Petrol Consumption in Subaru XV

Sunshines bright on 17/01/2019 - 20:00
Last edited 17/01/2019 - 20:01

I am curious what others are getting for their fuel consumption? Mainly in a Subaru XV but any SUV would be interesting to hear.

The Subaru specs say to expect to get- extra urban 6 l/100km, urban 8.8 l/100km , combined 7 l/100km

but we are getting between 12.8 and 13.2 Liters

I am unsure what means extra urban and urban but even so our consumption is way off the specs.

We have had it to the dealer 3 times and every time they tell us it is within the company parameters. They seem to do about 10K for the test and reset the fuel meter before and it is always at about 8.3 but when you drive it another 15K plus it just goes up and up till is sits around 13 for us.

We try driving all different ways - fast starts, slow starts, driving over speed limit (heavy foot) and under with little to no change. We do seldom drive more than 5K at a pop.

So what say you?

Poll Options expired

  • 49
    less than 9 l/100km
  • 29
    greater than 9 but less then 11 l/100km
  • 8
    between 11 and 12 l/100kn
  • 5
    over 12 less than 13 l/100km
  • 19
    over 13 l/100km
Automotive Fuel Subaru

Related Stores

Subaru Australia
Subaru Australia

Comments

    • Nugs on 18/01/2019 - 06:16
      +1

      "and Bette Ron the highway"

      gotta love auto spell
      .

      • Euphemistic on 18/01/2019 - 17:11
        +1

        Yeah. I actually spotted that one and thought it was one of the better autocorrects I’ve encountered, so I left it in.

  • Caped Baldy on 18/01/2019 - 07:00

    I get around 12L per 100km in the latest Forester. Used to be around 10 to 11 in an older model.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2019 - 07:16
    -2

    Mainly in a Subaru XV but any SUV would be interesting to hear.

    Subaru XV is not an SUV so why compare them? An XV is an impreza with a larger, heavier body. It sounds like you need to really adjust your driving style. Subaru flat fours are not well known for fuel economy plus add in AWD and short trips you have the perfect formula for shite mileage.

    I agree with xywolap above. Hop on a clear level freeway (maybe late at night), set cruise control at 100kmh, reset trip meter and I put $100 on it that your current consumption will be ~7 litres/100 km.

    There is nothing wrong with your car if you get these results. If you get any higher eg. 10+ then your car is stuffed.

    • Euphemistic on 18/01/2019 - 17:15
      +1

      Subaru XV is not an SUV so why compare them? An XV is an impreza with a larger, heavier body.

      Umm. A taller body and extra ground clearance with all wheel drive and adds that show it in the desert, on the beach etc. Seems like exactly the definition of SUV to me. Don’t get me wrong, I know it isn’t an off road 4wd. Somewhere the SUV definition moved from its origins of RAV4 type soft raiders (of which the XV is one) and is now applied to all off road wagons including the original Land Cruiser and Patrol - the ones that are proper 4wds.

      • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2019 - 18:59

        with all wheel drive

        Massive difference between AWD and 4WD

        • Nugs on 19/01/2019 - 10:47
          +1

          plenty of "SUV's" with FWD only too.

          I for one have always thought SUV is used too often, how many have 'sporting' intentions?
          .

  • boccos on 18/01/2019 - 07:34

    This is a very interesting observation. I drive a 2.5 ltr Camry Sedan city driving and get 11 ltr per 100 klm. My Mate drives a 2.5 ltr Mazda 3 (min 8 klm trips)and gets 6.4 ltr per 100 klm. That is a surprising difference. Well done Mazda.

    • thetrain on 19/01/2019 - 15:53
      +1

      swap cars with your mate for a week and see if you get the same result.

      • Ash SA on 20/01/2019 - 09:33

        This.

        Though there is definitely a difference in both cars but driving habits make a lot of difference.

    • inasero on 21/01/2019 - 10:24

      Where does your mate drive around?

