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?