Ok...

I didn't want to start another MPG thread but this one is different than the usual. If the mods dont like it, feel free to delete it.

I went to reno this weekend. I go there alot and over the last 2 years I have taken my 94 Rx-7 there probably every 3 months on average. This is the first time since buying the 8 I went, so I took the 8.

Its 230 miles each way. On the way there I hit some semi heavy traffic in sacramento. while it never got to the point I had to stop the car like stop and go, I had to slow down, pass and speed up a good bit for about 1 hour. Cruise control on for most of the trip (except sacramento) I got 23 MPG. I was around 65 MPH or 3300 RPM. This matched what I get for my FD exactly. Keep in mind this direction has some serious elevation to climb about the last hour prior to getting to reno.

On the way back I put the cruise control on from 58-62 MPH. I did this for 89 miles. There was no stop and go and during this time atleast half of it was a steep decline. It was about 33 F outside also if that matters. Just outside of sacramento when it was near flat again I put gas in my car and got a 26.3 MPG. I was very happy because my FD would get me 25 MPG.

Ok, so this is the interesting part. I drove the car for 95.2 miles before this fill up. The traffic was not bumper to bumper, there was only about 2 maybe 3 occasions I had to pass another car. I changed the cruise control to 60 MPH. or nearly exaclty 3000 RPM during this test. I could tell from watching the gauge that my gas mileage was way better. If you look at the gauge, there are large tick marks that seperate the gauge into quarters. When I pulled into the gas station at 95.2 Miles the needle was on the lower part of the 2nd large white tick mark, which is what I will refer to as the 1/4 mark.

So I filled up the tank, the same way I always do. As soon as the pump stops and I hear a "CLICK", its done. I dont put any more gas in after that. It came to 3.15 gallons. My gauge was again all the way to the top. There is no mistake and no miscalculation. It appears that 60 MPG in 6th gear is the key. You can go above that a few MPH but then it starts to eat more gas for some reason. Oh yea, while my FD gets 25 MPG at 3000 RPM during the same circumstances, its actually at 80 MPH vs the Rx-8's 60 MPH.

I used chevron 91 octain on all these tests.

BTW...this is one AMAZING engine.

Sounds like my next trip anywhere will be at 60 mph! If you can duplicate this it would sure help make everyone a believer.

zerobanger, sorry for being cynical, but I 'd like to see you duplicate the performance. since you don't top off the tank, you could be off. Different gas pumps have differnet sensitivities for the auto cutoff. Out west those pumps have a sealing cuff to prevent vapor from escaping and could easily be tripped before the tank is really at the top. My old car, a Mercury, could take 4-5 more gallons after the first time the pump tripped off.

Originally posted by Sea Ray
Sounds like my next trip anywhere will be at 60 mph! If you can duplicate this it would sure help make everyone a believer.

thats another thing I forgot to mention. I would like for someone to do this. Drive it for 100 miles on a freeway both directions. Use cruisecontrol like I did.

Also if this matters when I had to speed up or slow down I rarely hit the brakes or the gas, instead I used pressed the cruise control either up or down to increase or decrease the speed. Its actually quite easy to do this and probably saved some gas. In situations where I did have to pass someone or had to slow down quicker I hit the gas/brakes.

I did this for a reason. I wanted to know for myself about the gas mileage. I was driving like a granny, but I think MOST of the problems people have with gas mileage are due to the way they drive it. Some may have engine issues, I dont know.

Originally posted by beachdog
zerobanger, sorry for being cynical, but I 'd like to see you duplicate the performance. since you don't top off the tank, you could be off. Different gas pumps have differnet sensitivities for the auto cutoff. Out west those pumps have a sealing cuff to prevent vapor from escaping and could easily be tripped before the tank is really at the top. My old car, a Mercury, could take 4-5 more gallons after the first time the pump tripped off.

again, the needle in the car was in the same position. Anytime I have ever "topped" off my rx7 it was ounces of gas before it overflowed. Again, I got 26 MPG the first time, 30 the second. The 2nd time was a lower RPM.

