# subaru+roof rack=poor mileage



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

It seems odd to me to buy a car for better gas mileage only to put a rocket box and bike rack on top to haul all your gear. Not to mention full time AWD. My 4dr tacoma gets 21 mpg with the canopy on and all the wet smelly gear, dogs, and bikes ride safe and secure in the back. Oh and sleeping in the back of a pickup is waaayy more comfy than the back of a wagon. Suby vs. Tacoma off-road, Suby doesn't stand a chance. If I'm going to deal with more than one passenger, on goes the hitch rack, in back where it doesn't make all that drag and off we go. It's no wonder I see so many Tacoma's on the road these days.


----------



## rufusdesign (Sep 19, 2008)

car+roof rack= poor mileage, always has, always will. 

Nothing new there.


----------



## pulser (Dec 6, 2004)

I got rid of my tacoma last year for a forester. I was getting 16mpg with 32s and a roof basket. My forester with a bike rack on the roof gets 26 i would say im doing better.


----------



## summit56 (May 24, 2008)

im happy with my subie, just got back from a long road trip and got 28mpg with an average speed of 70mph. im 6 foot and can sleep comfortably in the back of the subie? and i can start the car and have heat. They do make hitches for subarus too. u dont have to put all that gear on top. I do see a lot more tacomas and other trucks in the ditch during the winter months ...thats not on the road though...


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

One buys a more efficient car for their driving 95-99% of the time, with the accompanying gas savings throughout the year, then puts the addons on top, or on back for the trips. Seems a bit odd to complain about all the housewives with the SUV's, who cite "What if I want to haul a couch?!?", yet wanting to get a truck when cargo carriers are sufficient.

On top of that, who is the op to decide if his criteria is the same for those he sees with these addons? Maybe it works for them?


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

I had a feeling that I would be kicking a hornets nest here. Pulser, how's about we put half a cubic yard of dirt in the back of your forester and go weelin' through the forest? Subies are great if you live in the city sure, but if you own a home that need home stuff ie. sheet of plywood, bag of concrete, etc. a Tacoma is just a better choice with more versatility WRX has one of the higher insurance quotes because they go in the ditch alot. I wasn't putting out a personal attack on subie owners, just my op on the car vs. pickup


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Okay.


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

Oh and if you do the math based on 10,000 miles driven at $3.50 a gallon assuming you have a 20 gal tank with your 28mpg vs. 21mpg your saving about $416.00 per year. For me not having to rent or borrow a truck to haul building materials or a mattress and owning two dogs who like swimming and mud, the pickup takes the cake. Oh and one more advantage... in 2wd I can spin way better cookies in the ski area parking lot! They dont race subies in the Baja for a reason.


----------



## pulser (Dec 6, 2004)

http://www.dirtyimpreza.com/forums/showthread.php?p=143196


----------



## pulser (Dec 6, 2004)

And since you brought up doing donuts in a parking lot.


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

I was going with a stock vehicle comparison 




I could post a million modified rigs climbing rocks and winning the Baja 500/1000. Try taking your forester across the Outback or Serengeti during rain season, STOCK! I will say those were cool clips though. Subies, good on pavement or easy gravel roads. But stock vs. stock off pavement no contest. Still cant put a yard of bark in the back either.


----------



## notaknob (Apr 6, 2004)

*We Are The Champions*



bigskyguy said:


> I was going with a stock vehicle comparison
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, you are awesome. +1 Internets to you! A lame-ass troll getting 6, no, I mean 7 bites.

Next up, Roof vs. Hitch racks and why hitch racks are so much better!


----------



## summit56 (May 24, 2008)

i drive alot, about 60k miles a year. Mostly on the highway so yea truck is pointless for me. I had a k1500 before and it was great but just cant afford to drive it and i never used the bed of it. And on the roads in the winter time trucks (well the trucks that i have drove) are very squirrely with no load in the bed.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

bigskyguy said:


> Oh and if you do the math based on 10,000 miles driven at $3.50 a gallon assuming you have a 20 gal tank with your 28mpg vs. 21mpg your saving about $416.00 per year. For me not having to rent or borrow a truck to haul building materials or a mattress and owning two dogs who like swimming and mud, the pickup takes the cake. Oh and one more advantage... in 2wd I can spin way better cookies in the ski area parking lot! They dont race subies in the Baja for a reason.


So it's only about the money, eh?


----------



## Bad Idea (Jun 14, 2009)

So, what exactly can you haul in the bed of your Tacoma that you couldn't haul with a small flat bed trailer behind a Subaru???

A Subaru Forester costs about five thousand less than a (double cab, long bed, 4X4) Tacoma and gets better gas mileage.

Subarus aren't for everyone, but they make alot of sense for some people.

As far as sleeping in the back, I'd much rather sleep in the back of a previously air-conditioned Subaru than in the bed of a truck with a shell on it. In the summer, the inside of a shell is usually at least ten degrees hotter than the outside air (unless you've left the windows open while you were driving which would reduce your gas mileage.)


----------



## Raymo853 (Jan 13, 2004)

bigskyguy said:


> They dont race subies in the Baja for a reason.


And they do not race Tacomas in the Baja either. They may be called Tacoma, may have some body panels that look similar but they have nothing to do with your Tacoma. Provateers maybe, real racers no way.


----------



## Raymo853 (Jan 13, 2004)

rufusdesign said:


> car+roof rack= poor mileage, always has, always will.


Not true.


----------



## rufusdesign (Sep 19, 2008)

Raymo853 said:


> Not true.


Care to elaborate or is "not true" all that you can manage.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Raymo853 said:


> Not true.


Holy crap, you've found a way to beat physics!!!


