Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Subaru Forester MPG-Real World Numbers



  • that reminds me when i had my first car, '02 Impreza 2.5..for about a year, subaru catalytic converter started to go bad.the emissions are starting to develop so, well goodluck to us.
  • pbaipbai Posts: 7
    2007 Forrester X, Auto
    Date mileage brand gallons MpG
    5/30/2007 6 n/a n/a n/a
    6/10/2007 240 Costco 11.11 21.06
    6/25/2007 517 Costco 13.265 20.88
    7/8/2007 796 Costco 12.439 22.43
    7/21/2007 1048 Costco 11.828 21.31
    8/8/2007 1294 Costco 11.457 21.47
    8/19/2007 1535 Costco 10.808 22.30
    8/31/2007 1695 Costco 7.623 20.99
    9/3/2007 2036 Shell 13.961 24.43
  • Generally I fill up around either 3/4s full or half tank... I generally drive about 25 miles each way to work and back, takes me about a 30 minute drive, 5-10 minuts getting to freeway then 15-20 min on freeway. So generally I'm filling up every 2-3 days.

    I fill up at my place of work, where gas is about 3.11/gal [cheapest in the area as far as washington state people see it] I'm very sure its about 2 gallons a day I use.. Old car I'd use over 2 gallons a day..

    I'd say about 25-30mpg avg
  • johnvjohnv Posts: 40
    First measured tank.
    Odometer just rolled over 700. 5spd MT.
    328 miles into the CA foothills: 0 -> 2000ft -> 1500ft -> 2000ft -> 0 twice + lots of 80mph freeway, some with sunroof open.
    26.1 mpg
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Sounds great - and it should get better because the engine is still very green.
  • leo2633leo2633 Posts: 589
    My wife and I just returned home to New Jersey from a 1300 mile round trip to North Carolina. We took my 5 speed 2001 Forester, which now has 176K miles. On the trip down, I got 30.6 MPG, which was great, considering all the stop and go traffic we encountered along I-95. Coming home, when traffic was much lighter, I got 34.5 MPG and 450 miles (exactly) on one tank, which took me from Belmont, NC to Annapolis, MD. That was the highest MPG and longest distance per tank I've ever gotten, and I've tracked MPG for every tankful since purchasing the car new 7 years ago. Upon refueling, I still had 2-point-something gallons left, which gave me a (theoretical) cruising range of over 500 miles. Not that I would ever take it that low, but it was interesting to see that.

    Speeds were kept at 60-65 MPH for most of the trip, cruise control was used whenever possible and the A/C was on the entire time. Not too shabby for a car that was rated about 28 MPG on the highway when new.

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    176k miles and it's still able to get 30.6mpg? Wow! :shades:
  • peteshawpeteshaw Posts: 1
    Our 2006 Subaru Forester with AT and no Turbo, gets exactly what the sticker said it would 23 town, 28 hwy. That is driving right on the speed limits, and driving sensibly. -- PeteShaw
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    21mpg low, 34 mpg high, so far.

    Average is usually 22-26 or so, though the wife drives mostly around town and in traffic.

    We use our minivan for long trips and highway miles.
  • aathertonaatherton Posts: 617
    "Our 2006 Subaru Forester with AT and no Turbo, gets exactly what the sticker said it would 23 town, 28 hwy. That is driving right on the speed limits, and driving sensibly."

    I think our cars are physically identical, yet the sticker on my 2008 Subaru Forester with AT and no Turbo says 20 town, 26 hwy.

    Driving at the limits and using gentle accelerations, I am getting 26 around town (mixed suburb and city) and 28 on highway.
  • jim314jim314 Posts: 491
    The EPA did revise the formulas it uses to calculate the estimated mpg's from the dynamometer tests (which I think were not changed). I think 2008 was the first year of the new calculation procedure.

    There could be a difference in the transmission between '06 and '08 (maybe just the software settings for control), or the engine con trol software.

    Are the tires the same on the '06 and '08?

    Then there is the possibility of variation in performance of identical cars.
  • phil53phil53 Posts: 54
    I am considering the purchase of a 2009 Subaru Forester 2.5X Limited. Before I do, though, I'd like to get input on what type of mileage folks are getting in the real world. It would help to know what type of driving you do (% city/suburban/highway), how you drive (cautious, average, aggressive), city/combined/highway mileage and how many miles you have on the vehicle.
    Since the engine and transmission (4AT) have not changed recently, I would also welcome input from owners of older models with the same drivetrain and how it has fared long-term. Overall impressions of the vehicle would be welcome as well.
    A bit about me. I'm getting rid of a 2000 Beetle TDI that gets 42 mpg average. So, obviously, mileage is a big consideration. My wife wants something with 4WD or AWD for the winter. I'd like something with a great deal of utility so I can park my 2004 Avalanche whenever possible. At the same time, I'd like something with the same level of luxury I enjoy with my Avalanche (pretty loaded up). I am an aggresive driver - not in the sense that you see used by law enforcement. But I accelerate quickly, I drive 5 or 10 over the limit and I don't over-inflate my tires or use any hyper-mileage tricks. I don't baby my vehicles (but I do take care of them). My commute is a little over 30 miles, about 70%highway/30%suburban traffic in a midwest metropolitan area.
    By the way, I'm comparing this against a Nissan Rogue SL AWD.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    A Forester Limited like ours should be pretty close to what you want. We have an 09, and I had previously owned a 98.

