Is this the car for me?

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by Shark_Bait88

With the WRX being turbo, you should still be using premium. However, I did some quick calculations of what it would cost to run each car 100 miles using the lowest currently listed gas prices in Maine.

FR-S assuming an avg. of 28.5mpg (my current on winter gas with a 12 mile daily commute on surface roads) would cost you $7.51 to travel 100 miles on the lowest listed price for premium gas in Maine.

WRX with an Edmunds combined avg. of 24mpg would cost you $8.08 to travel 100 miles on the lowest listed price for regular gas in Maine.

So the FR-S is still more efficient, even when the WRX is using regular (which, again, you should be using premium on a forced induction engine). I know this isn't the best test, but it's just a quick demonstration. Not to mention that the WRX would be much more costly to repair if there are any issues with the AWD system.

I don't have anything against WRXs, I just don't agree with your lower operating costs claim.

My calculation was off. the twin is still cheaper to operate.

BUT, totally disagree with you on the octane. There are numerous factory turbo-charged engines that do not require 91 octane. Gen coupe being one.

What you decide to put in is all subjective. It doesn't sound like the OP is a numbers kind of guy anyway.

[Koa]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

My calculation was off. the twin is still cheaper to operate.

BUT, totally disagree with you on the octane. There are numerous factory turbo-charged engines that do not require 91 octane. Gen coupe being one.

What you decide to put in is all subjective. It doesn't sound like the OP is a numbers kind of guy anyway.

Dizzle, I already posted this above, but 87 octane is for temporary use only in the FA20DIT. No way in hell should one use 87 octane throughout the life of a vehicle tuned to optimally run on 91+. Besides, who fills up a sports car tuned to 91+ with 87 to save some money?!

The Gen coupe is a piece of shit and we all know this

Of course there's a ton of vehicles that don't require 91+. Most of those vehicles are NOT sporty whatsoever (read: timing & advance is conservative), and probably have FI because the manufacturer needed it to target MPGs/increase efficiency just enough. Think TDI/1.6LETs.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by Koa

That sticker doesn't mean anything when we are talking about the vehicle's ability to detect knock from lower octane gas and pull timing. It definitely is NOT REQUIRED.

If it was required, the dealership could be sued for doing that first fill with 87. When it IS required, the vehicle is not equipped with a knock sensor and ECU capable of pulling timing to adjust to the knock from lower octane. It's very simple.

Just because it says ONLY, doesn't mean it is magically different than the FA20DIT. Besides, the official word is that 87 octane usage is TEMPORARY. Hope this clears some things up for you.

--

Fuel:
STI
The engine is designed to operate at maximum performance
using unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 93 AKI (98
RON) or higher. If 93 AKI (98 RON) fuel is not readily available
in your area, unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 91 AKI
(95 RON) may be used with no detriment to engine durability or
driveability. However, you may notice a slight decrease in
maximum engine performance while using 91 AKI (95 RON)
fuel. Use of 91 AKI (95 RON) fuel will not affect your warranty
coverage.

Except STI
Use unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 91 AKI (95
RON) or higher. If 91 AKI (95 RON) fuel is not readily available,
unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 87 AKI (90 RON)
may be temporarily used. For optimum engine performance and
driveability, it is recommended that you use premium grade
unleaded gasoline.

fa20dit has a lower compression ratio and does not have port injection. These engines are different. the fa20dit isn't just a fa20 with a turbo on it.

And yes, if the dealer filled up with 87 octane and it caused damage to a twin, and you could PROVE it. Then you have a solid case on your hands.

[Firefighterjake]

Wow . . . I mean wow . . . I step away after writing this post to do some actual work and holy crapola . . . lots of replies . . . I have to say . . . whatever way I go you guys are definitely friendly folks!

2Much . . . Trunk space. How many bodies do you think the FR-S could comfortably fit? Actually, in all seriousness, I hardly ever use my trunk space for anything . . . it really is a non issue for me. If I have to haul anything I bring the Titan into work.

Tryrant . . . Space. I don't think this would be an issue. 90% of the time the only person in the car is me and my backpack and lunch. The other 10% it's me and my buddy on a geocaching trip. I expected a firm ride and I don't think this would be very bothersome to me . . . I also owned a 1990s vintage Jeep Wrangler that rode like a buckboard with broken springs.