Dont take my word for it, one of you guys should try it.

I think when you'e filling so few gallons (only 3) you're susceptible to a much larger margin of error than when you're filling 10+ gallons. I don't mean to burst your bubble either but I don't think experiment proved anything.

It's like shooting 2 free throws and making both, then proclaiming yourself a 100% free throw shooter. Now try and shoot a 100 free throws and tell me you made 100 in a row. A larger sample size will always produce more accurate data.

I thinkposts like these that peoplemake about getting high mpg are redudant anduseless. OFCOURSE you guys are going to get great mileage when youdrive 100% highway on atank. Thats the same storyw/all cars. What Im still waitingto see is someone get 18 mpg or more w/100% city mileage. Who caresabout these great tanks you guysget out of highway miles? I didntbuy this Rx8 to drive it all over the freeway did I? Hell no!!If anything Im tryingto show it off in the city. Iappologize for sounding like an assholeif I am but I am tired of seeing these high mpg posts thatare just b/c of highway miles and nothing on the terrible pathetic mpgyou get when you drive in city all thetime like me.

thats got nothing to do with it, if he used 3.15 gallons, then he used 3.15 gallons.

3.15 is 3.15 any way you cut it.

Originally posted by P00Man
thats got nothing to do with it, if he used 3.15 gallons, then he used 3.15 gallons.

3.15 is 3.15 any way you cut it.


Based on your thinking if I were to coast down hill for 30 miles, fill in 1/2 gallon of gas, and say that I got 60 MPG...you'd agree with that too I assume LOL.

There is actually scientific data that validates the premise behind probability and statistical sampling. You can believe what you want about this little experiment but I think most will agree it proved little if anything at all.

The point is we can always skew the results by testing under the most favorable conditions. Most of us aren't interested in hand-picked results in a "controlled" environement.

Originally posted by i3man
I think when you'e filling so few gallons (only 3) you're susceptible to a much larger margin of error than when you're filling 10+ gallons. I don't mean to burst your bubble either but I don't think experiment proved anything.

It's like shooting 2 free throws and making both, then proclaiming yourself a 100% free throw shooter. Now try and shoot a 100 free throws and tell me you made 100 in a row. A larger sample size will always produce more accurate data.

You make no sense. I drove my car 89 miles the first time at one RPM and drove my car 95.2 miles the next time at a lower RPM.

It not like I said "Hey Im gonna fill up at 3.15 gallons". 95 miles is MORE than enough freeway miles to make an accurate sample of what the car is capable of interms of Miles per gallon.

Also, I have no idea what you are talking about with a "margine of error". it doesn't matter. I drove the car so many miles, filled it up and got my results. Its a fair test and your theory is flawed.

Originally posted by JeRKy 8 Owner
I thinkposts like these that peoplemake about getting high mpg are redudant anduseless. OFCOURSE you guys are going to get great mileage when youdrive 100% highway on atank. Thats the same storyw/all cars. What Im still waitingto see is someone get 18 mpg or more w/100% city mileage. Who caresabout these great tanks you guysget out of highway miles? I didntbuy this Rx8 to drive it all over the freeway did I? Hell no!!If anything Im tryingto show it off in the city. Iappologize for sounding like an assholeif I am but I am tired of seeing these high mpg posts thatare just b/c of highway miles and nothing on the terrible pathetic mpgyou get when you drive in city all thetime like me.

what do you consider city? If your in stop and go driving constantly, then yes you will get 14 MPG. Most of us do combination city/highway. When I drive to work for example its city/highway 18 miles each way. I get 19 MPG. I'm VERY happy with it.

I take my car and drive it crazy I get 16-17 MPG. I'm still happy with it. I posted this because I have seen many people post that they get 12-14 MPG no matter how they drive the car. Also, I was not aware that others were getting such great gas mileage or i would have not posted this.

Alright fine. You are MILEAGE KING. Sorry for trying to be a voice of reason. No further responses from me in this thread.