----------



## Raymo853 (Jan 13, 2004)

Jayem said:


> Holy crap, you've found a way to beat physics!!!


Not physics, defeating you poor use of the word poor. Reduced would have been a better choice, but still not necessarily poor when compared to buying a larger vehicle than you need to avoid using a roof rack.


----------



## Dougal (Jan 23, 2004)

bigskyguy said:


> I was going with a stock vehicle comparison


It was a 2L diesel. If they ran it hard up a hill it would have crapped itself.:thumbsup:

I thought the whole point of owing a wagon was to keep bikes safe inside it. Keeps the dirt and rain off them as well as being more secure.
Or have I done it wrong owning 3 wagons for that exact reason (none of which is a subaru)?


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

Bad Idea said:


> So, what exactly can you haul in the bed of your Tacoma that you couldn't haul with a small flat bed trailer behind a Subaru???
> 
> A Subaru Forester costs about five thousand less than a (double cab, long bed, 4X4) Tacoma and gets better gas mileage.
> 
> ...


Cost of trailer? Storing trailer? securing contents of trailer? Not five grand, sure but.....As far as cooling the back of the truck, rear slider . I like subies I used to have one in highschool, my mom drives one. They are good for some things and not for others.
Other than the fuel savings I don't see the advantage.


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

Raymo853 said:


> And they do not race Tacomas in the Baja either. They may be called Tacoma, may have some body panels that look similar but they have nothing to do with your Tacoma. Provateers maybe, real racers no way.


It's called the stock class 7S. If you are in the race wouldn't you be considerd a real racer? You should enter you subie in the stock car class I think youd be in class 9 short wheel base under 2000cc. The low ground clearence should be to your advantage....until you leave the pavement after the first mile.:thumbsup:


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

*feathers ruffled?*

Ok so scoobies are good on gas, gravel, and pavement. They run well and are reliable. Tacos are all ,but not as good on mpg. I can put a bunch of stuff in the bed of my tacoma and not mess with a trailer. Tacomas are better off road. Yeah there are vids of guys destroying there moms outback on youtube to counter the statement that trucks are better offroad. However anyone who has driven seriously offroad would not pick a scoobie as ther first choice unless there was a truck near by to give them a ride home after they tore off the oil pan. I get it, your all very loyal subaru owners cars vs trucks and all that. When I owned my 82 gl wagon I loved showing off it's offroad worthyness but having owned both, the taco is a better fit for me.


----------



## summit56 (May 24, 2008)

so what r u trying to compare? thought it was subie w/ roof rack vs truck for mpg? I'm lost now. Do u live in a city? i don't understand y u would have to pay to store a trailer. I have 2 acres of land so yea confused again. Can u only own one vehicle? if ur hauling soo much stuff and offroading soo much y don't u get a FULL SIZE truck? but yea im still lost on what the point of ur thread was.


----------



## John Kuhl (Dec 10, 2007)

If you were serious about driving off road you wouldn't drive
a Tacoma either. Everyone I know who is a serious off roader
drives a Jeep CJ.


----------



## iridetitus (Sep 16, 2004)

interesting thread (well, certain parts). i'm looking at a tacomas vs wrx premiums for the reasons mentioned as positives for both. i do love a sporty car (have had mostly german sport sedans), but the truck has a lot of advantages for the mtnbiking lifestyle.


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

John Kuhl said:


> If you were serious about driving off road you wouldn't drive
> a Tacoma either. Everyone I know who is a serious off roader
> drives a Jeep CJ.


Yeah cj's shure you can haul alot in the bed . Great mpg too. Reliable and warm in winter. The point>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you. The idea was a vehicle that covers the whole gammit ond bleds the best of versitility.:thumbsup:


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

summit56 said:


> so what r u trying to compare? thought it was subie w/ roof rack vs truck for mpg? I'm lost now. Do u live in a city? i don't understand y u would have to pay to store a trailer. I have 2 acres of land so yea confused again. Can u only own one vehicle? if ur hauling soo much stuff and offroading soo much y don't u get a FULL SIZE truck? but yea im still lost on what the point of ur thread was.


Don't live in the city. It's Montana we have no (real) citys. Pulling a trailer is a pain in the a##. I have a trailer and my snowmo's are on it. Full size trucks get "reduced" mpg. I have a landcruiser as well so I'm good in the offroading dept. The whole idea of the post was that it's pointless to buy a car for mpg and then put a bunch of crap on the roof. If you have a canopy (or topper for some) you can store stuff in the bed and keep it dry, dogs, bikes, ski's, etc. Just putting my OPINION out there. A four door truck w/ a canopy is more versitile than a subaroo is all. Yeah a four door long bed tacoma is more money than most scoobies but for me the lack of logistics to haul stuff it's worth it. FOR ME!


----------



## naiku (Apr 17, 2009)

bigskyguy said:


> but if you own a home that need home stuff ie. sheet of plywood, bag of concrete, etc. a Tacoma is just a better choice with more versatility


Easy fix, just get one of each, we have a wagon and a truck. They both have their pro's and con's. I am lucky to live somewhere that I can pick what I want to drive, I can either put the bikes on the back of the truck, inside or on top of the wagon etc etc.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*Then again...*



bigskyguy said:


> It seems odd to me to buy a car for better gas mileage only to put a rocket box and bike rack on top to haul all your gear. Not to mention full time AWD. My 4dr tacoma gets 21 mpg with the canopy on and all the wet smelly gear, dogs, and bikes ride safe and secure in the back. Oh and sleeping in the back of a pickup is waaayy more comfy than the back of a wagon. Suby vs. Tacoma off-road, Suby doesn't stand a chance. If I'm going to deal with more than one passenger, on goes the hitch rack, in back where it doesn't make all that drag and off we go. It's no wonder I see so many Tacoma's on the road these days.


