MPG expectations? FR-S and BRZ

[fatoni]

id like to see some great numbers but id also like the car to be geared in a sporty manner. what i want is a close geared six speed not a kinda four speed with two overdrives to get that super high hwy mpg something like 22-25 otherwise it seems like the "pure driving experience" as the main objective people are raving about would seem to have been comromised

[davesrave]

Originally Posted by fatoni

id like to see some great numbers but id also like the car to be geared in a sporty manner. what i want is a close geared six speed not a kinda four speed with two overdrives to get that super high hwy mpg something like 22-25 otherwise it seems like the "pure driving experience" as the main objective people are raving about would seem to have been comromised

I'd bet money that 6th gear is overdrive and wouldn't rule out 5th and 6th being overdrives. This car and engine combo have a broad enough power band that it shouldn't need all 6 to get you to 100 MPH+. Not what I would want, anyway. I'd like good gas mileage while cruising.

[no_name]

22-25 mpg highway is ludicrously low. The MX-5 gets 28 highway and no one will ever complain about the gearing in that car. And with an extra 600lb, the genesis coupe 2.0T gets 21/30. And neither of those engines have DI which helps improve fuel economy.

[Dave-ROR]

Originally Posted by no_name

22-25 mpg highway is ludicrously low. The MX-5 gets 28 highway and no one will ever complain about the gearing in that car. And with an extra 600lb, the genesis coupe 2.0T gets 21/30. And neither of those engines have DI which helps improve fuel economy.

And s2000s were rated for 25-26 hwy (depending on the year) at 2850ish lbs with a 2L NA motor......

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by old greg

The way I look at it, the low spec model listed as being 10% more efficient than the Miata (which the EPA rates at 21/28), and 38% more efficient than the RX8 (EPA: 16/22). That equates to 22/30.5 based on the RX8 numbers, and 23/31 based on the Miata numbers. That much of a correlation between the estimates leads me to believe that they are fairly accurate.

old greg's comments regarding the leaked training manual data sheet correlates the data sheet to current EPA fuel economy figures. 23/31 isn't anything remarkable these days, and it's significantly worse than the 27/36 MPG the AWD, heavier, bigger aero drag, non-DI '12 Impreza's FB20 the engine is based on. Of course, the EPA ratings don't take aero into considering [IIRC]. The only excuse I can think of is the FA20 will be revving higher per MPH, which kills economy. Nevertheless, a 14% loss in economy is huge IMO when considering all the differences between the FT-86 and Impreza.

Still, if the car gets a legit 31 MPG highway, that'll be fine. What would suck, however, if the highway rating is 31 but you can't even hypermile a 29 MPG tank. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than disappointed.

[Laika]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

old greg's comments regarding the leaked training manual data sheet correlates the data sheet to current EPA fuel economy figures. 23/31 isn't anything remarkable these days, and it's significantly worse than the 27/36 MPG the AWD, heavier, bigger aero drag, non-DI '12 Impreza's FB20 the engine is based on. Of course, the EPA ratings don't take aero into considering [IIRC]. The only excuse I can think of is the FA20 will be revving higher per MPH, which kills economy. Nevertheless, a 14% loss in economy is huge IMO when considering all the differences between the FT-86 and Impreza.

Still, if the car gets a legit 31 MPG highway, that'll be fine. What would suck, however, if the highway rating is 31 but you can't even hypermile a 29 MPG tank. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than disappointed.

The '12 Impreza has a CVT which is probably the entire reason for the fuel economy being higher.

[serialk11r]

CVT doesn't help as much as the manufacturers try to make it sound like it does. The highest gear is the one with the biggest impact on fuel economy; When you are in lower gears, you are typically using much more engine power and the engine operates efficiently. The reason sports cars tend to do poorly is because closely spaced gears translate to a relatively short cruising gear.

[iff2mastamatt]

Didn't one review for this car predict 38 mpg? I'm hoping for 35 mpg if this thing is going to be 197 hp.

[serialk11r]

I think if the 2500rpm at 60 is correct, then that means this car turns about same rpm as a Civic 1.8L on the highway. Perhaps a bit more pumping loss due to only having the fixed cam and slightly more displacement, so I think it should be comparable (aka, 40 on the highway if traffic is smooth).

[iff2mastamatt]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

I think if the 2500rpm at 60 is correct, then that means this car turns about same rpm as a Civic 1.8L on the highway. Perhaps a bit more pumping loss due to only having the fixed cam and slightly more displacement, so I think it should be comparable (aka, 40 on the highway if traffic is smooth).

I will definitely be gliding in this car, and if the conditions are good for highway driving I believe that it might almost reach 40 mpg. My accord is rated to get 28 mpg highway but I have rarely gotten below 30 mpg on most fill-ups. I hope to do the same with the FR-S.

[Laika]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

CVT doesn't help as much as the manufacturers try to make it sound like it does.

Thanks but I'm actually not a manufacturer.

I've gotten just over 35mpg with an 11' Legacy 2.5i with the CVT on a trip to NY. Look at the EPA ratings of the Legacy with the CVT vs. the 5 speed manual.

[serialk11r]

Manual transmissions on cars tend to be geared shorter because they assume people driving stick want more performance and care less about fuel economy. A CVT has a large amount of friction by design, and BSFC is actually pretty consistent across the rpm range typically seen in daily operation, so in theory the advantage is practically nonexistent.

Besides, when the EPA does tests they don't even drive the car on the road, and automatic transmissions are likely programmed to maximize EPA performance, so I have a hard time trusting those numbers which show a huge gap between CVT and manual. Just because you got 35mpg on the CVT doesn't mean the manual would've done worse.

This is all speculative though, I may be wrong :P

[Laika]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Manual transmissions on cars tend to be geared shorter because they assume people driving stick want more performance and care less about fuel economy. A CVT has a large amount of friction by design, and BSFC is actually pretty consistent across the rpm range typically seen in daily operation, so in theory the advantage is practically nonexistent.

Besides, when the EPA does tests they don't even drive the car on the road, and automatic transmissions are likely programmed to maximize EPA performance, so I have a hard time trusting those numbers which show a huge gap between CVT and manual. Just because you got 35mpg on the CVT doesn't mean the manual would've done worse.

This is all speculative though, I may be wrong :P

Ah I see what you're saying now. I wish I could take the manual version for a spin now!

[[es vi: eks]]

I would be interested in knowing the proper MPG aswell.
If its not to flash, Maybe you could have a over drive fitted to the diff or back of Gbox. For long boring straights put it overdrive in and drop the revs down to save gas.
Having fun just put change the ratio back at a flick of the switch.
I dont know how the practiblity of something like that would work on a new sports car like the FT86?
You can still get brand new units that you can fit to older sports cars.
Wether you could adapt one these new units to work and if it would last, I dont know?