Originally posted by i3man
Based on your thinking if I were to coast down hill for 30 miles, fill in 1/2 gallon of gas, and say that I got 60 MPG...you'd agree with that too I assume LOL.

There is actually scientific data that validates the premise behind probability and statistical sampling. You can believe what you want about this little experiment but I think most will agree it proved little if anything at all.

The point is we can always skew the results by testing under the most favorable conditions. Most of us aren't interested in hand-picked results in a "controlled" environement.

Im not trying to be a dick, but again I did not coast down a hill for 30 minutes and fill it up. If read my post, the first time was mostlly down hill and I got 26 mpg. The second one was 95 miles of up and down, it was more like peaks and valleys with no steep hills or decents.

I only did this to see if the EPA numbers are correct and according to my tests it gets better than the 24 or 25 MPG the epa rated it highway.

Originally posted by P00Man
thats got nothing to do with it, if he used 3.15 gallons, then he used 3.15 gallons.

3.15 is 3.15 any way you cut it. No, you're wrong and I3man is right. Everything is subject to error; the trick is to minimize errors so they are no longer significant. This is a basic premise of statistics, and if you don't know or understand this you should not be trying to do statistics. And yes, MPG is a statistic.

here's why 3.15 is not always 3.15. Did he fill his tank to the EXACT, PRECISE same level it was previously? The answer is no, he probably came close and he may have come close enough not to matter much, but it is never exact.

Let's say the level AFTER filling was 0.2 gal less than before making the run. It's a function of temperature, ground terrain, nozzle configuration, and probably other variables. Let's also say he burned 13 gallons on the run. So the error introduced by the fill level is 0.2/13 or 1.5 percent. Now let's say he made the same 0.2 gal error with a fillup of 3.15 gal. Now the error is 6.4 percent. The error is 4 times more significant with the same 0.2 gal mistake. Now, further add in speedo error which we all know is there, maybe a pump calibration error, and the next thing you know you think you got 26 mpg when you really got 21. Most of the error could be eliminated by running a larger tankful, i.e. running it to almost empty. That is by far the largest variable in the equation.

I agree with I3man, this is too small a data sample to get excited about. Now if a few people replicated it then maybe we're onto something. But it's safe to say between forum participants we've had many thousands of fillups under countless conditions and this is one of the first to report this, on a downhill run. He probably got better-than-average mileage, but without that average wouldn't be average.

Originally posted by zerobanger
Im not trying to be a dick, but again I did not coast down a hill for 30 minutes and fill it up. If read my post, the first time was mostlly down hill and I got 26 mpg. The second one was 95 miles of up and down, it was more like peaks and valleys with no steep hills or decents.

I only did this to see if the EPA numbers are correct and according to my tests it gets better than the 24 or 25 MPG the epa rated it highway.

Don't let if get you down there are a lot of people who get some kind of thrill over correcting people and trying to prove someone wrong and this forum is filled with them.

I do however agree that to have more accurate results you should fill after an empty tank and recalculate.

King..

I have absolutely no doubt that If I drove the entire 230 miles and re-filled up I would not have substained that 30 MPG, because I hit some traffic later. had I kept cruising the entire time It would have been close.

as I mentioned in the beginning of this thread my first fillup was with a full tank when I made it 230 miles and I got 23 MPG. that was going up hill most of the way and hitting some bad traffic. those #'s are identical to my FD's.

Considering my FD gets 25 MPG doing the entire 230 Mile trip back, I would guess the rx8 will be similar ..maybe 26 MPG.

I just did this to demonstrate under semi-optimal conditions what the car is capable of. I hope someone else does this test also.

I take your word...

Zerobanger how did you break-in your rx-8 ?
How many miles do you have on it ?

well this is my 3rd rotary car so Im used to rotaries, bad gas mileage is no big deal to me, lol.

for the first 700 miles I drove the car from 3000-5500 RPM on the highway and kept varying the rpms. I would not let the car stay at any RPM for more than a minute or so, then I would downshift.

