Originally Posted by Peedee
(Post 11747559)
You do know Ditchy, right? |
Funny thing is most owners who comment have had a wrx,myself included so know the sti envy the wrx boys spout is utter rubbish.
Wrx got nowhere near the claimed mpg above, it was slightly better on fuel than the sti we had parked next to it but was nowhere near the performance and handling of the sti hence it was sold first. People buy the impreza for the performance and the sti is streets ahead. |
Originally Posted by fat-thomas
(Post 11747575)
Funny thing is most owners who comment have had a wrx,myself included so know the sti envy the wrx boys spout is utter rubbish.
Wrx got nowhere near the claimed mpg above, it was slightly better on fuel than the sti we had parked next to it but was nowhere near the performance and handling of the sti hence it was sold first. People buy the impreza for the performance and the sti is streets ahead. I've had uk2000,wrx and sti and they are all great cars! The sti is the most highly tuned of them all in every way so how can it possibly be below the wrx on performance?? |
Joking aside, someone posted a MPG thread on here (last year I believe) and my claims were quite modest going on the figures other WRX owners were quoting. Especially considering their's won't be as lights as mine.
I'll try and dig it out as I doubt all the claims were bs. Both cars are great, it's like comparing a Cheetah to a Lion, Bomb proof STI is far sexier, I just think the WRX has an unfair rep. |
Originally Posted by RS_Matt
(Post 11747587)
Joking aside, someone posted a MPG thread on here (last year I believe) and my claims were quite modest going on the figures other WRX owners were quoting. Especially considering their's won't be as lights as mine.
I'll try and dig it out as I doubt all the claims were bs. Both cars are great, it's like comparing a Cheetah to a Lion, Bomb proof STI is far sexier, I just think the WRX has an unfair rep. |
I'm sure a tune for economy would get in the 30's mpg but wouldn't make for a quick car.
I personally think the wrx has a well deserved good rep,the UK cars maybe not so much in their standard form. I love them all and will always be a great drivers car :) |
38mpg? Do me a favor .....!! Pmsl
:cuckoo: |
Originally Posted by IainMilford
(Post 11747597)
38mpg? Do me a favor .....!! Pmsl
:cuckoo: |
Originally Posted by Peedee
(Post 11747591)
The WRX has an unfair rep not because of what it is, but because WRX owners make deluded claims, therefore making a mockery of said car.
A stiffer arb and drop links improved economy off-boost as it negated the need to slow down for moderate corners. Several new WRX's over the years have recorded faster times than the new STI ? The WRX ratios are better for drag racing? The STI is circa 80kg heavier? The heavier STI gearbox, brake discs etc incurs extra transmission losses? The Styling of the STI increases drag? RS_Matt's 332.6 bhp 2003 WRX ran 12.6 with muddy wet tyres and fat_thomas' 2004 STI ran 12.8 with 430bhp? The STI has no less than 11 stickers and badges on its exterior which doesn't juxtapose well with the fact STI owners detest such items? Which is untrue? |
Originally Posted by Donnie Brasco 46
(Post 11341518)
Aerodynamics only count 70mph+.
Ensure that it's well serviced, obviously drive off boost and you should see 30+ MPG. w.
Originally Posted by ditchmyster
(Post 11341520)
In the uk I get around 28mpg around town pootling and 33mpg + on a run at 70/80mph.
Forget aerodynamic mods, best mod for fuel consumption is a boost gauge.;)
Originally Posted by forgedmarco
(Post 11341535)
Yes regular servicing and tyre pressures. I average 33mpg it went to 35mpg the first couple of tanks when try rebranded to nitro. Back to 33 now
Originally Posted by jay-sti
(Post 11341574)
went on a run down to devon once and got 34 ish , sat at 70 mph most of the way down
Originally Posted by Donnie Brasco 46
(Post 11341799)
When you consider the performance, the turbo, the fact that 4 wheels are driven etc I think that the MPG is fairly reasonable for Imprezas.
I used to have BMW 325ci sport and used the get 36 MPG out of that in a long run. In my impreza I got 33.9 MPG on a long run. Not bad considering it was powering twice as many wheels!
Originally Posted by The Pink Ninja
(Post 11342187)
39.53mpg :D
Originally Posted by jpiddin1
(Post 11230172)
Whats the best fuel consumption figures you ever got?