  • Speckled Jim on 18/01/2019 - 07:52

    I am unsure what means urban and extra urban

    Black and Extra-black

    even so our consumption is way off the specs.

    It's a boxer — that's life. Their raison d'etre is the handling advantage of a lower centre of gravity. They're not known for mechanical efficiency. Guessing your XV is also an automatic?

  • theguru1 on 18/01/2019 - 08:16

    With that driving style what is are getting is fairly good. It is however severe condition service wise and will require more frequent servicing and expect higher wear and breakage.

  • NotSureIfSerious on 18/01/2019 - 08:17

    Not an XV but a forester (slightly bigger engine/ heavier configuration) and get n average about 8-9km/100 and only really get 10+ when I do a short trip to the shop down the road

  • vtr1000bikeboy on 18/01/2019 - 08:34

    2018 XV using 98 octane. I get at least 700km on a tank commuting 40km from Newport to Randwick in peak traffic.
    On a recent run from Sydney to Brisbane I got 930km on a tank.
    Couldn't be happier.

  • theclearout on 18/01/2019 - 08:36
    +1

    We've had ours for just over a year now and averages 8.7L/100km.
    That's the current reading after last approximate 12,000km.
    Drives are mainly mix of short local and medium (~35km) with occasional ~50km journeys.
    We have only ever used U91.

  • backpaqer on 18/01/2019 - 09:03
    +1

    I can do Melbourne to Adelaide on one tank which gets down near 6 litres/100km which is extra urban. Generally around town I get 8.2/100k. My wife is a little less gentle on the gas and gets 8.6-9.0/100km (but she only drives local back streets to work which is only 2.5km away so very uneconomical for that).
    It's a 2016 Subaru xv (top of the range model whatever that is)

    Edit: and I only ever put premium unleaded in it.

  • wiselyfoolish on 18/01/2019 - 09:38

    I have a Forester XT. If I drive short distances less than 10 min I am seeing about 13-15L/100 km but afterwards it will drop to 10L/100 km. It needs a good 10 min or more for the engine to warm up then becomes fuel efficient

  • BigBirdy on 18/01/2019 - 09:48
    +1

    Standard abbreviation for kilometres is km. K implies 1000 units, hence the confusion.
    I’ve met a few drivers incapable of driving at a steady speed. They would constantly swap between accelerating and backing-off, without realising it, using lots of fuel. Good fuel economy requires a steady foot or cruise-control. Most cars get optimum economy somewhere between about 70 and 90kmh. Get out on a long flat straight’ish quiet multi-lane hwy and set your cruise-control at (say) 90kmh and see what you can get.

    • Kandrew on 18/01/2019 - 11:46

      I’ve met a few drivers incapable of driving at a steady speed. They would constantly swap between accelerating and backing-off, without realising it, using lots of fuel.
      I have been trying to convince my wife of this, but for some reason, she doesn’t believe or understand it.

      Good fuel economy requires a steady foot or cruise-control.
      And she had one bad experience with CC where it didn’t disengage when she put her foot on the brake pedal, and she now won’t ever use CC in any car!

      I’m also of the opinion that automatic cars make it more difficult to drive smoothly and therefore more economically.

    • pegaxs on 21/01/2019 - 10:18

      k is the simbol for kilo, meaning 1000 units of …. kg, km, etc.

      K is the simbol for Kelvin, a unit measurement of temperature.

      I totally thought OP was driving in near absolute zero temperatures. Imagine my confusion…

      Lucky OP wasn’t an accountant or a Roman. They may have used M instead and really fluffed things up.

      • John Kimble on 21/01/2019 - 10:39
        +1

        symbol

        • pegaxs on 21/01/2019 - 12:48
          +1

          Hahaha, wtf is simbol??? How the hell did I get that wrong??? Twice! Lol. That certainly is a brain fart moment. Thanks for that.

          Not even going to get a mod to edit it because "stupidity" and I need to own it.

