You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access
to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to start new topics, reply to conversations, privately message other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join RX8Club.com today!
i have been hearing alot of talk about the rx-8 and its poor gas mileage. i have a few views on this matter.
the car i owned before this was a 92 lexus sc400. the 4.0 liter v8 loved gas, and under spirited driving i would get about 12-15mpg so i know what shitty gas mileage feels like. given that its a v8 and i have a heavy right foot i didnt expect much more. maybe that's why i feel like the sub 20mpg tanks are not too bad. i am THANKFUL that i am not driving a gas pig SUV like an excursion, getting 8-10 mpg, wasting all the world's fossil fuels and not having ANY FUN WHATESOEVER driving the car. even if my 8 got 10 mpg, i think i would still drive it everywhere. its just so fun that bad gas mileage does not really deter me at all.
i like to think of it this way. my baby works hard to give me an awesome driving experience, and she gets kinda thirsty. but she earns her fuel, and i would never deny a sip of some petrol to her!
This ad is not displayed to registered and logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on RX8Club.com!
I'm totally with you in your observation. I have driven a Honda Civic that got 33 mpg, a full-size 4x4 Chevy Blazer that started with 9 mpg, and after some tweaking I got it all the way up to 14 mpg.
My RX-8 gives me the BSM.
(Best Satisfaction per Mile)
It has been worth every ounce of petrol she has drank.
Blue GT 6 Speed - Picked up 7/17/03 - 1st Pre-Order Group **SOLD 5/07 to move to Australia**
First, I don't think most SUVs get 8-10. I don't own SUVs, but do have 2 Trucks (one 3/4 ton Chevy Gas V8 350cu in, and one Ford Turbo Diesel).
The Gas truck gets about 15 MPG city (actually not much variation City vs Hiway, maybe 17MPG Hiway). The Ford gets around 13 MPG even when hauling a 16,000 lb Trailer.
Second, I don't mind too much getting 16-17 MPG in the RX, what I hate is having to get gas every other day.
At least with the trucks, they have 30+ gallon tanks. I only need to get gas every 5-6 days.
Yes the RX is fun to drive. I just wish it had a 20 gallon tank.
I had a rental Ford Escape (SUV) for a week and got 23 mpg out of it. City and highway driving.
I'm sorry, but there is not much of an excuse for the Renesis engine - it simply is not fuel efficient. Maybe this is because more engineers world wide work on piston engines so more advances have been made there.
Black RX-8 MT, GT package, mp3 Player, *9-16-2003
Yeah, and the piston engine has been worked on for how long? At least Mazda has made improvements in mileage. If you look at the fuel efficiency of SUV and trucks, it's been going down. Furthermore, if someone can tweak their mpg up 50% on their Chevy then that just tells you how lazy some of these companies are when designing their SUV's. They could easy design their SUV's to be more fuel efficient. BTW the top ten gas-guzzlers last year included 3 Chevy's, along with one Lamborghini and two Ferraris.
My whole point is that Mazda stuck with this great technology despite the difficulty of doing it alone (besides having financial difficulty), and they still managed to make great strides (who knows, maybe their hydrogen rotary will be adopted in the future). It's what makes them unique.
HOWEVER, think of it this way. The old NA 13B posted the same mileage with 160 bhp as the RENESIS does with 238 bhp.
So, theoretically, the RENESIS is a huge leap forward in fuel consumption.
How about we detune our engine down to 160 bhp and get 30 mpg !!!!!!!! Yeah, that's what I thought. Suck it up and deal - it's a great car.
