One thing to understand about the trip computers in the VW Passats which I owned...
there were *3* trip computers...
the point being, that it was very easy to track 3 levels of MPGs...
a) this trip (ie. how did I do on *THIS* commute, *THIS* morning)
b) TripA... how did I do on *THIS* tank of gas
c) TripB.. how have I done for a longer period of time (ie. 1000's of miles)
so it was very easy to get at this data.
Point b) THIS TANK is a perfectly legitimate way of getting a GENERAL assessment of how things are going, though obviously we must concede that irregularities and eccentricities will occur. Zim , you are (as I am) rather hyper aware of what exactly went into burning that tank, so we already usually know the why's involved.
Point c) says it all. It's the sum total, and after THOUSANDS of miles, unless we have had significant lifestyle changes or driving habits have radically changed or (and I'll admit it does have impact) the weather is radically colder than what we ourselves have lived and driven through before, that resulting number IS MEANINGFUL and does point toward an issue when it is significantly out of line.
You know it. I know it. Some here don't know it, and some here aren't sure. I understand that, (mostly.)
I can't verify your claims, Zim, any more than you can mine, but I totally believe them based on the things you've said.
So collect and post detailed data of your 2015 OB's fuel consumption, temperature, number of stops, max speed, average speed, length(s) of journeys and we can start to figure-out what's going on...
... or don't and enjoy very little support from readers.
It is as simple as that.
Not for all of us. I think Zim has posted clearly enough that I see his point, (and feel his pain! I'm living the same story, as I said.)
You're comparing apples to oranges. ...
Your current less than 10 mile commute is tougher on newer cars due to tightening emissions. The warmup routine is more heavily emphasized now to get the engine up to temp as quickly as possible. A cold engine is dirtier. In the winter on such a short drive, the engine will spend very little, if any, time in the optimal operating temperature zone.
How important is this? In the Prius, a car where MPG is everything, the second generation actually used a thermos for the engine coolant to keep it as hot as possible for as long as possible in anticipation of the next startup.
This is helpful info, to me at least. It's not surprising, just helpful correlation to what I've seen and confirms my suspicions that there is a harsher consequence on this Outback in cold conditions (regardless of what degree of cold; it matters. I understand that.) But maybe it matters MUCH more than I could previously justify in my mind.
And that ALSO confirms what I am seeing because I do have a "short" 11 mile drive to work, and my car barely gets up to temp by the time I arrive, even though it includes about 7 miles of interstate at 65 to 75 mph, depending on whether I'm willing to try to squeeze more mpg out of the tank. (I've about given up hope, and the tiny difference seems not worth it.)
I tried my best to get correct #'s for the Jetta (was mildly surprised not to have to use the way-back machine
) but ...
Long term (ie. 2000+ miles) trip computer results on those cars would show me averaging close to highway values .. "lifetime" on my Outback was 25.3 last I checked. It's a big drop to go from *averaging* (just below) highway to *averaging* (just above) city.
Note: with regard to "long term" on those trip computers.. I tended to reset every few 1000 miles b/c they seemed to have a similar bug to the 2015 Outback (altho it never occured to me at the time).. ie. see https://www.subaruoutback.org/forums/...light=lifetime
.. the short version being that some SW co-op at Subaru appears to have used an 8-bit value for a variable when 8-bits is several factors of 2 too few.)
Yeah, glad you added that "Note." I was going to remind you to hang in there! You'll be getting 40mpg soon, according to the goofy, lying Life time average on this car.
That doesn't seem to bother some here, but it is pretty pathetic of Subaru not to have corrected that, or at least put out an info bulletin or something to let people know it is in fact buggy, and what the best way is to address said "bug."
Private message sent.
I'd propose collecting the following data for 1000 miles or so:
1. Trip length + number of stops (shut-downs/restarts);
2. Max speed;
3. Average speed;
4. Elevation change;
---- everything above can easily be collected by the gps unit, though some pen and paper work needed to capture data between resets ----
5. Fuel used (ethanol or straight gasoline?);
6. Temperature (min, mean, max) per day, unless transiting different regions (where more data would be required);
7. Wind (anything over 5 mph) and direction;
8. Driving technique (hyper mile, cruise control, etc. for highway drives);
9. Load (# of adults, cargo -- including trailer towing, stuff on roof racks);
10. Tire type (OE, winters, LRR) and inflation pressure;
11. AIRCON use (Y/N).
... and, of course, fuel used and distance (or fuel economy in mpg or l/100 km).
One could also record general road surface, but I'd recommend simply noting the presence of rain, snow, or gravel roads along the route of each trip.
This approach is consistent with the data collection methodology used to support my own study here:
I'm glad you are apparently able to do this kind of data collection and manipulation, and it is wonderfully valuable. I mean that.
But quite frankly, I for one have WAY more important things to do than to add that PILE of additional data gathering to my day. Not a chance that's going to happen.
And if that makes you think my opinions don't mean much, well, hey, you are totally right. And I'm glad my opinions won't keep you up at night. They don't keep me up, either. :-)
(But sometimes bothering to provide them here does, I admit, and I'm working to correct that.)
One of the things that has been a bit of a distractor and still is, even though it DOES play a potential role in this issue, is the temperature factor.
I posted long ago my mpg concerns, way before ANY cold temps had surfaced anywhere. At THAT time, the chant was, "Wait till the car is broken in."
Baloney. Said it then, saying it now. I have 10,000 miles now. Have never seen any notable change overall. The changes ARE due to weather (yeah, Eagle, I never said what you insinuated, but then, that's the way you seem to read things) and I accept that impact. Though I feel it is an extremely harsh impact.
And as I said BEFORE it got cold, I already saw the underperformance in terms of mpg.
The reason I raise that again is because when things warm up all over, the problem mpg will still be around, but probably to a lesser degree.
And then the chant will likely be, "See! We told you it would get better." DUH. Of COURSE it will.
But I can vouch for at least MY experience that this car has NOT given a higher mpg IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES than my wife's 2010 Outback with 150,000+ miles on it. And it clearly SHOULD do this by now, break-in notwithstanding.
I'm saying unless the FLUID in the CURRENT CVT is significantly different than the fluid in the 2010, that the CVT is NOT A REASON for the poorer mpg in cold weather.
But I will say this, I honestly do NOT believe for a minute that it is necessary to take that ultra-detailed approach to simply draw the conclusion that this newest Outback has at least a group of its members that underperforms in terms of mpg. It's WAY easier to see this is the case simply by reading the posts and drawing conclusions based on the credibility of those who post.
I see plenty of posts that I immediately discount, based on the clearly displayed lack of understanding of differences between what the car display says someone got that tankful or is getting at a certain moment in time (useless data.) These people are entitled to their opinion and have every right to post. And I totally discount what they say because they aren't even recognizing how far off the car readout can be. The ODOMETER doesn't lie (much; in fact, it is slightly LOWER than actual on my car, by about 1%) and the pumped gas amount (hopefully) doesn't lie (though it isn't inerrant, either.)
So when someone like Zim posts as he has the kind of carefully watched data over a long time, it is no trouble at all for me to find his posts credible and worth consideration.
And I understand that several of you who are grilling him for more data have a perspective on this that supports your desire for that, but if you stop insisting on the "perfect" set of data, you ought to be able to reasonably conclude that the general point he makes is valid. And he's not alone.
When you are standing out in the rain, do you have to get a radar picture and a humidity reading first, before you conclude you are wet?
I find it hard to understand any other conclusion, but then, my first-hand observation of this every single day might make it easy for me.