  • Oz8argain on 18/01/2019 - 10:42
    +4

    Our 2013 XV gets around 8 - 9 L/100KM in the suburbs (91).
    1. Is your car brand new? You will have high fuel consumption for maybe the first few thousand kms.
    2. You are only doing 5km per trip. This significantly increases your fuel consumption. (starting the car cold, auto High RPM to warm up the car)

    • coprolites on 18/01/2019 - 11:39

      This.

      My wife mainly drives short trips <5km during the week in our 2018 Outback with lots of start/stop at traffic lights etc. She averages 11-12 L/100km.

      I reset it on the weekends where we do longer 10-20km trips and the car reports ~8-9 L/100km. Varies quite a bit depending on driving style too, my lowest record is 6.9 L/100km when I was driving 25km to/from work for a week.

      Cars use significantly more petrol while the engine is cold.

  • Sunshines bright on 18/01/2019 - 11:49

    Honestly, I think what we get is what should be expected. It is my Partner who is freaking out and very upset about it. Considering our old car (2014 Honda Civic) would easily get about 7.5-8.2 no matter how or how far we drove it.

    It seems to me the older Subaru's had better consumption based on what others have said in here.

    Sorry guys but we are retired and have zero need to drive further than 5Km on a daily basis and to walk over 4K round trip is too much for this "fat' girl, LOL. So a car is needed!!! We do manage to go 15K out at least once a week, hehe.

    You all have been great and giving me/us much food for thought. I do appreciate all the comments and your voting too!!!

    • Levathian on 18/01/2019 - 13:15

      How far do you drive a week?

      If you're only making short trips and do say 50-100km/week, does fuel economy even matter compared to servicing/rego/insurance/depreciation?

      I'd rather have the AWD/android auto/adaptive cruise/subaru quality than the $5-10/week you might save on fuel if you owned say a prius, i20 or Getz instead.

    • Oz8argain on 18/01/2019 - 13:56
      +4

      zero need to drive further than 5Km on a daily basis

      Should have gone for a hybrid / electric!

      • Austaurean on 20/01/2019 - 08:27

        We use some Toyota hybrids at work, the fuel monitor states
        5 l per 100km,the other vehicles being Kia or Hyundai get approx 9 to 10 and while there is some long driving i.e. 15 to 20km on the expressway to get to the suburb we need, most driving after that is stop start in tbe suburb. And they have good pickup once you get past the initial electric roll. Shows how much you can save with a hybrid

    • Herbse on 18/01/2019 - 17:24
      +2

      Subaru XV is heavier than the Civic. And Honda's generally make more efficient engines.

      If you're driving short trips, always drive slow while the engine is colder. Slow doesn't mean under the limit. It means get to your desired speed at a slow rate and don't let the engine rev high.
      There's nothing wrong with short trips if you don't rev high, and it is also the most efficient way to drive.

      I started to save on gas by using hypermiling techniques like that and anticipating when I needed to stop and reduced unecessary acceleration. There's lots of ways to reduce your usage.

      Also are you getting your consumption figures from the dash? That uses assumptions based on your acceleration methods. It doesn't actually know how much fuel you're burning.
      You should be filling up the tank to full, reset the trip meter, driving, when it's time to fill up again fill to the top and compare your distance driven by the amount of petrol you put into the tank to get L/100kms

  • singingwolf on 18/01/2019 - 11:59
    +1

    All wheel drive uses more, and cars hate summer. Best fuel economy is in winter.

    • John Kimble on 18/01/2019 - 12:13
      +1

      Best fuel economy is in winter.

      Not necessarily

    • Indomietable on 18/01/2019 - 17:06
      +1

      From my experience, the best economy is in downhill.

      • wiselyfoolish on 19/01/2019 - 08:00
        +2

        Best economy is by leaving car at home and walk/bus/cycle :p

    • thetrain on 19/01/2019 - 15:54

      if you use ac in summer then yes

  • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2019 - 17:03

    We live in the city and have had an XV for 6 years and have never gone over 9l/100 even with city only driving weeks so that blows my mind you are getting 12+.