I also did some stop and go. I never did a full throttle launch and never redlined it. I hit 7000 by accident once or twice.

after the 700 miles I slowly broke in 6000 RPM, then 7000 and then 8500 and finally 9500 rpm.

after about 900 miles I pushed the car really hard on a really winding road around me. I redlined the car, kept in the high rpms in the twisy's really pushing it hard.

I have 1528 miles right now.

I bought the car Dec 30 with 24 miles on the odometer.

Originally posted by kingcar
Don't let if get you down there are a lot of people who get some kind of thrill over correcting people and trying to prove someone wrong and this forum is filled with them.

I do however agree that to have more accurate results you should fill after an empty tank and recalculate. king, none of us are getting a thrill trying to prove him wrong. Personally, misuse of statistics just jacks me the wrong way anywhere I see it (and I see it everywhere.) That, plus there is so much rumor, innuendo, and false starts on this forum that someone has to try to put things into perspective. My intention is not to argue with Banger or convince him he's wrong, but there are others less informed that, for lack of a dissenting viewpoint, might read his post and conclude it is gospel. It ain't.

Banger concludes with "I hope someone else does this test also." Come on, dude. Many of us have had our cars for six months. Do you think you are the first to try this? Or that your run was unique in some way? You're not, and it wasn't. While the results you posted aren't impossible, they are exceedingly improbable, there are other explanations vastly more likely considering the hundreds of thousands of fillups that have occured with the '8. This isn't a "me vs you" thing, but if you're putting out one possible side of a story, many readers would benefit from hearing other possible sides. And not accepting as "fact" that which is opinion or slim possibility.

8_wannabe, Please dont call me "Banger". Thanks.

You know what? Screw it. Keep your miserable 14 MPG cause you dont know how to drive it. This is my 3rd rotary powered car, its nothing new to me.

I'm getting canzoomers mod done to my car in about 2-3 weeks. I do plan to take it to the track and do a before and after and post the results, but screw it now. I'm sure my test will be flawed cause its not perfect humidity or something. I dont like the reception I am getting.

I'm fine that some of you dont think its valid. One last time, my point was to prove that the car is capable of the EPA's estimate.

Forget it, I dont care any more.

WHO DRIVES 60?

Originally posted by Doug Green
WHO DRIVES 60?
Exactly. I know that if I drive a constant 65-70, no matter the vehicle, I'm gonna get good mileage. I've gotten tot he point where I just don't care about the mileage. if I drove the car daily, and had todrive more than 10 miles a day, then I'd worry about it. I know that I'm lucky in that respect to be able to keep my 8 garaged until the weekend, or at least when the weather and road conditions allow. :)

Originally posted by zerobanger
8_wannabe, Please dont call me "Banger". Thanks.
No offense intended. I truncate everyone's name here and didn't want to call you Zero. That sounded disrespectful. But as you wish... How about ZB?

zerobanger cmon calling out 8 _wannabe for calling you Banger? it's part of your userid. if you take offense to that maybe you shouldnt have Banger in your name to begin with. you called kingcar "king" so what goes around comes around. pick your battles. BTW you can call me GR8 ;)

Originally posted by RX-GR8
zerobanger cmon calling out 8 _wannabe for calling you Banger? it's part of your userid. if you take offense to that maybe you shouldnt have Banger in your name to begin with. you called kingcar "king" so what goes around comes around. pick your battles. BTW you can call me GR8 ;)

what a dumbass you are. I told him not to call me banger and he responded decent to my request. For the 16 year old kids like you that are too stupid to figure it out, "ZeroBanger" means my car has no cylinders.

and yes, "Zero", "ZB", "Zerobanger" is fine with me. And I will not be calling you anything.

wow dude chill the hell out 0
can i call ya 0
because that is how old you are acting right about now, no one on this forum is acting like they are 16, except maybe you.

wannabe truncated your name for eas of use, he wasnt doing it to be disrespectful, he even replied with respect to the fact that you dont want to be called banger, so here is some advice rather than coming here to flame people for thier opionions, dont post, come read what others have to say.

and yes if you are going to do statistics atleast do it with a full to empty tank and do it about 5-10 times and compare the results.

um yea ok. i'm 46 not 16. i knew zerobanger meant no cylinders thus there is no need to get offended by him saying Banger and i won't stoop to your level and start calling you names like you did to me after 1 post. you obviously can't take constructive criticism very well. i was just trying to make peace.