... the Subie will bend your Taco over its knee and spank it like a 4 year old child on the mountain paved roads.

Pretty much Subie and driving it at all = poor gas mileage, especially if you have an automatic. I've never known a Subie owner who got better than 25 mpg.

Oddly enough, my wife's '99 Avant with a 1.8 turbo with quattro and 5 speed manual got 29 MPG on the freeway loaded down on a road trip at 75+ MPH, and not being shy with the throttle. Not sure I would want to take it off road at all, tho. No ground clearance on that thing. I'll bet it weighs more than a Legacy too. THen again, the Subie is rated for a much bigger trailer than the Avant. You're probably not going to want to pull snowmobiles with it.


----------



## pulser (Dec 6, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> ... the Subie will bend your Taco over its knee and spank it like a 4 year old child on the mountain paved roads.
> 
> Pretty much Subie and driving it at all = poor gas mileage, especially if you have an automatic. I've never known a Subie owner who got better than 25 mpg.
> 
> Oddly enough, my wife's '99 Avant with a 1.8 turbo with quattro and 5 speed manual got 29 MPG on the freeway loaded down on a road trip at 75+ MPH, and not being shy with the throttle. Not sure I would want to take it off road at all, tho. No ground clearance on that thing. I'll bet it weighs more than a Legacy too. THen again, the Subie is rated for a much bigger trailer than the Avant. You're probably not going to want to pull snowmobiles with it.


My 08 forester is an auto and i get 26mpg around town all the time just about every tank. Usually 28 on the high way but i really don't do much highway driving at all.


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

notaknob said:


> Wow, you are awesome. +1 Internets to you! A lame-ass troll getting 6, no, I mean 7 bites.
> 
> Next up, Roof vs. Hitch racks and why hitch racks are so much better!


not a knob......your response would argue otherwise. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds


----------



## rufusdesign (Sep 19, 2008)

I am voting this thread as the dumbest thread on MTBR.


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

I'll second that. I love fishing but when it's this easy it almost takes the fun out of it. 

HOOK>>>>>>>LINE>>>>>>>>SINKER


----------



## ChromedToast (Sep 19, 2006)

bigskyguy said:


> They dont race subies in the Baja for a reason.


The race in the Dakar.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

it looks like something from rc pro am.


----------



## Raymo853 (Jan 13, 2004)

bigskyguy said:


> Ok so scoobies are good on gas, gravel, and pavement. They run well and are reliable. Tacos are all ,but not as good on mpg. I can put a bunch of stuff in the bed of my tacoma and not mess with a trailer. Tacomas are better off road. Yeah there are vids of guys destroying there moms outback on youtube to counter the statement that trucks are better offroad. However anyone who has driven seriously offroad would not pick a scoobie as ther first choice unless there was a truck near by to give them a ride home after they tore off the oil pan. I get it, your all very loyal subaru owners cars vs trucks and all that. When I owned my 82 gl wagon I loved showing off it's offroad worthyness but having owned both, the taco is a better fit for me.


Best post of the thread.


----------



## thebronze (Jan 13, 2004)

Bigskyguy, your forgetting something. The toyota tacoma is absolutely the most uncomfortable truck i've ever driven. My '96 ford ranger was more comfy than my '04 Taco prerunner xcab. Those tacos will rattle the fillings out of your teeth. You've got the utility vote but for day to day driving, sitting in traffic on the freeway, and long road trips I'll take a forester and my 24mpg. It wasnt just me, my wife hated it too. Maybe it was the seats or the suspension but good grief I hated driving that truck.


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

thebronze said:


> Bigskyguy, your forgetting something. The toyota tacoma is absolutely the most uncomfortable truck i've ever driven. My '96 ford ranger was more comfy than my '04 Taco prerunner xcab. Those tacos will rattle the fillings out of your teeth. You've got the utility vote but for day to day driving, sitting in traffic on the freeway, and long road trips I'll take a forester and my 24mpg. It wasnt just me, my wife hated it too. Maybe it was the seats or the suspension but good grief I hated driving that truck.


I'm driving an 05. Quite comfotable to drive actually. With more room than the previous body style. I had a 99 F250 prior, and other than hauling and towing the tacoma is a considerably a nicer rig. We don't do alot of sitting in traffic here in MT. It's also nicer to have a little higher stance on the road so when that elk or moose crashes into the front of your ride it doesn't end up in your lap. Granted some would say that it's better to be able to go under the roadkill but they seem to hang up on the roof racks.

New thread idea "roof racks + elk =animal hater" Anyone......


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

pimpbot said:


> Pretty much Subie and driving it at all = poor gas mileage, especially if you have an automatic. I've never known a Subie owner who got better than 25 mpg.


I averaged 29 to San Diego and 27 on the way back in my WRX. Average speed was probably at least 75mph too. On the issue of Automatics though, I can't understand why anyone would buy that 4EAT, it's simply not enough gears. If you can't drive a manual, get a different car with a 5 or 6 speed auto.

Not sure why your milege stunk so much.


----------



## dompedro3 (Jan 26, 2004)

Jayem said:


> I averaged 29 to San Diego and 27 on the way back in my WRX. Average speed was probably at least 75mph too. On the issue of Automatics though, I can't understand why anyone would by that 4EAT, it's simply not enough gears. If you can't drive a manual, get a different car with a 5 or 6 speed auto.
> 
> Not sure why your milege stunk so much.