    Average tank is usually around 8 and any roadtrip holiday easily brings it down to between 6 and 7 (with a full load)

    Not doing any special type of driving.

    Do you have roof racks or any type of attachments that are not needed 100% of the time? Spot lights, awnings etc all add to the wind drag that can really make you lose efficiency. It's surprising how many people leave their roof racks on when not in use.

  • rave75 on 18/01/2019 - 17:25
    +1

    you only did 5km run, that explains everything. try do a 20km run.

  • Brouw3r on 18/01/2019 - 17:53

    Are the units you are getting definitely L/100km. The logical answer here is they are not, if for some reason you are getting 13km/L then that's 7.7L/100km - well within expectations. In the case of km/L, higher is better not worse.

    Edit: Specs say a 63L tank, if you're getting about 750km a tank, that's km/L. If it's only 450-500km, then you were right with L/100km

    • trongy on 19/01/2019 - 09:19

      The Subaru's computer displays average fuel economy in l/100km since the trip meter was reset.

  • pformag on 18/01/2019 - 18:20

    You are not an unleaded foot.

  • BargainStalk3r on 18/01/2019 - 18:48
    +1

    I have an Impreza i-S. My first few thousands km, the car consumed around 11l 12l per 100k. Now at 13k km, the average fuel consumption has dropped to 8.3l/100km. I mostly drive inner city. I think your new XV's fuel consumption will drop as you drive more.

  • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2019 - 19:53

    ADR testing is done on a rolling road (dynomometer) at certain speeds for urban (slow acceleration up to 40kph and stopping multiple times) and extra urban (acceleration to 60kph and maintain, stop and repeat) and the extra urban (accellerate to 80kph and maintain for a certain time). This doesn’t take into account wind resistance, road resistance, low tyre pressures, differing acceleration input, steep or moderate hills, excessive idling in stopped traffic, accelerating in city traffic to move 3 car lengths then stopping again, and many more situations I can’t write now. I’m sure your car can achieve the stated figure by Subaru, but you will never achieve it in real world driving and if the techs can get between the urban and extra urban figure then all is ok. Don’t forget Subaru’s have all wheel drive which adds weight not in base model SUVs from other brands (Mazda cx3, Hyundai Kona, Honda hrv, etc) so don’t compare to those as they might get better in similar driving conditions.

  • AAAB on 18/01/2019 - 20:18

    I know it's not the same category of car but I have the 2012 Impreza (auto) which is basically the same car just lower - I get on average 7.5L/100 being predominantly inner city driving although not commuting during peak hours. Highway trips average me 5.5 - 6.5 depending on the amount of traffic.

    I find that with the CVT, if you drive consistently with a light foot, slow starts etc. you will find that it tends to not rev up to 3k to give you the power, but in turn your fuel economy will be substantially better. It does take time for it to adjust this 'trigger' though.

  • bnebgnhunter on 18/01/2019 - 20:22
    -1

    2017 Astra R and I’m getting 5.4/100
    6 speed auto torque converter setup
    Will never touch a cvt ever again
    Suzuki turned me off for life

    • pegaxs on 20/01/2019 - 09:12

      But in a few years, you will actually get something back for the Suzuki if you sold it and Holden will probably no longer exist. So, enjoy your Vauxhall/Daewoo hybrid shitbox while it’s still actually running.

      • bnebgnhunter on 20/01/2019 - 09:25

        Pegaxs what’s with the personal attack

        Considering Holden developed a lot of the suspension settings and had a lot of input it’s actually a very good car, priced appropriately now they’re walking out the door of Holden dealerships

        Suzuki couldn’t make a car with a cvt to save themselves and considering I’ve hit 103,000km in the astra without a single hitch (tyre replacement and servicing) I’ll enjoy my shitbox as you say whilst the owners of a Suzuki can enjoy breaking down when the cvt oil burns up and Suzuki Australia deny warranty claims from a sealed unit

        But don’t personally attack someone, that’s just immature

        • pegaxs on 20/01/2019 - 09:46
          +2

          Personal attack? Did a representative from Holden get upset that I called their Astra a "shitbox"? Or was your Astra personally upset that I called it a name?