TCoat . . . was hoping you might reply since reading many of your threads made me think we might be on the same wave length for what we like in vehicles. I am curious though . . . what are these easy mods you speak of to make the FR-S zippier? I was thinking the only true way to get this car zippier was a whole lot of money and forced induction . . . which was one of the reasons I was wondering if folks thought the stock version would be comparable to the Accord.

TCoat . . . Ford Mustang. My wife has liked the looks of the old-new Mustang (last reincarnation) . . . my only issue . . . I have driven a number of Ford Crown Vics at work (I know, I know, they're different), but between these and other Fords they all seem to have all kinds of power, but way, way, way too much weight . . . that and simple things like changing out a thermostat has involved ripping out the dash . . .

Pinkski . . . I have to admit . . . a bit to my chagrin . . . that I kinda like driving my Accord relatively hard now . . . I like to row through the gears . . . and oftentimes my tires are chirping a bit as I go around the clover leafs on a highway. I definitely don't drive it like it probably should be driven . . .

Defuser . . . No. I knew right away that the FR-S/BRZ is not a drag racing vehicle . . . and know it's not going to be a straight line challenger to a a Camaro, Mustang, etc. . . . but I do want to have a vehicle that has a bit of spunk . . . something that has enough zip so that I can drop it down a gear and pass that slow moving pick up or not have a bunch of kids in the back of a mini van wave at me as their mother zips by me at a leisurely pace.

Chanpion . . . I definitely want to try the new WRX . . . although the local dealer was telling me that he could only let me take it for a test drive up and down the road outside the dealer instead of going around the block for a 15 minute test drive (again, I point out that I am in my 40s, pre-qualified typically and am not a tire kicker, but that seems to be their policy for some reason . . . and yes . . . I plan to check out other dealers in the state . . . or in New England even. I don't know about the Fiesta and Focus ST though . . . I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the simple fact that they're Fords.

Strat61caster . . . I understand and hear what you're saying, but I honestly am not all about comfort and practicality. I hate using cruise even. As long as the car rides relatively decent, gets OK gas mileage and is reliable (that's a biggie for me) I can forego the heated seats and many of the other luxuries.

DarkSunrise . . . I wouldn't say it was a love at first sight ride, but it was definitely a I like you a lot and want to go out again and maybe we can take it to second base sort of test drive. Does that count for anything? I've looked at the VW GTI several times . . . but I just don't like hatchbacks . . . and cannot picture myself being happy in a hatch despite the fact that a co-worker has had two older GTIs and loves them. Definitely going to look at the WRX. Would consider a V-6 Accord coupe . . . but a) they're still pretty pricey and b) they just don't seem to have that same sex appeal and soul as many other cars. The Fords . . . I want to love them . . . but I keep coming back to the fact that they're Fords -- I know, I know . . . I think I have some deep seated bigotry towards Ford.

Tahdizzle . . . what? The new WRX doesn't require premium fuel? I thought they still needed the good stuff?



Thanks again folks for all of the comments and opinions . . . sincerely appreciated.

[tahdizzle]

Originally Posted by Koa

Dizzle, I already posted this above, but 87 octane is for temporary use only in the FA20DIT. No way in hell should one use 87 octane throughout the life of a vehicle tuned to optimally run on 91+. Besides, who fills up a sports car tuned to 91+ with 87 to save some money?!

The Gen coupe is a piece of shit and we all know this

Of course there's a ton of vehicles that don't require 91+. Most of those vehicles are NOT sporty whatsoever (read: timing & advance is conservative), and probably have FI because the manufacturer needed it to target MPGs/increase efficiency just enough. Think TDI/1.6LETs.

It doesn't matter what someone in their right mind would do.

The fact is. If you run 87 octane and your twin starts knocking. You are screwed. Why? Because 91 octane is required. That is negligence on your part.

With a WRX, you do not have to run 91 octane. Its recommended, but not required. So the dealership/subaru cannot deny a warranty claim simply because you used 87 octane.

[Koa]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

fa20dit has a lower compression ratio and does not have port injection. These engines are different. the fa20dit isn't just a fa20 with a turbo on it.

And yes, if the dealer filled up with 87 octane and it caused damage to a twin, and you could PROVE it. Then you have a solid case on your hands.

compression ratio and absence of port injection alone has little to do with knock on the fa20dit when 87oct is introduced..

we're talking about advance and timing here. Of course these engines are different. That's not the point.

The point is both engines are equipped with the sensors and ECU capable of retarding timing and advance when it detects low grade/low octane fuel. This is a SAFETY MEASURE.

