Howdy, Stranger!

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

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

2012 Subaru Impreza Long Term Road Test Posts: 10,059
edited September 2014 in Subaru

image2012 Subaru Impreza Long Term Road Test

Read daily updates on our long-term road test of the 2012 Subaru Impreza and follow along as our editors live with this car for a year.

Read the full story here



  • greenponygreenpony Chicago, ILPosts: 531
    I'd suspect that your city driving leg was filled with lots of gradual acceleration, top speeds of maybe 40 mph, and foresight on your part to avoid rushing forward just to stop. With a warm engine I can beat 30 mpg in my Focus even if I catch every red light on the "local" segment of my route to work. 35 mpg isn't uncommon in the summer. Yet a high speed highway run (like that 75 mph you report) will have my mpg floating around 30-33. Face the facts: speed kills. If you cruise at 65 mph instead I bet you can match the EPA highway rating. Cruise at less than 65 and you'll beat it.
  • bankerdannybankerdanny Posts: 1,021
    For such a wussy engine and a CVT that highway mileage is very poor. I routinely got 26 out of my 2007 Forester with the 2.5/4EAT combo.
  • ed124ced124c Posts: 0
    At 75 mph my '05 Outback manual gets about 26 or so, but will improve by 2 or 3 mpg when down to 65-70.

    I am disappointed by this Impreza's mileage, and the fact that Subaru hasn't improved mileage very much since I bought my OB in 2004. And mine is just the old reliable 2.5 with 167 hp.

    It seems that the cars that get their numbers are in the minority-- and that is after the government has changed the mileage numbers several times to get the numbers more in line with what drivers actually got.
  • CVT's actually lose efficiency the faster you go oddly enough. I had someone who has worked with cvt's explain the reason for this and the conclusion was based on some high tech physics principles he told me lol. So it's no surprise your most efficient leg was done in the city.
  • fordson1fordson1 Posts: 1,512
    What you are seeing I suspect is not so much a function of CVT as it is a function of AWD.

    The two big criticisms of this car are that it's gutless and gets poor fuel economy. It's around 3000 lbs. and has 145 hp...which is not much, but a regular FWD car with this power will show around 128 wheel horsepower on a dyno. I suspect this vehicle would show around 118. Power loss FWD would be around 12%, but AWD in this configuration I would suspect around 18% loss. Subaru may have kept it somewhat price competitive with regular FWD cars as far as transaction price is concerned, but AWD will cost you extra money with every turn of the wheels. Also, love those California gas prices. I just paid $3.88 a gallon for 93...and I live in NY, not some low tax/no tax southern state. For the fuel economy disparity...I would not get too wrapped up in that - one gas station had a level apron, one was sloped and had the gas filler side of the car lower, which made the auto shutoff kick sooner, one station had that apron sloped the other way, with the reverse effect...etc.
  • emajoremajor Posts: 332
    30mpg around town is impressive, but probably atypical. 28 mpg highway is the low end of 5-cylinder VW territory, an engine that has always underperformed on fuel economy but unlike this Subaru has some grunt and isn't strapped to a CVT. This makes me worry about the real world fuel economy of the new Forester.
  • same as Mazda3 2.5
Sign In or Register to comment.