          Feel free to click the report button and report a comment about a car being garbage as a personal attack.

          Holden have always had a reputation on the Astra vehicle as it being an absolute trash wagon. It was originally bought out here as a re-badged Vauxhall. Later, it was a rebadged Daewoo. Now, it's a re-badged Vauxhall designed by Daewoo.

          As for walking out the door. I have seen one out in the wild. One. And they are not walking out the door. Holden have a back log of cars that they cannot sell. They manipulated the figures to make it look like a heap of them sold. At one stage, my local Holden dealer had 8 demo Astra's. Why, because figures are based on new registrations. Then there was a "Demo Astra" fire sale not long ago to try and offload all these registered Astras. Walking out the door, my backside.

          If I had the choice of a Vauxhall/Daewoo shitbox or a similarly priced/spec Suzuki anything, there is no way I would go near a Holden dealership, unless the Suzuki dealership shared a yard with the Holden dealer.

          And the "real auto vs CVT" is just the regurgitated "auto vs manual" rhetoric dressed up for more modern times.

          So, if you take it personally that Holden make import garbage tier cars and people call out those cars, then I am sorry that you are that emotionally tied to that car that an attack on it is also an attack on you.

          • brendanm on 21/01/2019 - 17:33
            +2

            @pegaxs: Have to agree Astra=massive shitbox.

      • Vallani on 27/01/2019 - 08:39

        The current German-made astra hatch (model k) is a perfectly good car, with solid reviews and decent sales. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Daewoo. Your anecdotal experiences of previous models are not particularly enlightening. They may not be your cup of tea but that does not render them a shitbox.

        • pegaxs on 27/01/2019 - 10:58

          What? The Astra is made in the UK (at the old Vauxhall plant), Poland (well regarded for quality workmanship) and Korea (at the old Daewoo factory) depending if you get the hatch, sedan or wagon. It was designed by an engineer that works at/for the GM Daewoo factory in Korea.

          It is not a good car. They never have been and sales figures show that. As for solid reviews, you do know how motoring reviews work, yeah? Journalists get blacklisted and punished for poor reviews and get rewarded with junkets, lavish parties and free cars for good reviews. A lot of reviews are nothing more than advertising spiels. And added to that, the more money a car manufacture spends with a review publication on advertising, the more favourable the reviews.

          For example, in Nov. 2018, The Astra sold approximately 1000 units. It didn’t even make the top 15 sales list. In the same period, Corolla sold 2659, i30 sold 2378 and Mazda 3 sold 2342. Hell, It was even outsold by VW Golf with 1372 units (a more expensive car from a dodgy manufacturer). And these figures are the same, no matter what month you go back to. The Astra doesn’t make a showing.

          They most certainly are not my cup of tea. The fit and finish on them is rubbish. They feel like cheap, shitty, poorly made vehicles. I have been to the local dealer who also does Hyundai on the same lot, and the Hyundai vehicles are light years ahead of Holden at this point on every point. In the last week I have been out to buy a new vehicle and have also been to Toyota and I don’t think I need to tell anyone just how far ahead of the game the Corolla is compared to the Astra.

          And having been an ex Holden mechanic and my recent research into buying a new vehicle, my experiences are from from anecdotal. The facts and figures above speak for themselves. If this was a good vehicle, it would sell. The Astra is well priced in the competition and it still doesn’t sell. They had a fire sale on them about 12 months ago and they still couldn't move stock.

          So, believe what you want, but facts stand as evidence that the Astra is a shitbox car and that a majority of people think it is as well.

  • dtc on 18/01/2019 - 20:28
    +2

    To drive 5km you are using 50ml of petrol at 10l per 100km

    A cold engine will use some fuel just to start up and get going. Let’s say it’s 20ml (no idea, might be more or less) So then you add your 50ml in actual use on top, and suddenly you are up to 70ml for 5km, which works out at 14l per 100km.