The FA20DIT can only temporarily sustain 87 octane. How temporary is up to others to discern. Any person with any lick of common sense will not abuse a turbo platform tuned for 91+ by putting 87 octane in to save some money.

That's just how it is.

[Firefighterjake]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

@Koa, Not at all. The WRX, to me, sounds like a much better choice for him.

If you didn't know after driving a twin, then its not for you.

As soon as I drove my BRZ, I knew it would be a car I would enjoy and keep.

The WRX is very practical and doesn't require 91 octane. Things like steering feel, feedback etc are all subjective and lets be honest. He's driving a 4cyl accord and a Subaru Legacy. Also his benchmark is a 2000 celica (didn't specify GT or GT-S). I honestly believe a WRX would be a cheaper and better match for him.

RE: The Celica . . . neither. It was the vanilla flavored ST . . . base of the base . . . and my buddy was right . . . just about every time I saw another Celica there was a woman driving it . . . and I hate to admit it . . . but I really did like that car.

Cheaper to run . . . or cheaper in purchase price? Up here, the base WRXs are going for around $27K, the FR-S are around $25K.

[2much]

Originally Posted by GreenMonster

:shrug: From the "junk in the trunk" thread it looks like the twins are very utilitarian. I've only got a pass thru for skis in my acura, so a twin w/ fold down seats would be an upgrade storage wise...

no way. uh uh.
I have owned the car for two years. I have actually moved to a new home with it. the size and shape of the trunk is extremely limiting.

[Koa]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

It doesn't matter what someone in their right mind would do.

The fact is. If you run 87 octane and your twin starts knocking. You are screwed. Why? Because 91 octane is required. That is negligence on your part.

With a WRX, you do not have to run 91 octane. Its recommended, but not required. So the dealership/subaru cannot deny a warranty claim simply because you used 87 octane.

we're playing tag here, my fault for posting multiples...

but where do you get this information that you can sustain driving on 87 octane? The '15 WRX manual states temporary use only

I don't even know why we're getting so into this. The point is that is a stupid thing to try and do to your wrx, if saving money is a concern.

[Koa]

jesus can someone chime in here who owns a '15 wrx? Do you ever fill it up with 87 octane for multiple tanks? I can't believe this is even a point of contention

I own a 2002 WRX and good lord, the handful of times I had to drive on 87octane (back in college when my mum filled it up once; dealership. I think that's it) I truly felt it. You could HEAR the pinging and pull. I know the EJ205 =/= FA20DIT.. but come on here.. it's common sense..

[Firefighterjake]

Originally Posted by tahdizzle

My calculation was off. the twin is still cheaper to operate.

BUT, totally disagree with you on the octane. There are numerous factory turbo-charged engines that do not require 91 octane. Gen coupe being one.

What you decide to put in is all subjective. It doesn't sound like the OP is a numbers kind of guy anyway.

Depends on the numbers . . .

Purchase price is a number I pay a lot of attention to . . .

Gas price is a number I also pay attention to . . . but I realized a while back when I started this search that the majority of the cars I am looking at require premium . . . and ya gotta pay to play, right? . . . plus for me and my mileage I think I'm looking at a few hundred dollars extra in gas.

[Firefighterjake]

Re: Fuel requirements for the WRX.

Not sure if it matters . . . but whatever vehicle I get . . . I plan to go with the manufacturer requirements or suggested fuel type. I would rather pay a little extra at the pump then pay a lot more down the road for engine problems.

[Koa]

Originally Posted by Firefighterjake

Re: Fuel requirements for the WRX.

Not sure if it matters . . . but whatever vehicle I get . . . I plan to go with the manufacturer requirements or suggested fuel type. I would rather pay a little extra at the pump then pay a lot more down the road for engine problems.

smart man. Trust me bruv... it's not an option to regularly drive a '15 WRX on 87. The manual states TEMPORARY. Logic and automotive engineering determine that there are very real and felt adverse effects from running 87 octane, even if the manual states you can TEMPORARILY use it.

Who buys a $27+ thousand sport turbo vehicle and puts 87 in to save money? I'm getting soo heated over this. My last post. Gotta go walk it off. It's just the internet and all, but I'm flabberghasted.

[tahdizzle]

Actually. I was using "up to" numbers.

the sticker on a brz is 22/30. so a combined average of 26 miles/ gallon.

With the california rate of 2.699/gallon. For a brz to travel 100 miles, it will cost $10.380.

For a WRX using the listed 21/28, it would cost $10.138.