Kizashi gaz Mileage(only AWD please) with a Full gaz tank

[SamirD]

If I had AWD, I would had been out of there without ever getting out of the car.

I think even in that situation, awd may not have helped unless you had 100% dry traction on your rear wheels.

I got the Kizashi stuck once bad enough to have to get a tow, and the rear wheels had plenty of solid snow traction. It just could generate enough grip on the rear to break free. If it was dry pavement, I think it might have, but I would have been burning some rubber in reverse as well.

[KuroNekko]

If I had AWD, I would had been out of there without ever getting out of the car.

I think even in that situation, awd may not have helped unless you had 100% dry traction on your rear wheels.

I got the Kizashi stuck once bad enough to have to get a tow, and the rear wheels had plenty of solid snow traction. It just could generate enough grip on the rear to break free. If it was dry pavement, I think it might have, but I would have been burning some rubber in reverse as well.

Only the drain ditch had ice and snow packed in it. All other surfaces were relatively dry. I'm certain the AWD would have got me out, but your points bring out why I prefer Permanent AWD systems over FWD-biased Full-Time AWD systems.

[SamirD]

If I had AWD, I would had been out of there without ever getting out of the car.

I think even in that situation, awd may not have helped unless you had 100% dry traction on your rear wheels.

I got the Kizashi stuck once bad enough to have to get a tow, and the rear wheels had plenty of solid snow traction. It just could generate enough grip on the rear to break free. If it was dry pavement, I think it might have, but I would have been burning some rubber in reverse as well.

Only the drain ditch had ice and snow packed in it. All other surfaces were relatively dry. I'm certain the AWD would have got me out, but your points bring out why I prefer Permanent AWD systems over FWD-biased Full-Time AWD systems.

For me, it's just that I notice that the Kizashi awd system isn't the same as what I'm guessing a full-time system like Suburu's is like.

I would expect the rear tires to grip anytime the front lose traction, but the car still can majorly understeer and slide in snow, even with the rear wheels firmly planted (but not on concrete--haven't been able to test that). I'm sure you remember the one member on here that hit their Kizashi into something twice in the same day because of relying on the rear for grip which never came.

The Subarus I test drove back in the 1990s and the more recent Legacy that we were looking at had a much more 'planted' feel--as if the power and grip was just 'there' as opposed to being 'transferred', if this makes sense.

This 'transferring' takes a bit getting used to. Like how you can turn the Kizashi in snow using oversteer, but you have to punch the throttle a bit to get the rear tires gripping. Otherwise, you'd understeer.

[bootymac]

I'm sure you remember the one member on here that hit their Kizashi into something twice in the same day because of relying on the rear for grip which never came.

I don't think it's correct to blame the Kizashi's AWD for that. It sounded like guy was driving way too fast for those conditions, and AWD won't do squat when you hit ice

[KuroNekko]

Subaru uses a "Permanent AWD" system much like the other AWD specialist; Audi. The system used by the Kizashi and the majority of non-AWD specialists are "Full-Time AWD".
I haven't driven a Full-Time AWD vehicle on snow so I can't comment on how it compares to a Subaru AWD system, but the mechanical operations of Permanent AWD is arguably superior for traction. In my alpine Subaru-driving days, the only thing that stopped my trusty Impreza was snow that got too high for its ground clearance.

All that being said, what's most important are the type and condition of the tires and as always, how one drives.

[SamirD]

I'm sure you remember the one member on here that hit their Kizashi into something twice in the same day because of relying on the rear for grip which never came.

I don't think it's correct to blame the Kizashi's AWD for that. It sounded like guy was driving way too fast for those conditions, and AWD won't do squat when you hit ice

Oh I agree, but I've observed the same in with <20mph speeds, so the rear in the awd doesn't really do much in certain conditions even when you think it should.

Subaru uses a "Permanent AWD" system much like the other AWD specialist; Audi. The system used by the Kizashi and the majority of non-AWD specialists are "Full-Time AWD".
I haven't driven a Full-Time AWD vehicle on snow so I can't comment on how it compares to a Subaru AWD system, but the mechanical operations of Permanent AWD is arguably superior for traction. In my alpine Subaru-driving days, the only thing that stopped my trusty Impreza was snow that got too high for its ground clearance.

All that being said, what's most important are the type and condition of the tires and as always, how one drives.

