Gas $3.98/gallon. Death to the rotary?
02-29-2012, 11:39 AM
#76
Registered
But you are right. The renesis, compared to previous rotary engines, has a better "MPG"
Finally, somebody makes an intelligent comment on that issue.
02-29-2012, 11:46 AM
#77
Isn’t the CAFÉ mileage requirement suppose to be applied as an average across the models in the brand? This is so trucks, Mustangs, and Corvettes can still be in a car company’s line up. They are not going anywhere. I agree with the above postings that it is the emissions standards that are the snag with the rotary. This is not going to be fixed anytime soon because Mazda pulled the funding for the 16X rotary project at the start of the economic down turn. So the Eight is it for now folks.
things could still be going on behind the scene, no one knows for sure.
02-29-2012, 11:49 AM
#78
remember it took mazda 6-7 years to come up with the SkyActiv we're seeing today. and it's based on stuff that lots of people already know by now. so u never know what they can come up with on the next rotary.
its not gonna reach 40 mpg, at least not with Cast Iron Rotors. but who knows? if they're willing to use Aluminum side and int housing (which is pretty f-king costly). maybe they will go for Aluminum Rotors too.
02-29-2012, 12:25 PM
#79
Last to the Finish line
My FJ gets better gas mileage and its fulltime 4x4 and shaped like a wall haha but what ever I like my 8 and would only rid myself of it for a 7 hahaha which is obviously worse in some cases..
02-29-2012, 01:33 PM
#80
02-29-2012, 01:33 PM
#81
Registered
remember it took mazda 6-7 years to come up with the SkyActiv we're seeing today. and it's based on stuff that lots of people already know by now. so u never know what they can come up with on the next rotary.
its not gonna reach 40 mpg, at least not with Cast Iron Rotors. but who knows? if they're willing to use Aluminum side and int housing (which is pretty f-king costly). maybe they will go for Aluminum Rotors too.
its not gonna reach 40 mpg, at least not with Cast Iron Rotors. but who knows? if they're willing to use Aluminum side and int housing (which is pretty f-king costly). maybe they will go for Aluminum Rotors too.
You know how people's mind operate. They would be willing to spend more money on a car that has a better MPG. This is why many people buy Hybrids - for example.
So...if the next rotary as a significant MPG improvement, I people would still buy them even if the overall price of the car is higher by comparison.
02-29-2012, 01:57 PM
#82
Momentum Keeps Me Going
"NOVEMBER 1973 - MARCH 1975 (16 months) The 1970s oil crisis really hit hard... Prices of gasoline quadrupled, rising from just 25 cents to over a $1.00 in just "
Last edited by Spin9k; 02-29-2012 at 02:00 PM.
02-29-2012, 02:47 PM
#83
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Roselle, NJ
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piston engine development evolves very quickly, especially when manufacturers get behind a singular ideal, and that ideal right now is efficiency. I wouldn't be surprised if we see 40-50 mpg average in ten years. Combine that with hybrid powertrains and we may see up to 100 mpg. We need more rotary engine development.
02-29-2012, 03:05 PM
#84
Piston engine development evolves very quickly, especially when manufacturers get behind a singular ideal, and that ideal right now is efficiency. I wouldn't be surprised if we see 40-50 mpg average in ten years. Combine that with hybrid powertrains and we may see up to 100 mpg. We need more rotary engine development.
But dont forget there was a time when rotary engine actually does better than pistons in both power and mpg. But as manufacturing process evolves, that advantage died down quickly.
Not to mention mazda is the only company thats still working on it, pretty impressive already
02-29-2012, 03:29 PM
#85
If I can get one of the 5 best handling cars in the world for the price of a Camry, I don't care what mileage it gets. I'm in.
02-29-2012, 06:39 PM
#87
Hard to killl something that's already dead, no? Only 2011 leftovers still at the dealers for sale. But yea, Mazda would have a hard, nay nearly impossible time marketing a 2012 it today if they re-introed one with current rotary EPA numbers. Same thing happened to the rotary in the 70's when...
