It has been fun, but time for a change!

[SirBrass]

Originally Posted by Havsie

Except that the WRX has the FA20DIT which is the turbo version of the engine in our cars while the STi still uses the ancient EJ25 which was developed during the Reagan era. I guess if you only look at horsepower numbers the WRX is "worse", but a much more usable powerband due to the twin scroll turbo and a much improved suspension puts it on par or ahead of the STi for 99.9% of the situations you'll be driving it in. It's something like 8000 dollars between the price of a similarly equipped STi and a WRX, I just don't see the point of getting a car that's slower in the straight line, less efficient, and marginally better in handling for those 8000 bucks.

About the FA20DIT, nope.

The FA20DIT is the same BASE as our FA20, but the DIT is DI-only (which makes it horsepower limited... if you hit that HP limit, you're going to need a hybrid port/DI system to get more power .... wait, just like our base FA20 D4S!), and the pistons are lower compression. This makes our regular FA20 the better starting platform for getting more power and torque. The FA20DIT gets more torque and HP by lowering compression, going twin scroll and running about 15lbs of boost. But at a starting point, those lower compression pistons mean the engine is going to struggle until the turbo spools (thus why twin scroll), but the twin scroll in the WRX gives out about 1k or so before redline, with a lower redline.

Better to drop an 86's FA20 and ECU into a WRX, use the stock turbo setup from the WRX, but run lower boost (so near instant spool and goes all the way to redline, b/c you don't tax the turbo near as hard), and ecutek. You'll end up with a MUCH torquier and powerful WRX.

The FA20DIT in the WRX is what the 86 will turn into if it ever gets a factory turbo: insufficient turbo on lower compression pistons. You'll lose the character of the car.

Compared to the EJ257 still in the STI, which while a venerable design is still a VERY well understood and powerful (if very inefficient gasoline-wise) motor.

It still makes sense to put the EJ257 into the STI until they come out with a way to crank more power from the FA20DIT besides upping boost. Probably turbo a 2.5L FA with higher compression, and get the car to 350 bhp or something.

[SirBrass]

Originally Posted by jskurucz

MPG went from 28.5 to 20.5. Insurance went up $5 a month. The mpg sucks but the insurance is barely noticable.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Lucky you. My insurance for the 2013 STI went up to well over $200 before I upped my deductibles and even then it was still intolerably high. And I NEVER saw 20 mpg average on the STI. Ever. Best was 19.1, ONE tank. Normally even with conservative driving, I was geting 17.x mpg.

[jskurucz]

Originally Posted by SirBrass

Lucky you. My insurance for the 2013 STI went up to well over $200 before I upped my deductibles and even then it was still intolerably high. And I NEVER saw 20 mpg average on the STI. Ever. Best was 19.1, ONE tank. Normally even with conservative driving, I was geting 17.x mpg.

Its quite possible the car display rates the mpg than real world average. I also havent been above 4k. Im just going by what the car display says. Im going through Geico for insurance.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[SirBrass]

Originally Posted by jskurucz

Its quite possible the car display rates the mpg than real world average. I also havent been above 4k. Im just going by what the car display says. Im going through Geico for insurance.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Depending on many factors, that mpg gauge may be close, dead on, or way optimistic.

In my experience with the WRX and BRZ, both had mpg gauges which were consistently 2.0 +/- 0.1 mpg optimistic. The STI's mpg gauge would read anywhere from 0.5 pessimistic to 3.0 optimistic depending on its mood that tank.

So when it was reading 19.7 mpg, it was really more like 16.9 mpg for that tank. And I wasn't hooning it. I was shifting right before 3k, not flooring it all the time, keeping to freeways and it still drank gas like a homeless alcoholic drinks rotgut wine.

[Kelbyat07]

Originally Posted by jskurucz

Its quite possible the car display rates the mpg than real world average. I also havent been above 4k. Im just going by what the car display says. Im going through Geico for insurance.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I have a question for you. I am considering a Ralliart and the mpg combine is like 23 mpg. I am currently getting 29.2 on the FRS, do you think there will be a huge notice in gas consumption? I am assuming so, but how bad do you feel when you see you fuel tank decreasing every time you drive?