    If you drive for 50km still using fuel at 10l/100, plus your start up, your fuel use will be 5.02l in total, for an average of 10.04l/100. The car has been no more or less efficient, it’s just spread the ‘start up’ cost across more distance

    So you can see that short trip really mess with the figures

    In reality as you drive longer and the engine warms up, it will be using even less fuel that for the first 0-10km or so travelled. So making the short trips even worse

    At the end of the day you are only using 60-70ml of fuel for your trips; a car that is twice as efficient is going to save you 30ml per trip. That’s about 5 cents in fuel costs. 2.5 cents for a car that runs at 8l/100, which is realistically about the best you can get outside of a hybrid or EV

    • zoob on 18/01/2019 - 22:02
      +3

      I think you've left off some zeroes. Wouldn't it be 500ml for 5km?

  • installthismelb on 18/01/2019 - 21:02

    I have a XV and do roughly 6.6ltr -8ltr depending on how I drive. Best fuel was B.P ultimate and it sat around 5.5ltr to 7ltr.

  • EmCKay on 18/01/2019 - 21:41

    My Kia Cerato uses 10.1L per 100km :o(

  • KangarooOz on 18/01/2019 - 22:26

    Just wish to ask if anyone has the “stuck key’ problem when you tried to remove the key from igniter in less than 5 years. My dealer extended warnaty doesn’t cover and I was ripped off by over $500+ to fix this issue. It seems to be a common problem (or defect) according to some forums. Any one has similar issue?

    Edit: My car model is 2013 XV

  • billy_bob on 18/01/2019 - 23:23
    +1

    Slightly off topic but it amazes me that people dump on big V8 engines for being petrol guzzlers when this small SUV uses almost as much as my Mustang V8, and I have almost 3 times as much power to play around with (and ENJOY!). Also I have achieved around 7.6 l/100km on a highway run. Long live the V8 !

    • wiselyfoolish on 19/01/2019 - 08:02

      The US still likes the naturally aspirated V6 and V8 compared to small displacement turbos the Euros like
      But yes my XT uses the same amount as a V6!

    • db87 on 19/01/2019 - 08:29
      +1

      Agree! I miss my 6sp SS Ute. Out on the open road, mileage was insane. On petrol, I managed a trip to Adelaide on 1 tank! On injected gas, I'd get around 450km to a tank around town with a heavy'ish foot (intoxicating exhaust note) and about $50-60 of gas. Around town and driving conservatively I'd average around 14ish L/100km. 👍

      A very capable and handy car. I definitely miss it!

      • Levathian on 19/01/2019 - 13:28

        How big is the tank?

        • db87 on 19/01/2019 - 16:04

          Petrol was 65ish litres from memory, gas was 110L tank at anywhere between a 75-90% fill (gas floats are horrible) with 80% supposedly the golden target for how they're supposed to be set for safety.

      • Euphemistic on 20/01/2019 - 07:32

        On petrol, I managed a trip to Adelaide on 1 tank!

        That’s nothing. I can get to Sydney and back on less than half a tank. Trip from Adelaide north to Adelaide, or Darwin to Adelaide? - makes a big difference.

  • db87 on 19/01/2019 - 08:25

    I'm in a manual 2.5 Turbo Liberty (2007) and I average around 10.8L/100 in S mode (SI drive) in town and I'd say I have a heavier than normal foot more often than not - it's just too fun of a car.

    I run 98 as specified for my car and out on the freeway it drops down to 7-9L/100km so I daresay it's purely you're driving.

    Even on idle with a fresh reset of the trip meter, mine will average out high if left idling/warming up for a few mins - in the region of 13-14L/100km.

    I'd say it's all normal. If you're in an auto you should be able to get it down a little lower but I'm talking decimals, nothing significant. Other factors can be tyre pressure, alignment, tune/service, etc.

