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

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by Dean

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.

[MPREZIV]

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...

[cody]

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

[JC]

Originally Posted by Dean

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?

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.

[Dean]

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.

[Dean]

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

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by Dean

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

Your arguments amuse Commander Data.

[Kevin M]

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.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by cody

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

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

[NevadaSTi]

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.

[cody]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

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

Check the data.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by cody

Check the data.

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...

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by NevadaSTi

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

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

Originally Posted by NevadaSTi

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

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

[cody]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

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...

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

[cody]

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

[Kevin M]

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.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by cody

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

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

[cody]

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.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

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.

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?

[Kevin M]

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.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by NevadaSTi

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

No, I am still in Reno.

Originally Posted by NevadaSTi

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

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...

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by Dean

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dean

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dean

So again, what was your point?

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

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by Dean

Yes, but only one of us is on the subject of this thread which is MPG, not HP/liter.

WRONG!


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.

[cody]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

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.

WRONG!




"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.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by BAN SUVS

WRONG!


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.

No, I just bothered to read more than the title of the first post...

Originally Posted by M3n2c3

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

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...