[SirBrass]

Originally Posted by Kelbyat07

I have a question for you. I am considering a Ralliart and the mpg combine is like 23 mpg. I am currently getting 29.2 on the FRS, do you think there will be a huge notice in gas consumption? I am assuming so, but how bad do you feel when you see you fuel tank decreasing every time you drive?

It depends. It's not just mpg but tank capacity. That is, what really will matter is your range between fillups.

When I can go farther in my BRZ between fillups with several LESS gallons of capacity than an STI (15.9 gallon capacity in the STI, vs. 13.2 gallon capacity in the BRZ/FR-S), that's good and I don't notice if I drop efficiency due to mods.

When I had my WRX, I had a 15 gallon (14.9) tank, and could usually go about 300-350 miles on a tank. That equated to roughly a week of normal mostly-freeway driving for me. In the STI, I could (if I was lucky) go 5 days total of regular mostly-freeway driving before I was sucking fumes and trying to find the nearest gas station. 3 days if I wanted to have a short bit of fun ONE day during my commute. That is, between 200 and 260 miles range in a car with 1 gallon more capacity.

That 7 mpg hit really sucked (I would normally get between 21 and 24 mpg on the 08 WRX, and 15-17 mpg on the STI).

23.2 from 29 something will hurt if you have a small tank. BUT, with a small tank DOES mean lower per-tank fueling costs, so it might not impact you as drastically as going from a WRX to an STI did for me.

Just take the mpg, your daily average mileage, and tank capacity into consideration, not just the rated mpg. And generally go with the more pessimistic mpg number for your average even if you mostly drive freeway. If you get stuck for 10 minutes in stop-and-go before you can get free and clear onto the freeway for a 15 minute commute, you've still spent a good bit in gas-eating stop-and-go and paid the fuel penalty for it.

[Kelbyat07]

Originally Posted by SirBrass

It depends. It's not just mpg but tank capacity. That is, what really will matter is your range between fillups.

When I can go farther in my BRZ between fillups with several LESS gallons of capacity than an STI (15.9 gallon capacity in the STI, vs. 13.2 gallon capacity in the BRZ/FR-S), that's good and I don't notice if I drop efficiency due to mods.

When I had my WRX, I had a 15 gallon (14.9) tank, and could usually go about 300-350 miles on a tank. That equated to roughly a week of normal mostly-freeway driving for me. In the STI, I could (if I was lucky) go 5 days total of regular mostly-freeway driving before I was sucking fumes and trying to find the nearest gas station. 3 days if I wanted to have a short bit of fun ONE day during my commute. That is, between 200 and 260 miles range in a car with 1 gallon more capacity.

That 7 mpg hit really sucked (I would normally get between 21 and 24 mpg on the 08 WRX, and 15-17 mpg on the STI).

23.2 from 29 something will hurt if you have a small tank. BUT, with a small tank DOES mean lower per-tank fueling costs, so it might not impact you as drastically as going from a WRX to an STI did for me.

Just take the mpg, your daily average mileage, and tank capacity into consideration, not just the rated mpg. And generally go with the more pessimistic mpg number for your average even if you mostly drive freeway. If you get stuck for 10 minutes in stop-and-go before you can get free and clear onto the freeway for a 15 minute commute, you've still spent a good bit in gas-eating stop-and-go and paid the fuel penalty for it.

Yup thanks for reminding me that the FRS has a small gas tank capacity. I don't think I am ready to own a car with less than 25 mpg. I am pretty sure more fast cars will come out with friendly fuel efficiency.

[SirBrass]

Originally Posted by Kelbyat07

Yup thanks for reminding me that the FRS has a small gas tank capacity. I don't think I am ready to own a car with less than 25 mpg. I am pretty sure more fast cars will come out with friendly fuel efficiency.

The small tank capacity hasn't really hurt me, and I ENJOY seeing a fuel-light-on fillup only go to 10.3 gallons with a trip meter sitting at 280-something. Better than with the STI, with a fuel-light-on fillup going past 14 gallons and the trip meter reading 210 miles.

I fill up less often (about back to the WRX's range of 300+ miles to the tank, as the fuel light comes on at about 10.2 gallons used, that is, 3 gallons left, which at 26-27 mpg is over 70 miles range remaining, which is another regular day's mileage + a few dozen miles in reserve before getting dangerously low), go farther, and fill up with less fuel which means less $$ spent. I LOVE it.

Btw, the new WRX is supposed to get BRZ-like mileage.