"NOVEMBER 1973 - MARCH 1975 (16 months) The 1970s oil crisis really hit hard... Prices of gasoline quadrupled, rising from just 25 cents to over a $1.00 in just "
Now you're just bitching. If you are going to bitch then well... Move closer to work or dump it and get something fun like a <insert some ecobox@40mpg>. BTW though... have you noticed recently the lawsuits of people buying 40..50 or so MPG cars who are not getting anything like that? I would venture it has something to do with reality and physics... as in "there is a certain amount of energy required to do a certain amount of work, and economy cars only increase MPG by sacrificing someting that tilts the equation toward *not doing so much work* to get the mileage up."
True that for most uninitiated rotary buyers, but a ~27/32 mpg rotary? Pretty doubtful, but who knows... so yea the rotary IS DEAD!! is my vote!
"NOVEMBER 1973 - MARCH 1975 (16 months) The 1970s oil crisis really hit hard... Prices of gasoline quadrupled, rising from just 25 cents to over a $1.00 in just "
Now you're just bitching. If you are going to bitch then well... Move closer to work or dump it and get something fun like a <insert some ecobox@40mpg>. BTW though... have you noticed recently the lawsuits of people buying 40..50 or so MPG cars who are not getting anything like that? I would venture it has something to do with reality and physics... as in "there is a certain amount of energy required to do a certain amount of work, and economy cars only increase MPG by sacrificing someting that tilts the equation toward *not doing so much work* to get the mileage up."
True that for most uninitiated rotary buyers, but a ~27/32 mpg rotary? Pretty doubtful, but who knows... so yea the rotary IS DEAD!! is my vote!
02-29-2012, 06:42 PM
#88
Needz moar Mazdaspeed.
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mechanicsville, VA
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which I find appalling. So many people really don't give a crap about their car. So they can market things like the Camry which are just freaking boring.
Regardless, I'll never trade the Rx8, or any car I'm passionate about in on another just because of mpg. I personally value the driving experience much more than worth the added cost to enjoy it.
Besides, as others have stated, we're lucky here in the states for what we pay.
02-29-2012, 06:55 PM
#89
You can ask Ford did Ford GT made any money.
You can ask Audi did R8 made any money.
You can ask even Chevy did Corvette made any money.
You can ask Nissan did GT-R (or Skyline R32-34) made any money
The answer to all of the above would be no, most if not all of them would never be able to break even.
Those cars (old or new) are just there to show the world what they are capable off, it's a marketing tool. If you see a Vette u will know/think of Chevy. U see a Ford GT u think of Ford, see a GT-R u think of Nissan, see a Supra u think of Toyota. etc.
Which I find appalling. So many people really don't give a crap about their car. So they can market things like the Camry which are just freaking boring.
I drive Sonata Hybrid everyday now for work and sometimes I fall asleep cuz it's so lifeless. I left my Rx-8 at my GF's garage so now from time to time when I'm off from work, I take the extra 20 minutes to get to my GF's house, park my Sonata then just drive the Rx-8 home. Need that smile on my face every few days. otherwise I would probably be too pissed about the Sonata and just run it into a wall.
Regardless, I'll never trade the Rx8, or any car I'm passionate about in on another just because of mpg. I personally value the driving experience much more than worth the added cost to enjoy it.
Besides, as others have stated, we're lucky here in the states for what we pay.
Last edited by nycgps; 02-29-2012 at 06:58 PM.
02-29-2012, 07:20 PM
#90
Needz moar Mazdaspeed.
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Mechanicsville, VA
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I know the reasoning behind such boring cars, I just wish it were different.
I mean, honestly, my friend has a Mazda2, and it's actually much more on the fun side than say, mentioned Camry. It shows that even economical cars don't have to put you to sleep driving because they're so boring. People don't NEED a boring car. If you've got the choice between two identical cars, identical cost of ownership all across the board, and one's enjoyable to drive, I just find it insane to pick the other, when that's the only things at hand.