    For comparison, my wives FA 2L Turbo Forester averages about 9.5-10.5L/100km and that's all around town/suburbs. Also has SI drive fitted and I've noticed when I drive it (I put it in S mode, she drives in I mode), I can actually get it to go down with a bit of 'aggressive'/heavy foot driving which I can only put down to a tuning thing, possibly running leaner under higher rpms?!?!

    So, as has been said, YMMV!!

  • oztite on 19/01/2019 - 08:29

    Subaru Forester, mostly freeway with 10% urban. I usually do 7.2-7.4L/100km

  • Ragnarok1983 on 19/01/2019 - 09:33
    +1

    Freeway should be around 7L/100km

    Urban can be 10+ depending on traffic jams etc.

    Average in my Impreza it is around 9L 50/50 freeway/urban use. Expect XV to be slightly higher due to weight and ride height.

    • Kamsi on 19/01/2019 - 16:27

      And the way you drive the car, if you're one of those lunatics that constantly putting the foot on the gas it obviously you will see a increase in the petrol consumption.

  • Alzori on 19/01/2019 - 12:39

    Mum is forever telling me about her fuel efficiency in her XV. Can get as low as 5 doing long stints on the freeways, but for more general driving it's around 6-8 I think. This is like a 2 year old model with the CVT.

  • Millikano on 19/01/2019 - 13:14

    Hi,

    I had a Subaru Impreza with the same engine as yours (2 litre petrol, 2008 model) and over the life of the car I averaged 8.6 L/100km, living in Sydney. In heavy traffic or trips of 5km or less (especially if driving on hilly streets), fuel consumption would be up at 13-14 Litres per hundred kilometres. If you do go on a longer trip on a highway at a steady speed of 80-100km/h, it would be worth checking the fuel economy then as it would be expected to be 8 litres/100km or thereabouts.

    I always found that running premium fuel would get me at least an extra 40-50km per 50 litre tank, and the car would run smoother too.

  • jasonbon818 on 19/01/2019 - 14:16

    First of all..State your car detail first…Xv 2.0boxer engine in CVT or manual ..How old is the car ? .. new car generally first couples tanks of fuel ..the computer is learning ur habit so it may consume a bit more fuel.if u only do short stop all the time ..It is expected to use more fuel as the car use to more fuel to warm up the car faster

  • Bid Sniper on 19/01/2019 - 17:06

    New car? Break in period always uses more fuel.

    Use the real time fuel economy gauge. Keep it around 2k if manual.

    What fuel, cheap fuel bad fuel economy.

    I get about 8-9L city traffic driving in my old XV 5MT.

    My 17 STI was 14L break in period then with a retune (and mods) down to 9L city. On highway 4L/100km @ 110kph.

  • raymosaurus on 20/01/2019 - 09:36

    One of my Hiaces guzzles over 16 litres of unleaded per 100 Ks, and the other inhales 31 litres of LPG per 100 Ks. Do I get the top score? 😂

    (Yes of course it has a problem)

  • itsdougie on 20/01/2019 - 12:46

    We had a 2010 subaru that started to do the same thing. Usually sits around the 10L then started to sit around the high 13L mark. It turned out to be the AC compressor failing and causing extra load on the drive belt pulley system, then the AC died all together. after replacement it was back to 10 for ages until the Power steering pump bearing failed causing squeal and more consumption, that was changed out too and it came good for a long while. I've been told the Valeo AC units in the subaru are not very good and this is not uncommon.

    Could be your problem?

  • plasmapuff on 20/01/2019 - 13:05
    +2

    You have joined the trend of people getting an SUV for urban environments and are surprised at poor fuel economy?

    SUVs are typically heavier, jacked up hatches with similar or even less boot space.

    My Subaru WRX MY15 CVT (2L Turbo) on U95 gets 8.5-9L/100km (as per Fuelio not the onboard CPU which underestimates).This is with fairly spirited driving. Mix of freeway and urban driving. Average trip is 15-20km.
    Ive gotten 5.9L/100km on extended free way driving with cruise control.

    If you're only driving 5km/trip, then get a hybrid / plug in hybrid. They'll probably depreciate more but if you're keeping it for 10+ years then it will be less of an issue.

