New Car?

zingo
zingo Posts: 11,258
edited July 2008 in The Clubhouse
I bought a 2008 Focus a few months ago, but now my wife drives that... It's no big deal because it is a nice car for her that gets good MPG and is all trimmed out. However, this leaves me with our 1992 Civic. It's not that it's a bad car, but I would like something with more the 85hp when I'm driving on the freeway everyday. I am currently considering a 2004ish Subaru STI. I want something with four door practicality, but I also would like something fun/powerful yet still gets decent MPG. (300hp doesn't sound bad either :D) Does anyone have experience with the STI? I'm not really a "ricer", but I just can't justify the gas required for muscle cars anymore, thus a high-output 4 cylinder seems like a good option.

2004_subaru_impreza_wrx_sti_800x600_06.jpg
Jake
Post edited by zingo on
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • Jstas
    Jstas Posts: 14,842
    edited July 2008
    Mileage on those isn't all that great and they take nothing but high test.
    Expert Moron Extraordinaire

    You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Face
    Face Posts: 14,340
    edited July 2008
    The newer GM supercharged vehicles, (Monte, Regal, Grand Prix, and even the Cobolt) all have 200-280 hp, and get 28+ mpg on the parkway. The only down side is that they also use premium fuel. With mods it's easy to get over 300 hp and 30-32 mpg on the parkway.
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." Friedrich Nietzsche
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ND13
    ND13 Posts: 7,601
    edited July 2008
    Subarus are very well made cars. For some reason, they have really never taken off in the US. They have a loyal following which could almost be described as cult-like. They also have all-wheel drive down to an art-form, imo.
    "SOME PEOPLE CALL ME MAURICE,
    CAUSE I SPEAK OF THE POMPITIOUS OF LOVE"
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • zingo
    zingo Posts: 11,258
    edited July 2008
    To clarify, I'm considering anything better than a big-V8 decent gas mileage; whether or not it is... :D
    Jake
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bobman1235
    bobman1235 Posts: 10,822
    edited July 2008
    Like Jstas said, the STi doesn't get terrible gas mileage, but the fact that you have to use high-test in it (or anything else with a turbo) kind of negates any fuel savings you might get.

    I love my Subaru, and really wanted to get the WRX instead of the model I got, but couldn't stomach putting 93 octane in it.
    If you will it, dude, it is no dream.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ND13
    ND13 Posts: 7,601
    edited July 2008
    You only have to run high-test if you want it to output all of it's claimed HP. I'm driving a Mercedes ML350, which is supposed to have premium and it runs just fine on 87 or 89. Never has skipped a beat. My Dakota has the high-output 4.7 V8 which is supposed to have premium in it. It runs perfectly on 87, but instead of it's rated 265hp(under-rated), it probably only puts out 255 or so. It still gets just as good mpg as it did on premium. The computers will adjust accordingly, no matter what the manuals say.
    "SOME PEOPLE CALL ME MAURICE,
    CAUSE I SPEAK OF THE POMPITIOUS OF LOVE"
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PhantomOG
    PhantomOG Posts: 2,409
    edited July 2008
    I love my '02 WRX (before the STI came out here). I'm at 97,000 miles and the car still drives great with no major issues. It's still a blast to drive.

    My next car will probably be a Subaru. I'm thinking maybe a Forester.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PhantomOG
    PhantomOG Posts: 2,409
    edited July 2008
    ND13 wrote: »
    You only have to run high-test if you want it to output all of it's claimed HP.

    False. Running anything less than premium in the STI will cause pinging/knocking and eventual engine damage. End of story. Just ask anyone who's actually owned a WRX or STI. Just because it works for a different car doesn't mean anything.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ND13
    ND13 Posts: 7,601
    edited July 2008
    Whatever, I've sold several of them used and they had 87 filled to the brim without a single issue. Maybe the 87 we have around here is REAL 87, I don't know, just know from my experiences.
    "SOME PEOPLE CALL ME MAURICE,
    CAUSE I SPEAK OF THE POMPITIOUS OF LOVE"
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jstas
    Jstas Posts: 14,842
    edited July 2008
    zingo wrote: »
    To clarify, I'm considering anything better than a big-V8 decent gas mileage; whether or not it is... :D

    Define "better than a big-V8 decent gas mileage".

    'Cause my 5.4L V8 has a 2.0L supercharger on it. This effectively makes it 7.4L of total displacement and with some computer tuning, my fuel mileage gets to about 17-18 city and about 22 highway for an average around 19-20 MPG. That's also running on 93+ octane and putting out about 500 horses. That's about what the STi does and the STi makes much less power.