    My wife drives it, mostly around town. She tends to get 24mpg or so, but that's mostly in town driving, almost no long distance trips (we take our minivan on trips).

    We've seen mileage from 22mpg (all city) to 34mpg (an all highway jaunt). We only have 1000 or so miles on it now, so I suspect that will improve as it breaks in (my 98 did).

    I think you can realistically expect an average of anywhere from 23-28mpg or so, depending on your driving habits and especially the type of driving.
  • phil53phil53 Posts: 54
    Thanks. The averages you mention seem to track with what I've been told by a couple of people I've talked to (25 - 28). That beats what I'm hearing on the Rogue. I've also gone back and read previous posts and see anywhere from 20 to 34. So that's not bad for a small SUV. Just wish they'd improve on the 4AT. Rogue's CVT with paddle shifters beats it hands-down. The 4AT seems to hunt and shift a little rough on the one I drove.
    I'd be interested to see if anyone's taken a roadtrip with one of the cargo carriers on top. I'll need to do that once or twice a year.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I did with my old one, a soft carrier on top of a 98. My guess is that cost me an MPG or two.

    Forester may get a CVT next year and I bet they'll use the same supplier as Nissan. My buddy has an Altima and that CVT impressed me, much better than, say, the one on the 2.4l Outlander.
  • bbthomasbbthomas Posts: 24
    I commute about 32 miles one way, 15% city/85% highway. With 1500 miles on my 2.5X Limited, I average around 27.5 mpg. Depending on traffic, I've seen as high as 30 mpg. I consider my driving style average, though I do over-inflate my tires by a couple of psi. For highway commuting I find the 4AT fine, only on hilly back roads do I wish for a 5AT (when I used the manual mode).
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,391
    The cargo carrier is going to hit it rather hard. With just my soft carrier on my '96 Outback, I would lose a couple MPG. With a cargo carrier on my '08 Outback (the Subaru-branded Yakima Load Warrior) and loaded, I lost 6-8 MPG (was getting 28-30 without the carrier, and ran about 22 MPG with it) consistently. It was brutal considering the distance traveled with it on top (about 4000 miles on a 5500 mile trip).

    This summer, I drove my minivan on a trip to the Kasilof river (about 500 miles from home). I had the same cargo carrier on top. I got between 17 and 22 MPG depending on whether I ran 70(+) or kept it at 60. I get that much around town (average 20.5 MPG) and managed 25.5 out of it (3.8L V6 in a '98 Caravan AWD) on a recent 400-mile round trip to Tok. At $4.50 a gallon, that was an expensive way to carry a little extra cargo. :cry:
  • I just took my family on a 3,400 mile road trip in my brand new 09X Premium, and with the Subaru OEM long cargo box (aerodynamic) we got 24mpg for the trip. The Foz had less than 500 miles when we started. When we got to Florida, the box came off and spent the week in the condo, then was reinstalled in about 5 minutes for the return drive.
  • phil53phil53 Posts: 54
    Thanks for the input on the cargo carriers. Sounds like the OEM solid box is the way to go. Of course, I'd rather not carry any. But I take one or two trips a year when my Avalanche is pretty loaded. The Forester can't come close to carrying that much without either a car-top carrier or a small trailer.
    buckhuntr - 24 doesn't sound that bad, but you don't say how fast you were going. Out here in the midwest, 75 on the interstate and 65 - 70 on the 2 lanes is pretty common.
    xwesx - 17 is pretty discouraging, so I'm hoping buckhuntr is closer to what I might expect. I can haul everything I might want with the Avalanche and still get 17 mpg.
    ateixeira - thanks for the info on the CVT. Just not sure I want to wait until next year.
    Also - thanks to bbthomas for the input.
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    24 doesn't sound that bad, but you don't say how fast you were going. Out here in the midwest, 75 on the interstate and 65 - 70 on the 2 lanes is pretty common.

    On my 04, the mileage really drops when you get up around 75 to 80. I'm pretty sure the combination of the boxy shape along with the short gearing (higher revs) is the culprit. When I moved across the country, I was amazed that my wife's Grand Cherokee actually got slightly better mpg than my Forester :surprise: But then it had a bigger engine (6-cyl), RWD and was turning about a 1,000 rpms slower.

Sign In or Register to comment.