|
Does anybody on the forum run a 2006 model 2 litre Legacy with the non turbo`d 165 bhp engine, as it is on my short list for my replacement vehicle, and would be interested to hear any mpg figures for either the manual or auto version.???
|
I think the 2.0 is quoted at 138bhp and the 2.5 at 165bhp
I drove the 2.0 and thought it was pretty gutless.
|
I thought the new 2.0 non turbo was about 165bhp and had good torque characteristics making the 2.0 Turbo redundant in the Forester.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
Apologies, you're right I was thinking of the pre '06 versions.
|
Accepted - but if you didn't drive a Subaru, I might not have!
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
My Legacy 2.0l auto is also a bit of a powder puff when it comes to hot rodding, but I didn't buy it for that.
I will try to log in the missing mileage/fuel data for the last year of my previous manual and get the total figures over three years. I note down the data at every fill, but it sits there in my notebook until I work up the energy to log it.
|
URL from the Subaru website detailing power outputs of the 2006 modified engines :-
www.subaru.co.uk/IMGGB/WWW/subaru_co_uk.nsf/NULL/8...t
|
As it happens, I was in a Subaru dealers today testing a 3.0 Outback auto and a 2.0 Sports Tourer manual.
The Outback was incredibly smooth and refined compared with my 2.5 petrol X-Trail. It had a great ride, very good performance and very little wind noise. The 2.0 was also surprisingly good.
One of the salesman, who has been very honest with me in the past re poor fuel consumption of Subarus in general, said he had 2 customers who had reluctantly upgraded to 3.0 autos after Subaru dropped the 2.5. They are both achieving close to 30 mpg in a predominantly rural area and are consequently delighted.
I will be testing a 3.0 Spec B in a couple of weeks and will report back.
I have almost bought Subaru in the past but this time it is just a case of choosing the right model. The quality is superb and they represent amazing value for money.
HectorG
|
I was looking at a Legacy myself a few months back and noticed that the official figures show the autos giving much higher MPG than the manuals due to very long gearing.
So, a newish Subaru with an auto should be comparable to other, similar sized and engined cars. Performance wasn't so great with the long gearing though, manual versions being much quicker.
Even so, I do so many miles I had to abandon the idea of a Legacy so I could get a diesel, roll on a Subaru boxer diesel engine!
|
|
I have been averaging 1000 miles/week in my new model 3.0 Outback since Feb. 2005, Ive just passed the 67000 mark. My fuel consumption averages 26/27 mpg on long motorway journeys but only about 22 mpg faffing around big Northern cities. Anyone who can consistently obtain 30mpg in one of these delightful cars has my admiration.
|
I have a mate with an 3.0 Outback. We consistently get the same mpg as each other and as thallium81 above.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
I entered the last year of the records of my Legacy Y reg 2.0l manual estate. Mostly suburban with the awful A6 twice a day
My first (manual), new at Y reg. (sold at 36700 miles), gave 29.94 mpg overall, cost per mile for fuel 11.22 pence, cost per mile overall 36.93 pence, which includes everything I spent on it including insurance and original cost minus trade in value.
My second (auto), new at '04 reg.(now 25500 miles), gives to date 29.38 mpg overall, cost per mile for fuel alone 13.18 pence, with parts, new tyres (nails etc) and insurance 21.06 p/mile when I trade it I'll have a better idea of the overall cost.
I always fill to the top and run for 7 days or until I have to fill up of necessity.
|
thallium,
I think the owners reporting 30 mpg may have been relying on the on-board computer. My experience,and that of many posting on this forum, suggests that the computer figures can be as much as 10% out. This would then give a figure of 27 mpg, which is probably be more realistic.
Despite this relatively poor figure it sounds as though you still really like the car. Do you have any regrets or reservations about your choice?
I am surprised by your choice of an Outback when it would appear that most of your driving is on 'main' roads. Did you try the Sports Tourer?
I have not yet driven the 3.0 Sports Tourer (Spec B Auto), but I expect the ride of the Outback is much more forgiving. I would welcome your comments.
BTW, do you ever work out all that extra cost compared with a diesel as you cover 1000 miles a week, or do you like driving too much! ?
Cheers
HectorG
|
The 3.0 is significantly more thirsty than the 2.5.
I've calculated my average using some rough figures and it concurs more or less with the trip computer as an average of 32 over the life of the car so far - this would correspond with my earlier figures and balances out the short/long journeys. Mine is 2.5 SE Outback.