Originally posted by idle0ne
wow dude chill the hell out 0
can i call ya 0
because that is how old you are acting right about now, no one on this forum is acting like they are 16, except maybe you.

wannabe truncated your name for eas of use, he wasnt doing it to be disrespectful, he even replied with respect to the fact that you dont want to be called banger, so here is some advice rather than coming here to flame people for thier opionions, dont post, come read what others have to say.

and yes if you are going to do statistics atleast do it with a full to empty tank and do it about 5-10 times and compare the results.

can you read? Obviously not. I said wannab's response was respectful when I said I prefer Zero. Let me quote for you.I told him not to call me banger and he responded decent to my request

I dont need your advice.

Originally posted by idle0ne
...if you are going to do statistics at least do it with a full to empty tank and do it about 5-10 times and compare the results. My point exactly. Will you take offense if I call you Idle? :)

Zero but at the same time you started saying people were acting 16 when in fact you are the only one doing so

wannabe calle me whatever you want idle IDAL i could give a shit as long as i can tell it is directed to me ;)

Originally posted by zerobanger
can you read? Obviously not. I said wannab's response was respectful when I said I prefer Zero. Let me quote for you.I told him not to call me banger and he responded decent to my request

I dont need your advice.


watch it man he might get mad you mis-spelled his name or something ;)

Originally posted by idle0ne
watch it man he might get mad you mis-spelled his name or something ;)

LOL :D

Where's MikeB when you need him? We need a one liner to ease the tension. ;)

oh yeah, I didn't notice that. Hey banger, now I'm good and pissed. You misspelled my name! (ok ok, I'm joking...)

Wannabe(may i call you wannabe?) you're on your own from now on. ;)

"They can call me anything they want as long as they call me." (quote from some movie star or other.) Anyway, that's cool. I'm goin' to bed now anyway. Nighty nite.

Later

Originally posted by zerobanger
It not like I said "Hey Im gonna fill up at 3.15 gallons". 95 miles is MORE than enough freeway miles to make an accurate sample of what the car is capable of interms of Miles per gallon.


Not quite. I agree that the 95 miles is enough. It's the 3.15 that is suspect. Different pumps pumping at different rates will cut off differently. The tilt on the concrete pad that your 8 is sitting on makes a difference too. A fast pump could easily shut off 1/2 gallon before the norm - 3.65 would give you good mileage, but not spectacular mileage like you claim.

You can call me Hot, no problem! But don't you dare call me Pot!

Originally posted by 8_wannabe
"They can call me anything they want as long as they call me." (quote from some movie star or other.) Anyway, that's cool. I'm goin' to bed now anyway. Nighty nite.

Sounds like a Woody Allen line.

Whatever this post was about, it has degenerated into something akin to silly name-calling, he said no they said stream of useless words.

How about this NO ONE is 100% right!

The math and statistics students here know that there was no valid sample taken to get the MPG stated. Instead they are just playing the possibilities of errors to get the numbers stated, etc.

Those that argue they 'know' they did the right thing, the right way and think their results are OK, are in a world where many people live... blissful ignorance. Apparently logic and reason, science and common sense aren't playing any rule here abouts with some.

Can we close this thread now? :p

Well, that's what happens to your thread when you have an attitude problem.
Close it now!

Crikey people, take a deep calming breath of fresh air.

Things sure did degenerate pretty quickly!

Zerobanger came in here trying to add something to the community. He wasn't being a smartass, or approaching this in any kind of an insulting way. I think the point he was trying to make was that he thinks he managed to well exceed the EPA numbers for a relatively short trip. He obviously understands that this isn't conclusive or he wouldn't be asking anyone else to try the same thing.

Now fair enough if you want to come into the thread and point out that his trip was too short, and there was too much margin for error for the numbers to be believable. I'm sure that's why ZB wanted to see if other people could reproduce what he got.