    Now, if you REALLY want to get an example of fuel mileage, a 1998 Camaro Z28 will have about 300 horses out of a 5.7L naturally aspirated V8, run to 60 mph in just about 5 seconds flat, run through a 1/4 mile in the low 13 second range at well over 100 MPH and it'll pull .92 G's in a turn and return an average of between 24-26 MPG from what people I know who own them tell me.

    Just because it's a V8 doesn't mean the gas mileage sucks dude. Don't fall in to the common misconceptions.




    And PhantomOG is right about the octane ratings. Use what the manufacturer recommends. It's not about power ratings. It's about ignition timing and advance.
    Expert Moron Extraordinaire

    You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Face
    Face Posts: 14,340
    edited July 2008
    ND13 wrote: »
    You only have to run high-test if you want it to output all of it's claimed HP.
    That heavily varies on the car. Some can get away with it, but I would never try that with a forced induction motor.
    ND13 wrote: »
    Whatever, I've sold several of them used and they had 87 filled to the brim without a single issue. Maybe the 87 we have around here is REAL 87, I don't know, just know from my experiences.
    It's not always something that'll happen immediately.
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." Friedrich Nietzsche
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Face
    Face Posts: 14,340
    edited July 2008
    Jstas wrote: »
    Now, if you REALLY want to get an example of fuel mileage, a 1998 Camaro Z28 will have about 300 horses out of a 5.7L naturally aspirated V8, run to 60 mpg in just about 5 seconds flat, run through a 1/4 mile in the low 13 second range at well over 100 MPH and it'll pull .92 G's in a turn and return an average of between 24-26 MPG from what people I know who own them tell me.
    This is correct for the LS1 F-body. The LS1/6/2 C5/6 will do even better on fuel economy due to the lower weight and better aerodynamics. For either one, throw a high flow intake and long tube headers on there and you'll get a couple more miles per gallon.
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." Friedrich Nietzsche
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bobman1235
    bobman1235 Posts: 10,822
    edited July 2008
    Modern computers are probably smart enough to compensate (for the most part) for non-recommended octane ratings, but first, why risk it, and second, why get a high performance car like something with a turbo if you're going to put crappy gas in it and cause it to run (comparatively) like ****?
    If you will it, dude, it is no dream.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PhantomOG
    PhantomOG Posts: 2,409
    edited July 2008
    Regardless its still pretty stupid. Any savings you get from using lower octane will be more than eaten up with the lower gas mileage you will get. Go to any of the Subaru forums, plenty of people have tested the 87 despite all the knocking and they lose more money using the 87 because the mpg is so much worse.

    Also, for the WRX/STI, its not just "recommended". The gas tank specifically says to use premium fuel *only*.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ND13
    ND13 Posts: 7,601
    edited July 2008
    bobman1235 wrote: »
    Modern computers are probably smart enough to compensate (for the most part) for non-recommended octane ratings, but first, why risk it, and second, why get a high performance car like something with a turbo if you're going to put crappy gas in it and cause it to run (comparatively) like ****?


    Correct, just noting that it's not always a neccesity. I myself would run the good **** in that type of car. My truck is leased and it has never been an issue. I ran 93 in it until 93 went above $4. Now I run 87 or 89 in it.
    "SOME PEOPLE CALL ME MAURICE,
    CAUSE I SPEAK OF THE POMPITIOUS OF LOVE"
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ajsankot
    ajsankot Posts: 141
    edited July 2008
    2006+ Mustang GT's get around 28 on the interstate or so my mom's does
    My 1970 fastback mustang gets around 18 OH YEA!!

    What about an Audi A4 very nice
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • zingo
    zingo Posts: 11,258
    edited July 2008
    Jstas wrote: »
    Define "better than a big-V8 decent gas mileage".

    I can be a little near sided. Corvettes and some other V8s get pretty decent MPG. My experience with V8s has always been large displacement (427ci-502ci) that have usually been carb models in cars that weigh 5000lbs. A STI will get better MPG any day than a 1956 Chevy Bel Air with a hot-rodded 502...

    Technically, forced induction engines (thus higher compression) need higher octane gas because it is more stable and will not prematurely ignite like 87 will. In practice, this may not happen in all high compression engines, but that doesn't make it a good idea because you're playing the odds.
    Jake
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PhantomOG
    PhantomOG Posts: 2,409
    edited July 2008
    Mitsu EVO?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • zingo
    zingo Posts: 11,258
    edited July 2008
    ajsankot wrote: »
    What are your thoughts on the RX-8 its a 4-door beauty?

    It's a very nice car, and I was eyeing them, but it doesn't have a full 4 doors, nor does it provide much passenger or cargo room.