Ironically, that's the only thing that has stopped our Kizashi either--too much snow for the ground clearance. I do need to drive another Suburu to compare again, but I'll need a nice and snowy day for that--and a dealership crazy enough to let me take one of their brand new Subies off the lot on a day like that.

And even then, I think the test won't do any justice since the Kizashi has some great winter tires on it versus whatever the Subaru would come with from the factory.

[Sluggo]

I have a 2009 Subaru Impreza. I can't really do an honest comparison to the Kizashi in the snow because the Subaru has Dunlop winter tires and the Kizashi is running all seasons. But I have a feeling that on equal tires the Subaru would out perform the Kizashi in snowy conditions.

[ciscokidinsf]

Second tank numbers: (manually tabulated)

306 miles
16 gallons
19.1 MPG

140 of those were HWY miles (flat, no hills, in a single round trip -to have the Kiz serviced by dealer-), but HWY only reached 27.7 MPG according to cluster on that trip (so probably 26MPG-27MPG)

The rest were city driving... 18 MPG probably.

Still dismal numbers... even an SX4 Auto with AWD had better numbers than this - this is supposed to be a better engine. Is 24MPG average too much to ask a 4-cyl w CVT to give???

Still, car makes me smile every drive, but the wallet & the wife ain't happy

And gas is going up again in NorCal

[KuroNekko]

Second tank numbers: (manually tabulated)

306 miles
16 gallons
19.1 MPG

140 of those were HWY miles (flat, no hills, in a single round trip -to have the Kiz serviced by dealer-), but HWY only reached 27.7 MPG according to cluster on that trip (so probably 26MPG-27MPG)

The rest were city driving... 18 MPG probably.

Still dismal numbers... even an SX4 Auto with AWD had better numbers than this - this is supposed to be a better engine. Is 24MPG average too much to ask a 4-cyl w CVT to give???

Still, car makes me smile every drive, but the wallet & the wife ain't happy

And gas is going up again in NorCal

You keep making the flaw of comparing a heavier midsize vehicle to smaller and lighter compacts. While the Kizashi, SX4, and Sentra are all 4 cylinder vehicles mated to CVTs, the Kizashi has a 2.4 liter while the Sentra and SX4 run 2.0 as their largest engines. Also, the Kizashi is significantly heavier. Both the SX4 and the Sentra have a curb weight of under 3000 lbs while the Kizashi can weigh close to 3500 lbs with AWD. The weight is due to the Kizashi being bigger and having a higher quality build like more insulation. I have no doubt the Kizashi is a better car for driving due to its more quiet cabin and more secure road manners. However, these come about because it's a heavier vehicle.

Also, while your Kizashi is a 2012, its technology is from 2009 given the Kizashi did not change since its debut then. The Kizashi doesn't have direct injection much like most rivals back then. It was since that rivals got redesigns with newer engines featuring DI and/or small displacement turbos. Though the Kizashi is seemingly at disadvantage, consider that some DI systems are known to have valve fouling in the long term. Toyota had DI for 10 years before market implementation but they were working on ways to prevent the fouling. You think all companies went to the length Toyota did to maintain their reputation for reliability?
While DI fouling isn't necessarily an issue for all makes, it's popping up as more engines feature it. These engines will unlikely last as long as an "old tech" Suzuki J24B engine running on older, but proven technology. While the Kizashi may drink more fuel, at least you won't need to have your engine opened up and its valves blasted with walnut shells due to fouling several years from now.

Lastly consider this fact: The Kizashi is a lot safer than a SX4 or a Sentra. Its weight and heft make for a very safe vehicle. Despite being a 2009 design, it got the highest ratings in the newest and most stringent crash tests like the IIHS offset frontal crash test. It got the best rating while the 2012 Toyota Camry got a "Poor". Much like nearly all of the safest vehicles out there, the heft that gets you that safety will cost you in fuel economy. It's no surprise why smaller cars do worse in crash tests while larger, heavier vehicles do better. Even then, not all in a segment are equal as the article shows. The Kizashi happens to be a top car for safety.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/12/20/iihs ... -fault-wi/

In essence, it's just not valid to compare a larger, heavier, and safer vehicle with AWD (your Kizashi) to a compact 2WD like a Nissan Sentra or even an AWD SX4.

[bootymac]

Some maintenance might help too if needed. New air filter, synthetic engine, transfer case and rear diff oil