Fine so up to this point we've stayed reasonably civil. Then someone called him 'banger' which he asked them not to do. Fair enough as I can see 'banger' being an insulting term to some people. The person who called him 'banger' said no worries, and has stopped doing so. Now people are jumping all over him for asking for a different abbreviation of his forum name. Is that really necessary? Can we not just leave it where it should have ended a page or so ago? Crikey!

So getting back on topic, that sounds very interesting, ZB. Worth trying to reproduce anyway eh? I've typically used cruise control at 73 as I figured that would mazimise my speed/mpg ratio. At 73, I'm sitting on 3700 rpms. At 3750 rpms the second port opens up, and I figure the mpg will take a hit at that point. So, I want to be able to travel as fast as I can, and still get good mileage. I would definitely consider cruising at 60 for some trips to get that sort of mileage however! I might give it a shot this weekend if I get any highway time in and see how it goes.

Interesting, yes. Conclusive, no. Worth trying to repeat, sure.

Not that it matters much for me... I'd get run off the road if I tried going 60 on my commute.

I blame Bush.

Originally posted by aussie77
I've typically used cruise control at 73 as I figured that would mazimise my speed/mpg ratio. At 73, I'm sitting on 3700 rpms. At 3750 rpms the second port opens up, and I figure the mpg will take a hit at that point. I almost forgot... this thread is about MPG. So, question for aussie (or should I say "77"?) I tried out your theory, firmly believing it to be true. I religiously stayed below 3750 for weeks. Know what? It made zero difference. Now I ignore the port opening points and get exactly the same mileage as before. Intuitively you would think it matters, but is there any empirical evidence for it? I get 16.5-16.8 on every tank regardless of my cruising speed, octane level, TSC, etc. None of this stuff seems to make the slightest difference. The ONLY thing I have seen that seems to matter is how much of your driving is hiway vs city. There is a very good thread somewhere here with detailed statistical analysis to back that up.

lol should we have jumped ZB's case i think we should have he started insulting people saying they were acting like they were 16 blah blah, i understand he didnt want to be called banger thats fine... But he souldnt have started insulting people and maybe they would not have jumped his shit.

Originally posted by idle0ne
lol should we have jumped ZB's case i think we should have he started insulting people saying they were acting like they were 16 blah blah, i understand he didnt want to be called banger thats fine... I dunno, I thought maybe my posts were too pissy so I went back and looked and they were all pretty cool. I was trying to present a methodical case for using statistics, not emotion, when discussing mpg. I didn't say anything outa line. Then ZD took issue with me calling him banger and I really didn't mean anything by it, but when he said that it was just asking for trouble...

I usually treat people respectfully online. The two main things that set me off: People insulting me first (even then I can have a sense of humor) and the other is bragging about illegal street racing. I seen too many teddy bear and balloon shrines lining our streets with posters saying "Jean we miss you, how could this happen to such a good friend" so I no longer have a sense of humor about that stuff.

See, this is exactly why this forum is pepered with Bad comments and Bad reviews of the car. Anytime someone posted some better than average result he/she gets jumped on just because it is "better than average".

Come on, all ZB was saying is he managed to get 30 Mpg in one of his trips and then he provided some details about it, that's all ! He is not trying to prove the RX-8 can always do 30 MPG. All he is is saying is for 95 miles on his return trip from Reno, he managed to averaged 30 mpg and he is quite happy about it.

Seriously guys lighten up !

Originally posted by Smoker
All he is is saying is for 95 miles on his return trip from Reno, he managed to averaged 30 mpg and he is quite happy about it.

Seriously guys lighten up !

OMG 30.22 mpg is not equal to the above.

His post header as well as his initial info is just plain ludicrous reading to begin with to those who have been sensitized by all the MPG craziness here on the forum. OBVIOUSLY many are going to rag on him and then the cat fight begins, taking sides, etc. such as this thread SO PERFECTLY exemplifies.