    The Evo is also an option. I'm just worried that it doesn't have the reliability that Subaru's have. Plus, it kind of weirds me out that I could buy a car and a TV from the same company. But if it is a better car, I wouldn't be against it.
    Jake
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Systems
    Systems Posts: 14,873
    edited July 2008
    I vote for one of these. http://www.smartusa.com Do I get a vote?

    Chuck
    Testing
    Testing
    Testing
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jstas
    Jstas Posts: 14,842
    edited July 2008
    zingo wrote: »
    Technically, forced induction engines (thus higher compression) need higher octane gas because it is more stable and will not prematurely ignite like 87 will. In practice, this may not happen in all high compression engines, but that doesn't make it a good idea because you're playing the odds.

    No, that's wrong. Higher octane is not "more stable" it just has a higher resistance to pre-ignition. 87 burns more readily than 93. But 87 also cannot take as much pressure because it's ignition point is lower than 93. So the higher heat levels introduced by high compression or high compression induced by forced induction will cause 87 to pre-ignite or otherwise known as pinging/knocking and detonation.


    Also, my truck has an effective displacement of 7.4L or 452 cubic inches and weighs about 4700 pounds. It's pretty slippery for a truck though. IIRC, it's drag coefficient is around .35 where as the standard F-150 from the same year is around .38 to .42 which is essentially a brick with a nose cone.
    Expert Moron Extraordinaire

    You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeC78
    MikeC78 Posts: 2,315
    edited July 2008
    Are we talking about pick-up trucks again?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jstas
    Jstas Posts: 14,842
    edited July 2008
    MikeC78 wrote: »
    Are we talking about pick-up trucks again?

    No we are talking about fuel mileage and engine sizes and octane ratings.

    Why don't you open your eyes and read the thread before taking pot shots there, champ?
    Expert Moron Extraordinaire

    You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeC78
    MikeC78 Posts: 2,315
    edited July 2008
    I'm sorry, let me be more correct, Jstas' pick-up truck.:rolleyes:

    Pot shots? For starters...

    http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69931&highlight=Lightning

    http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67273&highlight=Lightning

    http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69698&highlight=Lightning


    Anyway...

    Zingo, I'd keep the Civic. Do you really want to pay at the pump for the extra horsepower?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Matt34
    Matt34 Posts: 318
    edited July 2008
    MikeC78 wrote: »
    I'm sorry, let me be more correct, Jstas' pick-up truck.:rolleyes:

    It's about as relevant to this thread as it was in the ZR-1 Corvette thread that he single-handily wrecked.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bknauss
    bknauss Posts: 1,441
    edited July 2008
    WRX = ridiculous insurance rates for the class they are in.
    Brian Knauss
    ex-Electrical Engineer for Polk
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PhantomOG
    PhantomOG Posts: 2,409
    edited July 2008
    bknauss wrote: »
    WRX = ridiculous insurance rates for the class they are in.

    definitely for unmarried males under 25.

    When I first got my WRX most insurance companies didn't even have it in their computers. After a reasonably priced first 6 months of insurance, my next 6 month price DOUBLED. And it continued to rise for a couple years. At the peak I was paying almost $200 a month just for insurance.

    7 years later and getting married... I pay about $100 a month for my WRX and my wife's vehicle.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • skipf
    skipf Posts: 694
    edited July 2008
    I haven't had that model, but the Subaru I did have was one of the best cars I ever drove. I believe you'll really like it. As far as requiring premium, how much extra will it really be? You probably have a 10 gal tank in that lil rice rocket. At the average difference of $.20/gal between premium and regular, that's a whopping $2.00 per tank or about $.01/mile for much better performance and much less wear on the engine. I always run premium in my rigs and always get well over 200,000 miles out of an engine.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jstas
    Jstas Posts: 14,842
    edited July 2008
    bknauss wrote: »
    WRX = ridiculous insurance rates for the class they are in.

    So are the Dodge Neon R/T's and SRT-4's and Honda Civic Si. The Focus SVT seems to have avoided that for the most part as well as the Cobalt SS.
    Expert Moron Extraordinaire

    You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bobman1235
    bobman1235 Posts: 10,822
    edited July 2008
    skipf wrote: »
    I haven't had that model, but the Subaru I did have was one of the best cars I ever drove. I believe you'll really like it. As far as requiring premium, how much extra will it really be? You probably have a 10 gal tank in that lil rice rocket. At the average difference of $.20/gal between premium and regular, that's a whopping $2.00 per tank or about $.01/mile for much better performance and much less wear on the engine. I always run premium in my rigs and always get well over 200,000 miles out of an engine.

    10 gallon tank? Are you high? 16.9 gallons. And based on average fuel prices it's more than $.40/gal between regular and premium. It adds up.
    If you will it, dude, it is no dream.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter