burn more fuel to make more power like a larger engine can, thus using more fuel to travel a given distance.

The proof that engines are getting more efficent is in the hp/displacement ratios AND the EPA estimates. Dean, think back to cars you have previously owned. Categorize them by rough displacement, typical fuel economy, and power. Any way you want to compare them, I guarantee that your A4 and porobably your WRX compare favorbaly in terms of power:fuel economy, economy:displacement, and power:displacement. I previously owned a 2.4 liter toyota Celica, and a 2.8 liter Nissan 280ZX. My RS trounces each of them in both power and fuel economy (although it's close on power with the Z) and is heavier than each one to boot. The were both EFI and distributor-based ignition.

You argue that the Justy motor gets better fuel economy because it is small. Unfortunately, you ignore the other factors that go into its economy- the extreme lightweight, small frontal area, and lack of capacity to make enough power just to get out of its own way. I stand beside my assertion that the 2.5 liter non-turbo motor in the 2006/7 Subarus would get equal or better fuel economy compared to the Justy motor if you were to put it in a Justy, and drive at speeds close to what the Justy is capable of because it is more efficient at turning chemical energy into torque.

Back once again from the land of theory to the application at hand, which is Jeremiah's dad's new car, I argue that if he is looking to save money through fuel economy, that is simply not possible given the vehicle he is replacing. As such, other factors like build quality, power, personal preference etc. are going to outweigh maximum possible fuel economy. We're just trying to help suggest cars with decent economy that fit his other stated or assumed needs- AWD, not a beater piece of crap, equal or greater build quality to his forester, and inexpensive to own.

This is my favorite part! Dean vs. Kevin!


(where's the smily guy eating popcorn?)

Just tell your dad he can have YOUR car, if he buys you an STI... :twisted:

He should buy a GC8 RS and pimp it out with all the money he saves.

I'll argue that you are wrong. No individual advancement may have a huge fuel savings but the combined effect most certainly has. The reason cars are not getting more fuel efficient is that they are getting heavier and manufactures are tuning them for power rather than economy. If you built a car to the performance level of a 70s car for example I have no doubt you would see a 25% increase in fuel economy over what the car is today.

Guys, I am not talking abou carburated V-8s here... And I never said the 70s. Jeez....

My comments strictly are relative to the post odoption of Fuel injection, O2 sensors, distributorless ignition, and Electronic engine managment which was somewhere in the mid to late 80s, and maybe early 90s for some name badges.

Other than those advancements, the only significant ones I can think of are power related, not fuel economy.

And if you honestly beleive "The proof that engines are getting more efficent is in the hp/displacement ratios" has to do with fuel economy, you are kidding yourself.

Banging things up and down harder and spinning them faster in a reciprocating engine wastes more energy, not conserves it.

And if there is a current more fuel efficient AWD car than whatever the NA with the least displacement is, show me the data! :P

http://www.why-not.com/img/data.gif

Your arguments amuse Commander Data.

To clarify, the AWD cars with low displacement (see: Toyota Matrix, Suzuki SX4) are significantly smaller and lighter than the larger displacmeent ones (Subarus, small SUVs). Not apples-to-apples. Assuming that the highest fuel economy from an AWD car happens to be the smallest displacement, it still does not prove that smaller engines are, by default, more efficient.

...except for the part where his Forester is worth less than a GC6. ;)

So, this is like the North - South challange now!?

BTW, my old 72 Ford Gran Torino got 21 mpg with a 351C V8 4v and an automatic transmition. My STI gets about the same. Of course, if I hammer the throttle on either of them, it goes down to about 8mpg.

I have to agree with both Dean and Kevin, they aren't really arguing the same points. More or less they are both correct.

Correct me if I am wrong. Anyone got the link to that Forester STI?? Thats what he should buy.

Check the data. :P

Nice job putting an automatic in the Forester and an extra 23,000 miles on the RS. Next thing you'll be telling me that a stock motor RS puts down 200whp on a road dyno... :rolleyes: :p

Yes, because the North is kicking the South's ass, as always. :p

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!!1!1!11

Doh! I didn't touch the milage. It did that on it's own. I though Jeramiah said the Forrester was an auto.

Anyway, my point was he'd save a bunch over buying a newer car.

Regardless of what KBB thinks, an equivalent year, mileage, and equipment RS will sell for more than a forester. Just check listings on nasioc and rs25- you won't find an RS that's asking much less than retail. Same thing on the classified sites like cars.com and autotrader.com. And dealers are pricing 2000/2001 RS higher than some bugeye WRXs.

True, but then he has a used car. Used cars suck. :(

Nah, a sub 75k mile GC8 with $5k in aftermarket gagetry would kick ass and cost much less than a comparably equipped new car. Plus he would get better gas milage.

No it doesn't, but it answers the question originally posed which was effectively, what is the highest mpg AWD car he could buy, or one that could get close to 40MPG... My answer still stands.

At the same time, it does nothing to bolster your case that something significant has changed with internal combustion since the technologies I described became commonplace.

So again, what was your point? :?:

An RS with ess than 75k is $11-12k, since it wouldn't be a '98 or '99 most likely. Add $5k for mods and you're past what a 2.5i goes for, and you have no warranty, higher insurance, and a lower insured value. Oh, and no significant increase in fuel economy.

No, I am still in Reno.
Yes, but only one of us is on the subject of this thread which is MPG, not HP/liter.

And I believe posting a googled image in an attempt to be humorous is the same thing as admitting defeat on the IntarWeb... :P

Have you seen a Justy lately that you would drive for free, if someone gave you free gas too? Nobody is looking to sell a Forester to buy a 15 year old sub-compact built by Suzuki.

Give me the car you consider the baseline, original EFI, electronic ignition 4 cylinder economy car and I will give you examples of current cars that have more powerful AND more efficient engines. And remember, like JC said, those cars are significantly heavier than cars built 10-20 years ago that were intended for the SOLE purpose of higher fuel ecnomomy and low production cost. Nobody sells cars liek that here since Daewoo went under.

If you don't know, me and Commander Data aren't telling.

WRONG!
http://www.ket.org/images/nola/MACG_...39.200x150.jpg

The subject is "my dad is looking for an economical, AWD car. discuss." You insist he wants the highest possible fuel economy + AWD, with no other considrations.

WRONG!
http://www.ket.org/images/nola/MACG_...39.200x150.jpg

:P

"No warranty"=good point
"Add $5k for mods and you're past what a 2.5i goes for"=close, but the 5K in nav and other upgrades makes the GC way cooler.
"higher insurance"=news to me.
"no significant increase in fuel economy"=news to me

Edited for dumbness.

No, I just bothered to read more than the title of the first post... And for heaven's sake, the Justy post is independent of my comment that he should buy the smallest displacement NA AWD car he can find. Get over it dude...