Outback fuel mileage regression for 2013

[mpnret]

Originally Posted by Restlessk

And, in exactly the same conditions, their computers showed 27-28 mpg where mine shows 24 now.
.

Sounds like you are relying on the computer. I would double check with actual fuel use. Remember the pre 2013 was off to the plus side and was user adjustable. I am not sure what the deal is with the 2013 computer yet. My wife's 2013 is getting 27.3 at 3,500 miles where her 2010 was getting 27.0 at 30,000 miles when we traded it in. Both on the same roads, almost no highway, part city, part country roads. I expect the 2013 will get better once we have some miles on it.

[gomjabber]

This is true about the computer. I only use it for reference and always figure my mileage will be about 1.5mpg less than what it is displaying when I fill up.

[rockthebeef]

FWIW I have just passed 10k on my 2012 2.5.

I like Fuelly since you can track every fill-up very easily. I just send a text message at every fill-up and it's automagically entered into my account.

See my profile and click "chart all fuel-ups". You'll see my mpg is fairly consistent. The high spots are from road trips. 26.8 with bikes on roof, 29.9 without. the low spot (19mpg) was from a partial fill-up, so there is some noise in that calculation.

The Grey (Subaru Outback) | Fuelly

edit - "chart all fuel-ups" seems to be down a the moment. Come back later.

[gomjabber]

I gotta do that text thing

[Restlessk]

I wasn't trying to discuss whether mileage improves post break-in. That discussion seems to have been beaten to death here, and it's all anecdotal.

I was hoping to discuss whether the drivetrain changes in 13 actually reduced efficiency rather than improved it. Seems like a likely premise. Subaru claims an increase of about 5%, real world data on fuelly show a decrease of about 5%.

[Restlessk]

Originally Posted by gomjabber

I gotta do that text thing

X2. I record the mileage and gallons of gas on the text writer on my phone and enter them on the computer later. Texting would be excellent!

[autorot8]

I average 28 consistently, 50/50 city highway. Last weekend, Tahoe and back from Bay Area with a Yakima 16S roofbox loaded with ski equipment, averaged 31. Have 7500 miles. I have manually checked computer and computer reads .1 mpg low.

[subiesailor]

Originally Posted by autorot8

I average 28 consistently, 50/50 city highway. Last weekend, Tahoe and back from Bay Area with a Yakima 16S roofbox loaded with ski equipment, averaged 31. Have 7500 miles. I have manually checked computer and computer reads .1 mpg low.

That drive has been fairly slow in the last few weekends due to the snow ;-)

I was getting into the 30's last year the few trips I made - primarily due to the slow speeds due to traffic. But nothing wrong with that!

Once you do 70mph and up with the box and gear on the lid the mileage drops.

[autorot8]

Originally Posted by subiesailor

That drive has been fairly slow in the last few weekends due to the snow ;-)

I was getting into the 30's last year the few trips I made - primarily due to the slow speeds due to traffic. But nothing wrong with that!

Once you do 70mph and up with the box and gear on the lid the mileage drops.

No snow over Thanksgiving. Drove the speed limit most of way. Only slowed by some of the curves or other vehicles.

[edawg]

Agree with other posts... At 2K, mileage is improving already on mine from 25.5 or so to 27 or so on the computer in the city...

Interesting (to me at least) that the computer average seems to vary depending on whether I put in a full or partial tank... If I fill up less than 1/3rd of a tank, the computer MPG is 1MPG LESS than hand-calculation actually. If I fill up a full tank, the computer is 1MPG MORE than hand-calculation. But, I've had one full tank where the computer was also a tad less than hand-calculation so I'm curious why.