1994 Mazda RX-7 Twin Turbo (SOLD May 08)
2004 Mazda RX-8 Silver/Red GT (SOLD Jan 07)
2002 Subaru WRX sport wagon (SOLD Apr 08)
2008 Cosmic Blue Mazdaspeed3 sport
(MazdaSpeed CAI and CPE rear engine mount)
2005 Saab 9-2X Aero - RESURRECTED w/ new motor !
The problem is that the advertised MPG is not being reached by the cast majority of people. If the advertidsed MPG was 16 then you know what you are getting, but that clearly is not the case. I simply do not believe anyone that samys they get 20+ mpg (unless it is >90% highway). The most you get on a tank is around 200-225 miles. That is pitiful. And Godforbid if you actually do run it hard...boy you can watch the needle move down and never go back up. Even if you drive like a granny 20+mpg is near impossible. So why should we leave the MPG issue alone? If we had that view on the HP issue nothing would have come about. There is simply something wrong with either the stated MPG by Mazda or the ECU chip because fuel consumption does not match-up.
Originally posted by Goldenhue22 The problem is that the advertised MPG is not being reached by the cast majority of people.
Even if you drive like a granny 20+mpg is near impossible.
stated MPG by Mazda or the ECU chip because fuel consumption does not match-up.
a few comments..
- it seems right that the majority does not reach the advertised mpg but isn't that the case with every car? Those 24 mpg are under ideal conditions.
- I got 21 mpg twice so far, but indeed I drive 96% highway.
BTW, I found that stoplight racing and idling the car in the morning to warm up lowered the mpg
- the MPG is NOT stated by Mazda but by EPA. At least I *believe* that EPA does its own measuring and not just print what Mazda gives them.
Having said that, I think that even 30 mpg is not a great number. That's why I posted that link on the Opel Eco Speedster. That little thing weighs ~ 1500 pounds, has a 1.3 l engine and gets the 113 mpg and it looks ******* cool. Did you see the flipup doors???
<b>Car manufacturers just tell us bullshit when they say they cannot do better.</b>
Too bad its just a prototype.
Back on the RX-8. Those ppl who get 13 mpg, my take is that they really have a physical defect and the dealer should recognize it. If I had known that such cases exist, I would have never bought an RX-8!!! I drive 100 miles a day to work. Do the math @ 13 mpg that's 8 gallons = $16 just to go to work.
I WAS LUCKY. I got an RX-8 that doesn't have this defect.
It might have been a bad week when they built those bad ones. We should compare VIN - the last 5 digits are given out incremental.
Black RX-8 MT, GT package, mp3 Player, *9-16-2003
From my readings and observations over the past months, I've gotten the distinct impression that Mazda's non-optimal tuning (running extremely rich) of the ECU is the culprit for the two "issues" with engine performance (i.e., both MPG and HP metrics). I recommend y'all pop over to the thread in which Canzoomer provides updates on his research...
That being said, I can see how folks might take the strict approach of being dissatisfied with MPG and HP not being "as advertised" (that's what got Canzoomer going in the first place!) There are obviously also a lot of drivers who find the driving experience relegates the HP and MPG issues into the "noise" (i.e., they become non-issues).
For me, I still plan to purchase one ofthese wonderful cars within the next few months. I'm unconvinced that the MPG or HP issues are either irreconcilable or unsolvable.
it seems right that the majority does not reach the advertised mpg but isn't that the case with every car? Those 24 mpg are under ideal conditions.
Maybe so, but what is an ideal condition. I regularly shift between 3.5 and 5 and consistantly get approx 16-17 MPG. I don't run it hard, hell I've never heard the "beep" and I don't stoplight race. I have 1200 miles on the car, live in the suburbs of ChiTown where the weather has been 60-70 degrees. Something isn't right. Now I'm not gonna sell the car back BUT I also think something needs to be done. I'll check that ECU research link later tonight. I got to go to work now.
weird... i got 240 mpg and my car was living in 6-9k rpms, my shift points were at 5-6
I'm sorry to say that I am very leery about that. We both have the same car (supposedly) and if your car is living at the 6-9K range and you say that you are getting 240 miles, then it must bt with >80% highway. No? Man if I took it up to 6-9K all the time I would have a hard time breaking 180 miles on a tank. I know the powerband is supposed to be linear, but I'm finding that if I "hit it" and go 6-7K then the car really has a lot of boost and moves very fast. However if I keep it at 3-5K the car barely feels like it is moving and has a hard time keeping up with a Caravan. I know it is off topic so I'll stop now.