EPA Fuel ratings posted on fueleconomy.org

[Dadhawk]

At the Atlanta Auto show this weekend I got a BRZ brochure that lists EPA numbers as 22/30 for Manual 25/34 for Automatic.

A copy of this is available on the Subaru website and there is a copy with discussion here in the BRZ forum.

I went to fueleconomy.gov and sent an email to their "contact us" email address. I actually got a reply in less than 2 hours! It says:

Thank you for contacting us. It is my understanding that we just received records for the 2013 Subaru BRZ and the 2013 Scion FR-S. we should have them posted shortly – probably by tomorrow. We used to get data releases from the EPA about 5 or 6 times a year spaced out every couple of months or so but lately, we have been receiving data updates more frequently with just a few models each time. There is no set schedule but we try to get the data posted as soon as we receive it from the EPA.

Looks like the numbers are determined and they will be posted soon.

They are up:

FR-S
BRZ

[jor8888]

thats terrible for a subcompact car

[powertrip]

It's actually really good compared to its peer group for what it is performance wise.

[ubersoph]

Originally Posted by jor8888

thats terrible for a subcompact car

This is not an economy car. This is a sportscar. Not a particularly fast one, but one with aggressive gearing.

Fuel Economy was clearly not the first priority.

[serialk11r]

Considering that they are saying those are the EPA numbers I'd say that's probably what's going to show up on the EPA website.

On the JC08 test or whatever it got ~12km/L which is about 30mpg with plenty of braking and stops and idling in highest trim, 4.1 diff, I'd say that's not bad at all.

[Snoopyalien24]

Originally Posted by jor8888

thats terrible for a subcompact car

Size does not matter.. It's a Direct Injected Sports car with a high revving engine. Lets be lucky we don't get numbers like the S2000, but slightly higher

[titusdrake]

Thanks Dadhawk. good info. id hope it will be the same or better than the V6 mustang which is 22-30 depending on driving..since the FR-S/BRZ is a high revving, high compression engine is def not going to get 35 or more..but it is lightweight and so id imagine it will be 25-35

[86'd]

Originally Posted by Snoopyalien24

Size does not matter.. It's a Direct Injected Sports car with a high revving engine. Lets be lucky we don't get numbers like the S2000, but slightly higher

As long as I don't average 20mpg like I did in the S2K, in mixed driving I'll be fine.

I'm getting around 25 mixed in my Civic Si right now (yes it needs a tune up) but if I can get that in the FRS/BRZ, I'd be happy.

[zoomzoomers]

I'd seriously be happy with mixed milage of 25 mpg. On a side note it amazes me how BMW pulled out a whopping 38 mpg, hwy, on their new 2.0T motors.

[chate]

isnt the veloster supposed to do 38? or is that just non-turbo?

[86'd]

Originally Posted by zoomzoomers

I'd seriously be happy with mixed milage of 25 mpg. On a side note it amazes me how BMW pulled out a whopping 38 mpg, hwy, on their new 2.0T motors.

I know it's a different thread, but talk about a car that's going to have some problems.

The new 3series does sound pretty awesome though. If I had a bit more money saved and didn't like the FRS/BRZ so much, I'd strongly consider a European Delivery on one.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by ubersoph

This is not an economy car. This is a sportscar. Not a particularly fast one, but one with aggressive gearing.

Fuel Economy was clearly not the first priority.

Its fascinating how we all see this in our own "mirror". If these numbers hold true, it is actually outperforming where I thought it would be for the type of car it is. Like others have said, if in daily driving it ends up between these two numbers (particularly the automatic since thats what I ended up ordering) I'll be quite happy with it.

Then again, it is replacing a vehicle that averages 16 in the city and 22 on the road, so why woudn't I be happy with it!

[Bristecom]

I think that's very interesting (if correct) that the auto gets better estimated mileage than the manual while not being a CVT or DCT. I guess even automatic transmissions have gotten so good that they are often quicker/more efficient than humans can be. But the auto will still weigh more and will be less fun.

I think 25 mpg mixed is definitely doable. My dad gets 24 avg mpg in his Evo X MR. But of course, he does mostly highway and doesn't push it much.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

I think that's very interesting (if correct) that the auto gets better estimated mileage than the manual while not being a CVT or DCT. I guess even automatic transmissions have gotten so good that they are often quicker/more efficient than humans can be. But the auto will still weigh more and will be less fun..

There was speculation earlier in a different thread that this would probably be the case because of the different gear ratios between the manual and the automatic. The auto is definitely geared at the top for better highway cruise speeds.