I chose the Outback over the standard Tourer for the extra clearance which comes in really useful - using a big tow-bar cycle rack, urban potholes, speed humps, muddy rugby fields etc.etc.
If rides beautifully over all surfaces and just feels a bit more rugged and less easily messed up than the Tourer.
jdc
|
HectorG
I derive my fuel consumption figures by dividing the total monthly mileage by the volume of fuel loaded at the end of each month, I note my motorway miles and my city miles separately; this method admittedly is not 100% accurate but it's pretty fair over time I think.
I have no regrets about buying an Outback, I tried several cars in the price range and to my mind this one was head and shoulders above the opposition. I'm not too keen on the pale cream leather upholstery; I've got a dog!
I went for the Outback instead of the Sports Tourer because of the large amount of city driving I do. (Think Leeds, Hull,Newcastle etc etc) and the big lumps of metal I cart around; the suspension and extra ground clearance are worth the slightly inferior ride , IMO.
Yes I know it is an extravagant motor but I love driving and it is a joy. Anyway it is all about to come to a grinding halt as I am moving to Cornwall and packing up working for my living. I shall probably give the car to my daughter: I've bought a boat.
|
thallium
thanks for that. I know this is slightly off topic, but I have 2 dogs and was wondering about the cream leather - do you find it gets dirty easily and is difficult to clean? I think it looks great and makes the interior much lighter and airier. Many modern cars are coffin like inside, especially some VAG models with black headlining!
You also refer to the slightly inferior ride of your Outback. Surely the ride of the Sports Tourer is inferior to the Outback because of 45 profile tyres rather than 55 profile. I can see the 'handling' of the Outback being inferior, because of increased ride height. Did you test drive a Sports Tourer before going for the Outback?
I appreciate your comments - it is so much better getting 'real world' experiences of a car from an owner, rather than teenage scribblings following a brief test in a mag.
Cheers
HectorG
|
If it is any help, Hector, I've also got two dogs and a Legacy and live on a farm (lots of mud) - although mine is black leather (2.5 Tourer), rather than the cream.
First, my dogs live in the boot - Subaru do a good dog guard that fits very easily without damaging the car. Costs about £100. Plenty of room for two Beagle-sized hounds in there. Not sure about the wisdom of having them on the back seat (rather 'shiny', I'd guess, even with restraints).
Second, my interior takes a lot of abuse from muck and boots and seems to respond well to (very rare) cleaning and polishing. Carpets seem particularly hard-wearing. I use Liquid Leather to clean / condition the seats.
But I have a friend with a Spec B (cream leather) and a Great Dane, which rapidly looks very mucky (the interior of the car, that is) in bad weather.
One thing re the Legacy and dogs. In hot weather, you need to keep the sliding blind closed on the sun roof, otherwise it can get VERY hot in the back for the dogs, even with the aircon on full blast. That glass roof is huge, so extra care also needed if you need to leave them in the car.
Having said that, that also means that the black interior doesn't feel like the inside of one of those German coffins.
Incidentally, I know of one local farmer hereabouts who has recently swapped his Landcruiser for an Outback, which must say something about its off-road potential.
I also find the low-profiles on the Tourer don't do the ride any favours, BTW.
Rgds
Davros
|
Exactly a week after filling my 2.5 auto Legacy Tourer, I have done exactly 180 miles to half full mark.
According to the manual this is 7.05 gallons = 25.5mpg.
The only driving I've done this week is into work and back every day which involves 4 miles of slow and busy B&A roads, about 5 miles of free flowing M/way and about 6 miles of very busy urban traffic with long periods of crawling, plus a few bits and bobs of local runs to the shops etc.
I'd describe myself as a quicker than average driver so with a lighter right foot and a more patient attitude I could probably get 27 odd if I tried.
The trip computer tells me I've achieved 29mpg over that distance which is a greater error than I thought it would be.
|
HectorG
Back again; I cheat with the dogs and the leather seats by which I mean I have fitted tough seat covers which are very effective but of course they negate the 'luxury' of the leather. One reason I chose the Outback instead of the tourer is the extra ground clearance, there are some terrible roads in e.g. Sheffield, Hull, Manchester not to mention leeds. As you seem interested my car is used a bit roughly, often heavily loaded, full use often made of the available power and not cleaned very often. I service it in accordance with the makers schedule with the addition of an intermediate engine oil and filter change every 5000 miles; it has not one squeak or rattle and has been totally reliable. I would definitely buy another if I was'nt heading for my second childhood with a boat and the "call of the sea" again after 25 years. Silly old sod.
|
|