    Besides, fuel costs are only one small part of car ownership. Depreciation, registration, licensing, insurance and servicing will make up a much larger cost than your fuel consumption. Especially if you're driving 5km trips and I'm guessing less than 5000km/year? Getting worked up with 13L vs 9L/100km for urban driving isn't worth it when it probably contributes so little to your overall costs of car ownership.

    • Levathian on 21/01/2019 - 01:56
      +1

      I have no idea why you were downvoted but you are spot on. If OP only does short trips then fuel economy for them should be meaningless. Rego + insurance costs more, and a new XV will probably lose $5K in value in the first year.

      Interestingly the new and old model Camry Hybrids seem to be in high demand these days due to uber drivers, rising fuel prices etc. so they're actually a slightly better value proposition VS the non hybrid, in the short term at least.

    • inasero on 21/01/2019 - 10:35
      +1

      @plasmapuff You're spot on except for one thing - gotta factor in the replacement of battery after 10 years which is around $3-4k. I think the most economic route is to get a second hand, reliable, fuel efficient car like a Honda Jazz which has already depreciated, and will require little ongoing maintenance.

  • Leeroy Jenkins on 20/01/2019 - 17:06
    +1

    Not sure about your particular car's fuel consumption, but here are some of the things I'd check:
    * Check your tire pressure, make sure they're all normal
    * Check your air filter, a very dirty or clogged air filter can reduce fuel economy
    * Check fuel injection system.
    * Check your spark plug gaps, they can greatly affect fuel economy if they go bad.

    To increase fuel economy, make the vehicle's as light as possible, remove the spare tire, don't pack unnecessary heavy stuff in the boot, etc.

  • happirt on 20/01/2019 - 17:43

    We try driving all different ways - fast starts, slow starts, driving over speed limit (heavy foot) and under with little to no change.

    too many factors contribute but speed is not one of them you're better off measuring by rpms here

  • densmorek on 20/01/2019 - 17:51

    Drive a 2018 xv with all the bells and whistles.

    We don't commute in it and just use it for weekend errands/groceries with the very, very occasional road trip.

    8.7-9 is normal for us. We do use the auto stop start thing.

  • inasero on 21/01/2019 - 10:29

    Hey guys I wanted to ask your opinion on my fuel economy
    (tried comparing against similar models on fuelly but they all seem to be US models)

    07 Toyota corolla ZRE152R sedan, automatic
    Done about 116,000 km
    Advertised at 7.4L/100KM combined cycle
    On board computer reads 8.0L/100km, real life calculations are 8.3-8.4L/100km
    Only ever use U91 (anything higher octane in my model is a waste and doesn't give any efficiency boost)
    About 75% suburban driving, 20% freeways/highways and 5% inner city driving.
    Drive like a featherfoot - no rushing to lights, easy on the pedal, minimal aircon, etc.

    Are my figures around normal?

    • Vallani on 27/01/2019 - 08:41

      Yep

  • KangaBanga on 29/01/2019 - 14:58

    ur car's engine might be running too rich, though unlikely as ECU will adjust… Go to a tuning garage and get it tuned properly to U91. U can try disconnect batteries and wait couple hours before connecting them back to reset the ECU. Other possibility, Engine oil might be too thick, 5w30 or 0w20 best, airconditioning on all the time(increases consumption 10-15%), blocked engine air filter, dirty upper engine, dirty spark plugs, dirty fuel injectors, faulty electrics/battery/alternator, faulty MAF(airflow/O2) sensor. What year is your XV?

    Best guide though is to record how many liters you tank up and how far you travel before needing to tank up again.

  • backpaqer on 30/01/2019 - 14:47

    Just back from my Adelaide trip in my 2016 XV 2.0i-S and I saw 7.8l/100km average for the trip.

  • UTEtv on 03/02/2019 - 11:05

    Tell us what you got before the Subaru and if you drive the same way in the locations. Then it's easy to work out.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join