Then his comment, "There is no mistake and no miscalculation." (really?! I can think of several.)
is likely the icing on the cake that everyone is willing to bite on (I did).

What he REALLY (should have) said is:

'OMG - I, through a series of emperical measurements which have no standard of accuracy, I was then able to assemble numbers so that when calculated as though they would provide true MPG, instead gave me this ludicrous number 30.22!! How bitching is that bro! ... hehehe... cause I got me one special car and one special way of driving it and that's the truth."

My apologies to zerobanger for the rag, but the rag is well deserved IMO. At LEAST you could have repeated the test a few times YOURSELF before bothering to clutterup the forum with what appears to be useless info.

Bottom line (you've heard it before)...

If it's too good to be true, it isn't true!

I got a speeding ticket yesterday. Maybe I should try to set my cc to 60. :-(

I'll give it a try, it'll be tough with everyone going 80 mph.

This thread is truly great entertainment, please keep it going.

I challenged anyone on the UK forum I would deliver a drink of their choice to their door if they could really achieve 30mpg - and thats UK gallons, which I think is something like 26 mpg US. It just looks impossible. OK if I took it out of gear and rolled 200 miles down a convenient hill I might but I would class that as cheating.
Stats rule. If I worked out 30mpg I would KNOW I couldnt have filled it right up on the subsequent refill, thus voiding my calculation.

JH

Well on this last tank i really let it rip. 1st 2nd and 3rd gear redline shifts whenever possible. no running in 6th gear, usually staying in 4th even at highway speeds just to play with the power available from 5k to 9k and to see how bad my mileage would be. a few times running in 5th on the highway at 65-70 mph. 173 miles on 14.18 gallons for my lowest mileage ever on this car- 12.2 mpg!! hehehe. it was alot of fun and worth every penny so on this tank i am going to shift no later than 3500 in each gear and try to get to 6th as soon as possible every time,so at about 45 mph and above. ill let you know what i get this time.

Betcha can't do it :)

You guys are the biggest ass-holes I have ever seen in my life. I posted this about a test that I did. I am 100 pct confident that my calculations were correct and I did achieve that miles per gallon. I have been attacked for no reason. This was posted because so many of you bitch about your mileage and just maybe a little bit of encouragement would help.

Everyone gets on my case cause I told WannaB that I don't not to call me banger. So I posted this:

"8_wannabe, Please dont call me "Banger". Thanks."


He responded:

No offense intended. I truncate everyone's name here and didn't want to call you Zero. That sounded disrespectful. But as you wish... How about ZB?


At this point I had no problems. My request NOT to be called "BANGER" was not said in a mean way. He obviously agreed.

at this point,

RX-GR8 comes on with this post:


zerobanger cmon calling out 8 _wannabe for calling you Banger? it's part of your userid. if you take offense to that maybe you shouldnt have Banger in your name to begin with. you called kingcar "king" so what goes around comes around. pick your battles. BTW you can call me GR8

Where the hell did I "CALL OUT" 8_wannabe ? I corrected him he responded fine to it. Now i'm the bad guy?

This forum is a joke. 95 pct of you are a bunch of jack-asses.

Originally posted by zerobanger
This forum is a joke. 95 pct of you are a bunch of jack-asses. How did you calculate that 95 percent? I checked and keep coming up with something like 87.6. :mad:

ROTFLMAO!!! :D :D :D

Originally posted by zerobanger
This forum is a joke. 95 pct of you are a bunch of jack-asses.
It's called sarcasm, Banger.....I mean Zero.....I mean Mr Zerobanger Sir. Sorry, j/k. ;)

Everyone's having a bit of fun at your expense. Don't take it so seriously.

I got 22.7mpg my last tank in roughly 70% city driving, 20% snow driving, and 10% highway/country roads. Anyone want to flame me too?

i got 1MPG off road, had to call a towtruck haha

Originally posted by idle0ne
i got 1MPG off road, had to call a towtruck haha Take that snowplow off the front end. It's messing you all up. ;)

LOL

This has turned into an immature flame war. Guys, stop being so obnoxious to each other.