Had my classic from new (13 years) and have now done 137,000 miles. Mass airflow sensor went dodgy at 60k miles as expected. Just changed again as a matter of course since I've done 77k on it. At the same time switched to Tesco Momentum 99 octane and did an ECU reset. Last weekend went down to my folks in East Sussex from the midlands. Did 36mpg taking it easy at 70mph on motorway with about 20 miles of towns/country lanes at the end. On return journey topped up before motorway and same again at end of journey. Stuck religiously to 70mph for motorway 133 miles. 38.33mpg. James |
Originally Posted by RS_Matt
(Post 11747604)
Like what? That the manufacturer and car sales list the WRX as averaging 30mpg?
A stiffer arb and drop links improved economy off-boost as it negated the need to slow down for moderate corners. Several new WRX's over the years have recorded faster times than the new STI ? The WRX ratios are better for drag racing? The STI is circa 80kg heavier? The heavier STI gearbox, brake discs etc incurs extra transmission losses? The Styling of the STI increases drag? RS_Matt's 332.6 bhp 2003 WRX ran 12.6 with muddy wet tyres and fat_thomas' 2004 STI ran 12.8 with 430bhp? The STI has no less than 11 stickers and badges on its exterior which doesn't juxtapose well with the fact STI owners detest such items? Which is untrue? My old sti never had 430 bhp.... Ever. Power made up by you. Although it did run 12.8 |
I actually cannot be even bothered to write a detailed reply. Another completely deluded WRX owner pulling facts and figures out of thin air in a desperate attempt to try and 'prove' that a WRX is the 'faster' car. Let's just skim over the STi''s power increase, better tyres, DCCD, far superior brake setup, better base for modifying etc etc and just drop in place the old "weighs a bit more" and "less aerodynamic" lines (because the standard WRX is obviously on par with the thrust SSC for aerodynamic effectiveness).
Next you'll be telling me a Rover is faster than a Ferrari. |
Originally Posted by Peedee
(Post 11747616)
I actually cannot be even bothered to write a detailed reply. Another completely deluded WRX owner pulling facts and figures out of thin air in a desperate attempt to try and 'prove' that a WRX is the 'faster' car. Let's just skim over the STi''s power increase, better tyres, DCCD, far superior brake setup, better base for modifying etc etc and just drop in place the old "weighs a bit more," "Unusable short ratios when going over 350bhp," "stupidly heavy gearbox that causes substantial transmission losses" and "less aerodynamic" lines (because the standard WRX is obviously on par with the thrust SSC for aerodynamic effectiveness).
Next you'll be telling me a Rover is faster than a Ferrari. WRX https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...a0&oe=56CB40CA At the end of the day 350bhp WRX>450bhp STI and the kick in the teeth is 18mpg v 36mpg. ...but hey, the WRX driver won't be laughing when he has to fork out £200 for a new gearbox. |
Originally Posted by RS_Matt
(Post 11747642)
Better brakes to haul in the extra 180lbs. I can pull out facts, quotes and media reviews all day (and have done on a plethora of threads) that point to the WRX being faster and more efficient.
WRX https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...a0&oe=56CB40CA At the end of the day 350bhp WRX>450bhp STI and the kick in the teeth is 18mpg v 36mpg. ...but hey, the WRX driver won't be laughing when he has to fork out £200 for a new gearbox. |
Originally Posted by RS_Matt
(Post 11747642)
Better brakes to haul in the extra 180lbs. I can pull out facts, quotes and media reviews all day (and have done on a plethora of threads) that point to the WRX being faster and more efficient.
WRX https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...a0&oe=56CB40CA At the end of the day 350bhp WRX>450bhp STI and the kick in the teeth is 18mpg v 36mpg. ...but hey, the WRX driver won't be laughing when he has to fork out £200 for a new gearbox. |
I have never understood all this bickering about whats better WRX or STI,its simple the STI is the better model.When I was looking into buying one I researched both models of the Impreza and the STI made for a better performance car in every way.My wife had a wrx and she loved her car but when the upgrades came,she still preferred the way my car drove,that's why her car is now running full STI engine and running gear.No one buys a performance car to talk about how good their MPG is.....SJ.
|
Attention Scoobynet STi owners.....