Amen to that. I own an 2006 2.5i and i hate the automatic. it needs one more gear! i would of bought manual, but gf can't drive manual and does not want to learn. We needed awd for the NE winters so our choices boiled down to 5+ yr old volvo/audi/something else awd, a 2 yr old subaru or a new suzuki sx4. We went with the 2006 subaru after scratching the older volvo (dealt with those, used+volvo/audi+awd = trouble). Suzuki felt/drove like crap, was really small. Subaru wasnt that bad.

I get 26-29 mpg with my roof rack hwy.


----------



## adhumston (Mar 14, 2008)

bigskyguy said:


> It seems odd to me to buy a car for better gas mileage only to put a rocket box and bike rack on top to haul all your gear. Not to mention full time AWD. My 4dr tacoma gets 21 mpg with the canopy on and all the wet smelly gear, dogs, and bikes ride safe and secure in the back. Oh and sleeping in the back of a pickup is waaayy more comfy than the back of a wagon. Suby vs. Tacoma off-road, Suby doesn't stand a chance. If I'm going to deal with more than one passenger, on goes the hitch rack, in back where it doesn't make all that drag and off we go. It's no wonder I see so many Tacoma's on the road these days.


Why aren't you driving a quad cab Dodge Ram with a Cummins then? Bigger, better mileage, more power, and isn't affected by the altitude as much as a gas burner. So why aren't you??

Because YOU choose to drive a Toyota, as others choose to drive Subarus! Why compare apples to oranges?


----------



## Dougal (Jan 23, 2004)

adhumston said:


> Why compare apples to oranges?


Usually because someone's on the internet and bored.


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

adhumston said:


> Why aren't you driving a quad cab Dodge Ram with a Cummins then? Bigger, better mileage, more power, and isn't affected by the altitude as much as a gas burner. So why aren't you??
> 
> Because YOU choose to drive a Toyota, as others choose to drive Subarus! Why compare apples to oranges?


Now we bring into the equation resale value Dodge vs. Toyota. Maint on diesel and unless I run red dye like all the other ******** here the ppg. of deisel is higher typicaly. It's not the altitude but the cold. Unless your plugged in, starting that cummins is a drag on a -30F morning. Deisels chew through tires too. So overall operating costs are higher. How do I know this because I HAD A 99 F250 POWERCHOKE "DEISEL"! Prior to the toyota.

It's not apples to oranges IT'S BANANAS!:bluefrown:


----------



## jeffwilsonn (Nov 19, 2008)

What about minivans? I can fit 3 29ers and my stuff in perfect comfort and get 25 mpg.


----------



## notaknob (Apr 6, 2004)

*Add it Up!*



bigskyguy said:


> not a knob......your response would argue otherwise. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds


I counted 6 bites on your missive before I posted. I then added one for me. That's not hypocrisy, that's accuracy.

There's lots of reasons why people will purchase a certain item over another. You gloss over this in your rush to a justify your purchase. You would do well with a career in marketing.

Next up, the Concerned Troll and how it care's about what you own.


----------



## jedediah (May 24, 2009)

You forget to mention bigskyguy that you are stuck driving a truck every day while I'm driving a 400hp AWD rocket that will run circles around most anything short of a supercar, while still pulling 25+ mpg with two bikes on the roof (sorry not a subie, but an S4). When I need a truck (less than 3 times a year, as a homeowner...), I borrow a Tacoma, Tundra, 2500, or F250 from work. Fortunately this is often enough to remind me how much driving ANY truck sucks.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

jedediah said:


> You forget to mention bigskyguy that you are stuck driving a truck every day while I'm driving a 400hp AWD rocket that will run circles around most anything short of a supercar, while still pulling 25+ mpg with two bikes on the roof (sorry not a subie, but an S4). When I need a truck (less than 3 times a year, as a homeowner...), I borrow a Tacoma, Tundra, 2500, or F250 from work. Fortunately this is often enough to remind me how much driving ANY truck sucks.


I used to drive a pickup. It sucked as far as comfort, performance, handling and driveability was concerned. I don't miss it at all.

When I need to haul something I just pay to have it delivered.


----------



## notaknob (Apr 6, 2004)

*In honor of the man*



bigskyguy said:


> Yeah cj's shure you can haul alot in the bed . Great mpg too. Reliable and warm in winter. The point>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you. The idea was a vehicle that covers the whole gammit ond bleds the best of versitility.:thumbsup:


This is the vehicle.









If it can't take me there, I don't want to go.


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

jedediah said:


> You forget to mention bigskyguy that you are stuck driving a truck every day while I'm driving a 400hp AWD rocket that will run circles around most anything short of a supercar, while still pulling 25+ mpg with two bikes on the roof (sorry not a subie, but an S4). When I need a truck (less than 3 times a year, as a homeowner...), I borrow a Tacoma, Tundra, 2500, or F250 from work. Fortunately this is often enough to remind me how much driving ANY truck sucks.


Stuck with driving a truck. Yeah mabey. Montana isn't too easy on sporty little cars. So I'll survive being stuck with my truck. You just try and keep your chin up riding a MOUNTAIN bike where there arn't any MOUNTAINS! Foutunetly It's a good thing I don't have to drive more than oh five min. in my sucky truck to acces some of the best skiing and riding in the country.


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)




----------



## summit56 (May 24, 2008)

Alaska isnt easy on sports cars either but mine manages to survive up here just fine. One reason i dont have a truck is becuase everone and there mom has one up here, so if i need one it is only a phone call away. other reason is cost of fuel for the truck. I know u said it was under $500 but I drive ALOT. Probably a few grand for me. So if a subaru with a roof rack getting 26mpg is poor mileage what does that make ur 21mpg? Bad? I dont know y ur f250 went through tires. My buddys 2500 cummins got 50k out of a set of tires. I totally understand why you got a truck, but the title for this thread is horrible. U say you got sleds? what do ya got?


----------



## thebronze (Jan 13, 2004)

bigskyguy said:


> Stuck with driving a truck. Yeah mabey. Montana isn't too easy on sporty little cars. So I'll survive being stuck with my truck. You just try and keep your chin up riding a MOUNTAIN bike where there arn't any MOUNTAINS! Foutunetly It's a good thing I don't have to drive more than oh five min. in my sucky truck to acces some of the best skiing and riding in the country.


Dammmit, I sort of miss that truck now, I think you've convinced me. A tundra would be nice. Mountains would be nice too.


----------



## bigskyguy (Apr 6, 2008)

summit56 said:


> Alaska isn't easy on sports cars either but mine manages to survive up here just fine. One reason i don't have a truck is because everyone and there mom has one up here, so if i need one it is only a phone call away. other reason is cost of fuel for the truck. I know u said it was under $500 but I drive ALLOT. Probably a few grand for me. So if a subaru with a roof rack getting 26mpg is poor mileage what does that make ur 21mpg? Bad? I dont know y ur f250 went through tires. My buddys 2500 cummins got 50k out of a set of tires. I totally understand why you got a truck, but the title for this thread is horrible. U say you got sleds? what do ya got?


Yeah the title for the thread was and is inaccurate but I did it to get peoples attention. Mission accomplished I suppose. Compared to 26mpg my 21 is bad sure. The intent of the thread was to mainly poke fun at all the subee drivers who have a ton of sh!t on the top of their car which seems to me to defeat the purpose of buying a smaller vehicle. If I was completely committed to MPG this thread would be a comparison of Prius' and VW tdi's. Tacoma's have and always will (especially the four doors) be a very versatile rig. Yeah so their not as sporty to drive as, well a sports car would be. they may not get the greatest mpg in comparison to diesels or subarus. However I can put 4 bikes in the bed with everyones gear and seat 4 in the cab and go down pretty rough roads ( Moabs maze) and fit between rocks and trees that full size trucks have a hard time slipping through without incurring body damage. I get 21 with the canopy on. I can put a cu. yard of mulch in the bed. I don't need a trailer to haul sheets of plywood or have to deal with the flapping tarp as I try and beat the snow and rain home. This is why a Tacoma is a great choice for me and many others. Just look at the sales figs. for Tacomas. As per the sleds mines a 2007 summit 800 151" canned. My wife rides a 2006 rmk 600 146". It looks like your a skidoo fan as well summit 156" ? peace.


----------



## jedediah (May 24, 2009)

That's great for you. However most people I know who live in Montana or other mountain states somehow manage to do all the skiing and riding they want from their cars...

In any case, you might notice that we all have _preferences_ and my preference is certainly not to drive a truck as I like to _drive_ as much as I like to ride, ski, etc. It also happens to work fine for accessing the trails I ride on - and I bet you'd enjoy riding them too.


----------



## thebronze (Jan 13, 2004)

Bigskyguy, I forgot why I ditched the truck = can you help me move to a new apartment? If I had a buck for everytime I got that call. First thing I'd ask, what floor.....


----------



## summit56 (May 24, 2008)

I used to ride skidoo, had the first summit out. 1994 470, then a 1998 670 and now a 05 M7 w/ 153. Ride with my buddy that had the cummins and he rides a 08 xp 800 w/146 and he highmarks me all the time. Oh well, my ***** works for me. You go on snowest.com? lots of good sledding info there...


----------



## sLoPeS (Jun 20, 2008)

08 outback....thule bars, fairing, bike tray, and box i got 27mpg on the highway cruising around 72. not bad if u ask me. with a bike up top, it drops to around 25.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

dompedro3 said:


> Amen to that. I own an 2006 2.5i and i hate the automatic. it needs one more gear! i would of bought manual, but gf can't drive manual and does not want to learn. We needed awd for the NE winters so our choices boiled down to 5+ yr old volvo/audi/something else awd, a 2 yr old subaru or a new suzuki sx4. We went with the 2006 subaru after scratching the older volvo (dealt with those, used+volvo/audi+awd = trouble). Suzuki felt/drove like crap, was really small. Subaru wasnt that bad.
> 
> I get 26-29 mpg with my roof rack hwy.


Well, I can understand getting the auto if it's not the WRX, not that I would, but when you move to something sporty like the WRX, it's just rediculous to only have 4 gears. I try to put my WRX into 6th all the time (but of course there is no 6th). There are just so many better choices than an auto WRX.


----------



## aKore (Jun 29, 2006)

I have an 02 Grand Prix GT coupe with a hitch bike rack (wheel mounted design) and dont see much of a change in mpg when carrying the bikes. Just came back from a 400 mile round trip to CAMBA country and averaged 24
I would prefer a truck though, for those times when you could pull a boat or take some ski trails (motorized of course) to the farther trails.


----------



## BrennMan (Nov 1, 2008)

maybe I missed it but when was the last time they rallyed (spl?) a tacoma, and btw it would be very doable to buy, store, maintain, secure a trailer for 5k.


----------



## lostmaniksoul (Jul 20, 2009)

08 Outback 3.0R with Yakima Lowriders, 3 Steelheads and a SkyBox16 on top still getting 21mpg after 23K. 70% Sport. 20% Intelligent. 10% Sport #.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

bigskyguy said:


> I had a feeling that I would be kicking a hornets nest here. Pulser, how's about we put half a cubic yard of dirt in the back of your forester and go weelin' through the forest? Subies are great if you live in the city sure, but if you own a home that need home stuff ie. sheet of plywood, bag of concrete, etc. a Tacoma is just a better choice with more versatility WRX has one of the higher insurance quotes because they go in the ditch alot. I wasn't putting out a personal attack on subie owners, just my op on the car vs. pickup


Sounds like you are trying to change the subject since your point in the original topic got shot down. The thing about bikes on racks and rocket boxes is that they come off when you don't need them. FWIW. I get 26 mpg with the CR-V, 24 mpg with two bikes on the back and a rocket box up top. My old legacy got around 30 mpg on the highway with no boxes of bikes (not sure how it faired with them as I did not have a box at the time)

On to your other off-topic points: I did own a Toyota 4x4 pickup for years and loved it, When I got rid of it, the three options I was looking at to replace it were a Toyota Tacoma, Subie Legacy, or a CR-V. I went with the CR-V, but I would have also been happy with the Subie (used to own a legacy and my wife has an Outback) I thought I would miss my pickup dearly when I got rid of it, but honestly, there have been very few times I have. Once I did not need to haul gravel and firewood all the time, something like a CR-V or Subie made more sense. I don't live in a city, but do own a home. Maybe once a year I borrow a friends pickup. Other times, he makes use of my car when he needs to ride with me because he can only carry two people, which is something I really DON'T miss about my pickup. I have done many cross country camping/biking trips in both the pickup and the CR-V, and overall I find the CR-V better for that.

If we move someplace that I decide to spend some energy fixing up, we will likely trade either the CR-V or the Outback in for a truck. Even then we are unsure whether we want a pickup or cargo van.


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

aKore said:


> I have an 02 Grand Prix GT coupe with a hitch bike rack (wheel mounted design) and dont see much of a change in mpg when carrying the bikes. Just came back from a 400 mile round trip to CAMBA country and averaged 24
> I would prefer a truck though, for those times when you could pull a boat or take some ski trails (motorized of course) to the farther trails.


Same here. I just drove with a fully loaded car from the French-Spain border back home, some 1800km away. Two bikes on the back, car sagging, and still averaged the equivalent of 24,8mpg. Average speeds were in the 107km/h range, and top speeds of just under 160kmh.

The actual weight the car was loaded with had more of an impact than the bikes, as I come back with about 31-32 with only the bikes and just a tad more without. Of course, the faster, the worse, but it's ok and manageable.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

bigskyguy said:


> Ok so scoobies are good on gas, gravel, and pavement. They run well and are reliable. Tacos are all ,but not as good on mpg. I can put a bunch of stuff in the bed of my tacoma and not mess with a trailer. Tacomas are better off road.


So basically, one is cheaper, better on gas, and drives better on gavel and pavement, but the other is better for behaving like a stupid ******* off-road.

Your points have gone from off-topic to the absurd. Who cares what people are racing in Baja? It makes no difference in my (or 99% of anyone's) decision as to the best vehicle for their needs.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> ... the Subie will bend your Taco over its knee and spank it like a 4 year old child on the mountain paved roads.
> 
> Pretty much Subie and driving it at all = poor gas mileage, especially if you have an automatic. I've never known a Subie owner who got better than 25 mpg.


My legacy (manual) got ~30 mpg on the highway (low 20's in town and in the mountains)


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*Color me...*



kapusta said:


> My legacy (manual) got ~30 mpg on the highway (low 20's in town and in the mountains)


corrected. seems like everybody I know with a subie gets less than good gas mileage. I know boxer style engines tend to waste more heat, but then again, allow for a lower hoodline for better aerodynamics.

all my buds who owned subies had autos, except for one. stick would tend to be better, in general.

*edit* oh, was that an edit on your part too?

As far as hauling goes, let me add:

<img src=http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2073421&l=b772918158&id=532428924>


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

pimpbot said:


> corrected. seems like everybody I know with a subie gets less than good gas mileage. I know boxer style engines tend to waste more heat, but then again, allow for a lower hoodline for better aerodynamics.
> 
> all my buds who owned subies had autos, except for one. stick would tend to be better, in general.
> 
> ...


I think the real problem is the "full time AWD". Most of the NA versions get good milege for what they are, but you'll never get that great milege with that kind of an AWD system. Poor AT choices do make an impact, but even if you had good 5 and 6 spd options, I doubt there'd be good numbers comming from them. Put a turbo on an AWD car with a 4spd and unless it's really light or really slick, it's gunna suck gas like no tomorrow. If you like to drive fast and utilize the power, it's going to empty the tank quick. I'm reminded of my buddies mercury milano car. They got the V6 AWD version (his wife works at the dealership) and it just gets miserable milege, around 17mpg on good days, and other owners in the area report similer numbers. The I-4 option for that car made a miserable 140hp, but obviously turned better milege numbers. These are reasons that subarus are not for everyone, just like sports cars that get pretty poor milege are not for everyone. The other benefits have to outweight the negatives, but unless we see the deisel versions or they stop making AWD cars, it's not going to get much better.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Jayem said:


> I think the real problem is the "full time AWD". Most of the NA versions get good milege for what they are, but you'll never get that great milege with that kind of an AWD system. Poor AT choices do make an impact, but even if you had good 5 and 6 spd options, I doubt there'd be good numbers comming from them. Put a turbo on an AWD car with a 4spd and unless it's really light or really slick, it's gunna suck gas like no tomorrow. If you like to drive fast and utilize the power, it's going to empty the tank quick. I'm reminded of my buddies mercury milano car. They got the V6 AWD version (his wife works at the dealership) and it just gets miserable milege, around 17mpg on good days, and other owners in the area report similer numbers. The I-4 option for that car made a miserable 140hp, but obviously turned better milege numbers. These are reasons that subarus are not for everyone, just like sports cars that get pretty poor milege are not for everyone. The other benefits have to outweight the negatives, but unless we see the deisel versions or they stop making AWD cars, it's not going to get much better.


That is true, and fortunately auto manufacturers have been trying to produce more economical yet powerful awd cars recently. I bought a 2009 Audi A4 S-Line with the 2.0t motor a few months ago and with a performance chip I'm getting around 30mpg combined city/highway even with 240hp/330ft.-lbs. It's almost (but not quite) as quick as my 2007 stage 2 WRX but kills the Subie on mileage. If I cruise on the freeway at a steady 55mph it'll read average fuel economy numbers in the high 30's, so I'm pretty impressed.

It'll be interesting to see how far the late model diesel motors progress, such as that new 335d from BMW with 265hp/425ft.-lbs., 36mpg. Nice numbers!


----------



## lostmaniksoul (Jul 20, 2009)

Jayem said:


> The other benefits have to outweight the negatives, but unless we see the deisel versions or they stop making AWD cars, it's not going to get much better.


The new Subaru Boxer Diesel will be available next year. Expect to see it in the USDM Legacy/OB and Forester first.

I believe it was confirmed a while back? (from AutoBlog):

*"At the Detroit Auto Show, Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru's parent company) president Ikuo Mori said the diesels should arrive here by mid-2010."*

EDIT: Added link to article: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/01/16/detroit-2008-subaru-changes-their-mind-diesel-coming-to-the-us/

It's getting amazing reviews in EUR - smooth, quiet, powerful and 40mpg plus! There is such a demand for it from the Subaru community in the US that I don't see them holding out too much longer. Especially with the new found popularity of diesel motors over here of late. I have a number of friends in EUR with the MY09 Outback 2.0BD and they love it. I would certainly jump on one if it were available right now.

ps: A Subaru without SYMM AWD would be akin to a mountain bike without wheels...pointless. And even worse it would seriously confuse and dilute the brand that they have spent so many years developing in the US market.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

pimpbot said:


> corrected. seems like everybody I know with a subie gets less than good gas mileage. I know boxer style engines tend to waste more heat, but then again, allow for a lower hoodline for better aerodynamics.
> 
> all my buds who owned subies had autos, except for one. stick would tend to be better, in general.
> 
> ...


If it matters, my Legacy was a 1995.


----------



## Dougal (Jan 23, 2004)

lostmaniksoul said:


> The new Subaru Boxer Diesel will be available next year. Expect to see it in the USDM Legacy/OB and Forester first.
> 
> I believe it was confirmed a while back? (from AutoBlog):
> 
> ...


I've read a lot of less than amazing reviews of the legacy diesel. Most of the comments say not enough low end torque for a diesel. I'm suspicious of the fuel economy claims too. Given that subarus are heavy cars with a complicated drivetrain, I can't see them getting the same fuel economy as a 2wd tdi Golf. Yet the published figures claim they do.
Sounds like they tuned it to rev like a petrol and being a diesel it doesn't like doing that (or sound good doing it).

Symmetrical AWD is marketing BS. The driveshafts and crankshaft motion are not symmetrical. The parts that are symmetrical are symmetrical on every other independent suspension 4wd anyway.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Dougal said:


> I've read a lot of less than amazing reviews of the legacy diesel. Most of the comments say not enough low end torque for a diesel. I'm suspicious of the fuel economy claims too. Given that subarus are heavy cars with a complicated drivetrain, I can't see them getting the same fuel economy as a 2wd tdi Golf. Yet the published figures claim they do.
> Sounds like they tuned it to rev like a petrol and being a diesel it doesn't like doing that (or sound good doing it).
> 
> Symmetrical AWD is marketing BS. The driveshafts and crankshaft motion are not symmetrical. The parts that are symmetrical are symmetrical on every other independent suspension 4wd anyway.


Well, heavy compared to what, other japanese cars, or american cars, or even australian cars? My WRX wagon is 3200lbs, not super light at all, but considering an AWD drivetrain, it's pretty good. American cars like the grand prix are quite a bit heavier (3400lbs) with less HP and no AWD, so it's not super-heavy, but on the other hand the AWD drivetrain does make it heavier than it would be. Some cars like the platform Nissan builds the 350/infinity 3.5 on are pretty damn heavy, like 3600lbs, thats for the 2wd version as well.

The other thing is that the marketing of the AWD system may be BS, but compared to other AWD systems, it works a lot better, gives you more traction, and so forth. Lots of systems are not full-time and even though they claim to "give you traction when you need it", there is quite a delay in the system sometimes and the bottom line is they just don't do as well. I've experienced this many times, and the AWD system of our subarus simply worked far better in snow and nasty conditions than other AWD or 4WD systems. That's not to say it's the "best ever", but it is better than most. On the subject of the drivetrain being "complicated", I'd say it's simpler than most AWD/4WD drivetrains.

In any case, on top-gear they drove the legacy diesel 700+ miles on one tank, averaging damn good fuel economy for an AWD again. Sure, they weren't pulling 70mpg, but consistantly around 40-45 if I remember correctly. Watch the episode to see.

It sounds like you're trying to imply that subaru doesn't think this stuff through, but give them some credit. These aren't the heaviest cars on the road, not by far. The new impreza saves some weight over the previous model, while still retaining steel body panels. My wrx uses aluminum body panels, but at least subaru was thinking when they designed these cars, rather than not attempting to save weight. The new diesel should give some pretty darn good milege (seems to be their intent, instead of over-powering it with a big engine). The thing is that subaru builds AWD cars, at least for now, so love it or leave it.


----------



## lostmaniksoul (Jul 20, 2009)

Dougal said:


> I've read a lot of less than amazing reviews of the legacy diesel. Most of the comments say not enough low end torque for a diesel. I'm suspicious of the fuel economy claims too. Given that subarus are heavy cars with a complicated drivetrain, I can't see them getting the same fuel economy as a 2wd tdi Golf. Yet the published figures claim they do.
> Sounds like they tuned it to rev like a petrol and being a diesel it doesn't like doing that (or sound good doing it).
> 
> Symmetrical AWD is marketing BS. The driveshafts and crankshaft motion are not symmetrical. The parts that are symmetrical are symmetrical on every other independent suspension 4wd anyway.


Easy mate, just because the All Blacks got their ass handed to them by the Springboks doesn't mean you have to bring us all down. 

If I'm not mistaken the 2.0 BD just won a very recent "engine of the year" award in EUR. I have friends with them that are telling me of real world 35-40 mpg economy (and that's calulated not via the onboard computer). I haven't driven one myself but they are extremely quiet and refined apparently. Again, just relaying what I hear from trusted friends that own them. I will have to wait and see what they are like first hand when they arrive in the US next year.

And of course a full time AWD car is going to be heavier and less efficient than a 2WD compact Golf that weighs 3100lbs (but an equivalent size Impreza is not that much heavier at just over 3200lbs I believe). I'm pretty sure even Bakkies Botha could figure that one out.


----------



## lostmaniksoul (Jul 20, 2009)

Jayem said:


> ...but compared to other AWD systems, it works a lot better, gives you more traction, and so forth.


Jayem, I absolutely agree. Without a doubt in my mind.

I am a long time member of the Subaru community (STi and Outback) and we have these discussions all the time. As a former owner of Quattro, xDrive, ATESSA and Haldex equipped vehicles, I stand by my belief that SYMM is the most effective AWD system I have had the experience of driving by far. It basically makes rain and snow seem irrelevant.

Anyways that's a completely separate discussion and I don't want to come off as a Subaru fanboy so I'm going to leave it as that for now.


----------



## Dougal (Jan 23, 2004)

Jayem said:


> Well, heavy compared to what, other japanese cars, or american cars, or even australian cars?


Other japanese and european cars of comparable size. Obviously.



Jayem said:


> The other thing is that the marketing of the AWD system may be BS, but compared to other AWD systems, it works a lot better, gives you more traction, and so forth.


More traction than other full time 4wd systems? How do you figure that one?
If you want to see complicated, take a look inside their gearbox. Driving forwards to a diff inside the casing makes things a lot more complicated than an east-west engine with a rear drive coming out.

Let me ask you this:
Why do petrol subarus (non turbo legacy for example) drink soo much fuel. Is it because of drivetrain drag, engine efficiency or something else?

Unless you engine efficiency, then it still applies to the diesel too.



Jayem said:


> In any case, on top-gear they drove the legacy diesel 700+ miles on one tank, averaging damn good fuel economy for an AWD again. Sure, they weren't pulling 70mpg, but consistantly around 40-45 if I remember correctly. Watch the episode to see.


I haven't seen that episode, but the specs here don't add up.
Claim 40mpg (UK, that's 32 MPG US) for urban, which is 14 km/l
The metric 5 L/100km above is 20 km/l, (57mpg UK).
Which one is wrong?
http://www.topgear.com/uk/subaru/legacy/spec/e3-133616-2

My 4wd diesel work car (nissan) averages 16 km/l. 45 mpg (UK).

Regarding golf vs legacy. That's exactly my point.
2.0 TDI Golf, combined = 52 mpg claimed (UK)
2.0 TDI Legacy, combined = 49mpg claimed (UK)
http://www.subaru.co.uk/Subaru_co_uk/ViewMenu.qed?menuid=M0M5M2
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/golf-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/

You said your friends were getting 35-40mpg? Presuming UK gallons there.

I have here a local (NZ) review of the diesel legacy. Here are some interesting points.
Speedo is 7km out (reads 100 when you're doing 93).
78.5dB cabin noise at 100km/h.
8.8 seconds to 100km/h.
They rate the VW 2.0 as the gold standard.
The diesel engine is claimed lighter, yet the diesel car is 50kg heavier.
1567kg as driven.
Forget using 4th and 5th gears in urban driving.
Didn't like the feel of the electric power steering.

As for the AB's, they've had it coming for a long time. If I was a betting man, I'd have made money off the Boks last weekend.:thumbsup:


----------



## lostmaniksoul (Jul 20, 2009)

Dougal said:


> You said your friends were getting 35-40mpg? Presuming UK gallons there.


Correct. I know two MY09 Outback 2.0D owners and I think they reported that they were getting 39mpg and 43mpg each (I think the manufacturer's official combined # is publicized at 48 mpg so they are a little off that right now). So using a rough .833 conversion I believe that is around 32.5 and 35.8 US mpgs respectively. Not sure of their actual mileage but I know both cars are still under 10K on the odo. That's not bad for a 3700lb full time AWD wagon imho, especially considering I'm only getting 21mpg average with 23K on the clock for the 3.0R H6. And if I drive in Sport # continuously that drops into the 19 mpg range.



Dougal said:


> As for the AB's, they've had it coming for a long time. If I was a betting man, I'd have made money off the Boks last weekend.:thumbsup:


I was just giving you a hard time. You are talking with a Welsh guy that idolizes the Blacks. I was hoping NZ were going to spank the Boks but I guess the Boks deserved this one because NZ did underperform. My money is still on the Blacks taking the Championship this year. Henry is going to have to step up and earn that big pay check though and make some tough decisions in the process.


----------

