Japan has no equivalent of the "Trade Description Act" on vehicles and some of the

figures quoted in Japan are to say the least "imaginative".

>> running on poor quality fuels that are encountered in many export regions.......

That'll be the UK then :-)

Slightly off message I guess, but I've noticed the main problem with Subarus, certainly near me, are the ones that seem to have rotten exhaust silencers and seem to be driven by ASBO seeking dealers/too old to be boy racers.

Shame really, because the original engineering designs would have deserved and expected a more sensible type of driver.

Bit like born again bikers really. Pain in the ear drums for everyone except them.

When the volume is at the acceptable level, there's something captivating about the off-beats of a Subaru exhaust.

I agree. I can't stand the sound if the exhaust is an aftermarket job with no silencers - unrefined and chavvish. But a standard exhaust is nice and subtle and just lets enough of the noise through to be a pleasure.

There is a lad, a tractor driver who works at a farm near to me. He owns a normally aspirated Subaru Impreza with a large bore exhaust. He's not a boy racer. The gearchanges are slow and deliberate with a light touch on the accelerator, but it sounds just horrible - like someone with a deep voice gargling up the road.

JosephNZ, on other forums regarding hesitant Subaru's there certainly has been cases of the problem being traced back to the air flow sensor. I suppose the most important thing is to get the car looked at by a dealer. A competant one at that, if some of what I've read is to be believed. So we have at least two possible causes of this problem. Oddly, the common link so far is to do with the engine's management with air .

QUOTE:....""When the volume is at the acceptable level, there's something captivating about the off-beats of aSubaru exhaust""

And countless boy racers found they could impersonate the Imprezza sound in their Astras and Saxos by disconnecting one plug lead! Presumably these were the same people who a few years earlier liked to make pretend gear changes on their CVT mopeds!

Following on from the initial thread being posted I've also discovered that the notorious flat spot can be replicated easily because my car is fuel sensitive. It dislikes UK supermarket fuel (the minimum octane rating?)

I am at present running it on high quality unleaded 95 ron which is obviously more expensive than the supermarkets own fuel. But on another Subaru forum I've read good things about Tesco's milleniun 99 ron octane unleaded, so I may give that a go. All very strange to me, because I thought that all fuel was purchased from the Rotterdam market. Maybe individual fuel companies add (if they want to) their own unique potions to distinguish their products from each other, hence the performance difference.

My own experience over 50 years is that with some cars you may get improved running with a specific fuel brand but it is totally wrong to equate cost and quality.

On the second point, every automotive fuel sold in the UK has an additive package which does indeed vary with brand. Of course, every supplier would claim theirs is better but they would wouldn't they?

Have a look at this review/test:

www.carpages.co.uk/motoring-news/fuel-performance-...p

Its a few years old but I doubt much has changed.

Edited by misar on 09/05/2014 at 22:12

Anorak alert. In my 2006 2.0R Sport over the last 16,100 miles: it's done 11,789 miles on tesco momentum 99ron at an average of 34.59mpg; it's done 4,363 miles on 95 ron at an average of 32.48mpg. Put another way, on my data, it is about 6.5% more economical on fuel around 3.5% more expensive (and it seems to run better too). That equates to a saving of around £54 for every 10,000 miles covered.

Edited by joc on 13/05/2014 at 23:39

Agree with you! Absolutely aware of cold weather effects and I wholly accept these are not at all scientific, they're just my data. I have bought less 95 during summer, not by design... Cutting the data: November to February, 32.5 on 95 and 33.5 on 99. For March to October, 32.5 and 35.15 respectively. Heavy caveats, smaller datasets, no guarantee of driving consistency etc etc. So although not entirely scientific, there is some bias in the data over 16k miles. But I'd agree with the general scepticism of whether the bias is genuinely significant enough. maybe 30 or 50k miles is need to smooth out the data further.