Please read the following information with great interest. Carrying out the following modifications to your car will make it quick, VERY quick, almost WRX quick. After years of owners testing different setups and modifications, not to mention spending thousands of pounds, it appears that a few simple changes are all that is required to make your STi untouchable. Ladies and gentleman, behold................. 1). Replace your STi arb and drop-links with WRX ones 2). Get rid your STi brembo setup, as found on other performance cars, and replace with stock WRX calipers, discs and pads to save weight 3). Replace your 6 speed DCCD box with a WRX one 4). Get rid of the high level spoiler and larger front bonnet scoop to aid aerodynamics in a car that has almost 0% aerodynamic effectiveness in a straight line anyway 5). Stick on some standard WRX tyres in place of your RE070's and make sure they're covered in wet mud. 6). Modify your current STi to 450bhp, then de-mod it to 350bhp to make it quicker once you've added all the WRX bits. |
Any car that runs on gas will be cheaper than petrol. As LPG is half the price
|
Originally Posted by hardcoreimpreza
(Post 11747664)
Any car that runs on gas will be cheaper than petrol. As LPG is half the price
|
Correct, and you get slightly less power will LPG. And it does burn at a higher temperature, i think thats what can wreck the valves on some cars.
Originally Posted by boosted
(Post 11747689)
My point exactly! Although you do burn more LPG than petrol for a given power.
|
Originally Posted by Peedee
(Post 11747661)
Attention Scoobynet STi owners.....
Please read the following information with great interest. Carrying out the following modifications to your car will make it quick, VERY quick, almost WRX quick. After years of owners testing different setups and modifications, not to mention spending thousands of pounds, it appears that a few simple changes are all that is required to make your STi untouchable. Ladies and gentleman, behold................. 1). Replace your STi arb and drop-links with WRX ones 2). Get rid your STi brembo setup, as found on other performance cars, and replace with stock WRX calipers, discs and pads to save weight 3). Replace your 6 speed DCCD box with a WRX one 4). Get rid of the high level spoiler and larger front bonnet scoop to aid aerodynamics in a car that has almost 0% aerodynamic effectiveness in a straight line anyway 5). Stick on some standard WRX tyres in place of your RE070's and make sure they're covered in wet mud. 6). Modify your current STi to 450bhp, then de-mod it to 350bhp to make it quicker once you've added all the WRX bits. |
Originally Posted by jayallen
(Post 11747655)
39mpg along with uprated antiroll bars and drop links aid mpg...Did you do a lot of drugs as a teenager?
STI logic. |
Originally Posted by RS_Matt
(Post 11747732)
Big thanks to KG Tuning this Sunday aft for loosening the oil sump plug for me.
Dropping down from Millers 10w50 CFS to Millers 5w40 Nanodrive CFS Not fussed about the 44.9lbft gain some car magazine testers managed, it's the improved MPG claims that excite me! Taken from his own thread...................He's as mental as Dickmyster! :lol1: |
Originally Posted by jayallen
(Post 11747736)
Taken from his own thread...................He's as mental as Dickmyster! :lol1:
Can't afford the real deal so make stuff up |
Originally Posted by RS_Matt
(Post 11747735)
So whilst driving normally off-boost slowing down for corners and accelerating out of them saves fuel.
STI logic. Plonk on an sti bonnet scoop and rear spoiler. They only significant differences bodywise. Wrx logic....... |
why are our cars so bad on gas?
I will not miss this ****e when my wrx is gone.
Trying work out if RSMatt believes what he says or if he just likes to talk Bollocks for the hell of it. A question that will never be answered. :wonder: |
just read through all this. The whole thing has amused me on a monday morning, so thanks :)
|
Originally Posted by Ste333
(Post 11747907)
just read through all this. The whole thing has amused me on a monday morning, so thanks :)
if ya bitching about fuel costs and mpg then maybe a scoob is not for you. go get a corsa. |
I get 36-37 mpg on a run, have done many times too. Got from Rotherham to Brighton on just over half a tank (230 miles) and from Rotherham to Newquay with a quarter of a tank left (350 miles).
If I wanted an sti, I'd buy one. The sti is a better standard car, it is a better starting point if you want 450bhp. But, if you want a 500bhp track car, buy the cheapest good car you can find. You will uprated the brakes, roll bars, engine/block, ECU, and loads of other things anyway. I had a race with a mate in a 352bhp classic, he wasn't pulling away, but I wasn't catching him. He just seemed to be changing gear all the time, I was just using 2nd and 3rd. |
Originally Posted by RS_Matt
(Post 11747267)
Newage WRX is good on fuel for a performance 4x4 that's still pretty heavy.
30mpg stock (official figures) and as high as 38mpg after tuning. Now the STI. Avoid. Heavy Gearbox saps most of the power making the car much slower and thirstier than the WRX. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands