19.5 mpg non-highway in my Q...not bad

[DoinkMobb]

Well that's better than I was expecting at least. I was worried about getting 15 mpg and then regretting buying this car.

My commute isn't exactly city and it's not highway driving. There's long stretches where I'm cruising between 45-65 mph which is roughly 1500-2000 rpm on the tach. I only really got on it a few times in the 360 miles I drove on this tank.

I was regularly getting 21-22 mpg in my 2006 STI (3300+ lb AWD 2.5L 300 HP turbo sedan in case you don't know what it is). A 2 ton luxury sedan with a V8 and 171K miles on the clock getting damn near 20 mpg is decent in my book.

[Q451990]

Very decent - actually really good! I can't do much better than 21 on the interstate. I can't keep my foot light in town... too much fun to be bad I think I average about 15-16 in mixed town driving.

Heath

[qship96]

On my trip from Maryland to atlanta last month {680 miles},I got 22.24 on the way there,and 22.12 on the way back at speeds of 80-90+ mph the whole way with 2 people and luggage on board

[joseph109783]

does anyone know the average on the 02+

[Q45tech]

The 2002 had the least agressive diff ratio of the series.............so in theory it should be approx equal to 90-96 and not much worse than the 97-01.

[maxnix]

does anyone know the average on the 02+

There is a thread about some highway mileage of hte F50.

Fuel, terrain and traffic, not to mention barometric pressure and humidity and temperature are such variables, it is never an apples to apples comparison.
Modified by maxnix at 8:41 AM 1/7/2008

[ddrumman]

I'm amazed how guys get that type of MPG on a Q. I consistently get between 14 to 16 and IF I'm lucky on a long road trip I might get 18....maybe!!!

And BTW the Q is always dealer serviced or at Jerry Tuckers on a couple of occasions.

[DoinkMobb]

I'm amazed how guys get that type of MPG on a Q. I consistently get between 14 to 16 and IF I'm lucky on a long road trip I might get 18....maybe!!!

And BTW the Q is always dealer serviced or at Jerry Tuckers on a couple of occasions.

I think it's my commute, not the car or the driver so much.

1995 Impreza - supposed to be 25 mpg city, I got 30-31 mpg2006 Impreza STI - 18 mpg city, but I got 21-22 mpg1994 Q45 - 15 mpg city, last tank was 19.5 mpg

Long stretches without lights and I'm regularly stuck behind old ladies and dump trucks doing 40 mph. The roads I drive on are one lane each way, so it's kinda hard to pass 5 cars in a row sometimes (well, except in the STI). I bet my highway mileage wouldn't be a whole lot better than my city mileage.

[RAP]

Quote " Long stretches without lights and I'm regularly stuck behind old ladies and dump trucks doing 40 mph. The roads I drive on are one lane each way, so it's kinda hard to pass 5 cars in a row sometimes (well, except in the STI). "

Where I live we have all the above, plus, "OLD MEN" taking up valuable road space. So let us be fair. But they do all die and then we wait for the next one. The current OLD MAN obstructing traffic, is 82 and down to 25 mph oblivious to the pain and consternation he is causing to the "YOUNGER SET, of Chicos and Chicas.

I'm doing plus 20 mpg. Of course I have a nice polish job. Helps

Jack

[Kiven422]

Thats very good. I usually clock about 15-16 MPG in the city and 19-20MPG on the highway. I live in Sacramento and drive out to the bay area sometimes (2 hour drive), if I keep light on the gas and patiently cruise I can get up to 25+ MPG.

[tkd_q45]

ddrumman - I would bet that if you switched back to stock rims you'd see a bump up to or at least closer to 20MPG for hwy use. Stock rims are significantly lighter than the 17s (I'm assuming you are running as seen in your sig pic). I saw a significant increase when I went from 18's (2002 rims) back to piepans. Commuting from Palos Verdes to Glendale, I will average 17.8 to 19.9 in rush hour traffic. The lower number coming from those days where traffic is REALLY bad. Before I switched rims I typically got at 1-2 MPG less. Open highway I've avereaged over 20 MPG on all my Q's (had a 92 and currently have 94 an 96).

[Q45tech]

Up to about 70 mph tire rolling resistance [psi, design, and alignment] are more important than wind resistance in a passenger car.

[VJ1]

I got back yesterday from a trip, 600 miles roundtrip, all interstate. Set the cruise at 80 there and back and got 18 mpg. All flat road, stock turbine wheels, new Toyo tires and a perfect alignment. Drove from 2 am to 6 am, so very little wind resistance. The Q just sailed like a dream. Enjoyed the drive and I'm OK with 18 mpg.

[sijoko]

One thing to consider is the impact of ethanol blended gasoline on fuel mileage. Some people have noticed as much as 10-15% less mileage with E10.

[ddrumman]

ddrumman - I would bet that if you switched back to stock rims you'd see a bump up to or at least closer to 20MPG for hwy use. Stock rims are significantly lighter than the 17s (I'm assuming you are running as seen in your sig pic). I saw a significant increase when I went from 18's (2002 rims) back to piepans. Commuting from Palos Verdes to Glendale, I will average 17.8 to 19.9 in rush hour traffic. The lower number coming from those days where traffic is REALLY bad. Before I switched rims I typically got at 1-2 MPG less. Open highway I've avereaged over 20 MPG on all my Q's (had a 92 and currently have 94 an 96).

Interesting view point. I remember when I had the stockers my MPG wasn't all that much better, however there is no way I'm going back to the piepans. I like the way the car drives and feels.

[DoinkMobb]

ddrumman - I would bet that if you switched back to stock rims you'd see a bump up to or at least closer to 20MPG for hwy use. Stock rims are significantly lighter than the 17s (I'm assuming you are running as seen in your sig pic). I saw a significant increase when I went from 18's (2002 rims) back to piepans.

Stock rims with all seasons might result in slightly better gas mileage but at the expense of handling and overall traction, if you were previously running 18's and summer tires. Not a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

[bigjimmy]

does anyone know the average on the 02+

My 2002(premium ed. stock everything) shows 19.5 mpg since battery change in June. The computer is a little optimistic. I fill up at 350 miles and use between 18 and 19 gallons, so the real mileage is 18 - 19. Much better than I expected with spirited driving.

[ddrumman]

.. I fill up at 350 miles and use between 18 and 19 gallons, so the real mileage is 18 - 19. Much better than I expected with spirited driving.

That's good. I fill up at 260 give or take, and use about 16 1/2 to 17 gallons.

[Q45man1]

I have been averaging 19-20 mpg from my F50 and 16-17 mpg for G50. I drive my G50 harder than my F50 and it is riding in 18" F50 rims.

[BadQ45t]

I am jealous. With my 19" rims and 245/35 19 tires on my Y33 I get 15-17...for long highway drives I get 21. I used to get 23 and about 17-19 with the stock tires and rims, but the tires drink it down. Than again, the lowered car with the low pro tires make me punch the crap out of the car so that is probably part of the problem

[TBrack]

One thing to consider is the impact of ethanol blended gasoline on fuel mileage. Some people have noticed as much as 10-15% less mileage with E10.

Ewww Ethanol is the devil!

On a side note, if they taint the gasoline with ethanol you would think it would be cheaper for them and they pass the savings on to the consumer... but then again this is the USA I'm talking about so never mind.

[loystock]

I've been tracking CA gas consumption on my stock Y33 for the last 7 years - 13-14 city, 16-17 combi and 20-21 highway ( could be better if driven at <75 MPH).

Rod

[RAP]

I got back yesterday from a trip, 600 miles roundtrip, all interstate. Set the cruise at 80 there and back and got 18 mpg. All flat road, stock turbine wheels, new Toyo tires and a perfect alignment. Drove from 2 am to 6 am, so very little wind resistance. The Q just sailed like a dream. Enjoyed the drive and I'm OK with 18 mpg.

ROLLING AT 80 MPH AND NO WIND RESISTANCE ? ? ?

because there was NO WIND ! ! !

Now I am really confused.

Oh, now I kno. You were DRAFTING behind an 18 wheeler with a 54 ft. long box trailer? and getting a WIND FREE ride. Ahaa ha that'll work! ! !



Take care. Jack

[BadQ45t]

sounds like Loystock is getting about what I am experiencing on the Y33 in CA. Bur you San Jose, more traffic than Half Moon Bay. When i have my Q in LA I think I only get 14-15 at best.

[Skibane]

22.9 MPG this afternoon, 70-80 MPH, mostly interstate. Cool weather - no need for air conditioning.

Never seen it drop below 22 in highway driving.

[Q45tech]

If you monitor the injector time at 2,000 rpm in neutral you'll see ~~ 1.7 millsecs.If you drive down a flat road at 60 mph [2000 rpm] ac and lights,radio off you 'll see ~~~ 2.2 millisecs.This extra 0.5 millisecs is from the frictional losses to drive 60 mph vs idle at that rpm.

If you go WOT you will see the injectors climb to 10-11 millisecs at double the rpm to start then triple...............5 times the fuel flow at twice to triple the increment per second.

Even a mild up hill holding 60 mph will increase to 3.0 millisecs at 36% decline in mpg.

Same with speed 80/60= is 33% more rpm and thus 33% more fuel used per time period.

Important to calculate fuel usage per hour not miles per gallon as obviously the time to cover distance declines as the fuel used goes up.

[DoinkMobb]

If you monitor the injector time at 2,000 rpm in neutral you'll see ~~ 1.7 millsecs.If you drive down a flat road at 60 mph [2000 rpm] ac and lights,radio off you 'll see ~~~ 2.2 millisecs.This extra 0.5 millisecs is from the frictional losses to drive 60 mph vs idle at that rpm.

If you go WOT you will see the injectors climb to 10-11 millisecs at double the rpm to start then triple...............5 times the fuel flow at twice to triple the increment per second.

Even a mild up hill holding 60 mph will increase to 3.0 millisecs at 36% decline in mpg.

Same with speed 80/60= is 33% more rpm and thus 33% more fuel used per time period.

Important to calculate fuel usage per hour not miles per gallon as obviously the time to cover distance declines as the fuel used goes up.

My wife already thinks it's weird that I calculate my MPG and figure out the average and whatnot. Imagine her horror as I'm sitting there trying to figure out my fuel per hour rate of consumption.

If going up a hill will decrease mpg by 36%, wouldn't coming down the hill increase mpg by the same 36%?