And the people who actively WANT said boring car? That's just unfathomable in my personal mind(Though the people who actively seek being green would probably shed a tear knowing I own two rotaries, with a third soon.)
I guess though, it's all the boring cars that make cars like our's stand out that much more. At least they give us that.
I was forced to drive a Ford Taurus for around a year, between my Mx6 and the Rx8 I own now, and jeez, I'll never go back to that side of the fence.
I mean, honestly, my friend has a Mazda2, and it's actually much more on the fun side than say, mentioned Camry. It shows that even economical cars don't have to put you to sleep driving because they're so boring. People don't NEED a boring car. If you've got the choice between two identical cars, identical cost of ownership all across the board, and one's enjoyable to drive, I just find it insane to pick the other, when that's the only things at hand.
And the people who actively WANT said boring car? That's just unfathomable in my personal mind(Though the people who actively seek being green would probably shed a tear knowing I own two rotaries, with a third soon.)
I guess though, it's all the boring cars that make cars like our's stand out that much more. At least they give us that.
I was forced to drive a Ford Taurus for around a year, between my Mx6 and the Rx8 I own now, and jeez, I'll never go back to that side of the fence.
02-29-2012, 07:48 PM
#91
Oh, I know the reasoning behind such boring cars, I just wish it were different.
I mean, honestly, my friend has a Mazda2, and it's actually much more on the fun side than say, mentioned Camry. It shows that even economical cars don't have to put you to sleep driving because they're so boring. People don't NEED a boring car. If you've got the choice between two identical cars, identical cost of ownership all across the board, and one's enjoyable to drive, I just find it insane to pick the other, when that's the only things at hand.
And the people who actively WANT said boring car? That's just unfathomable in my personal mind(Though the people who actively seek being green would probably shed a tear knowing I own two rotaries, with a third soon.)
I guess though, it's all the boring cars that make cars like our's stand out that much more. At least they give us that.
I was forced to drive a Ford Taurus for around a year, between my Mx6 and the Rx8 I own now, and jeez, I'll never go back to that side of the fence.
I mean, honestly, my friend has a Mazda2, and it's actually much more on the fun side than say, mentioned Camry. It shows that even economical cars don't have to put you to sleep driving because they're so boring. People don't NEED a boring car. If you've got the choice between two identical cars, identical cost of ownership all across the board, and one's enjoyable to drive, I just find it insane to pick the other, when that's the only things at hand.
And the people who actively WANT said boring car? That's just unfathomable in my personal mind(Though the people who actively seek being green would probably shed a tear knowing I own two rotaries, with a third soon.)
I guess though, it's all the boring cars that make cars like our's stand out that much more. At least they give us that.
I was forced to drive a Ford Taurus for around a year, between my Mx6 and the Rx8 I own now, and jeez, I'll never go back to that side of the fence.
Camry is a well established brand. it means "fairly priced car that's SUPER Reliable", and that's one of the MOST important thing MOST buyers consider.
to them, what is boring? Driving is driving, no such thing as boring drive! Driving is boring! So they just go for whatever the crowd is buying. see ? no thinking here. don't even need to !
So what does this mean to Manufactures? it means they don't need to focus too much on "good handling", cuz good handling comes with "cost", so what's the point of creating so many good handling cars when people don't even appreciate it (plus they even bitch the manufacture back and wonder why their cars cost more now!)
Sonata Hybrid I drive now is a good example, it looks good, very roomy inside, gives me very good NYC mpg (if I drive like a grandma I get 32 mpg!) , but it's handling ****-poor handling sucks so bad it's not even funny. it might have something to do with their tires, I have 17K on odo already and will throw them away when I reach 20K. but the body roll on the car is so bad that sometimes I'm afraid of driving faster than 55 mph.
Look at the reviews of some of the Camry-class kind of cars. most of the cons on those cars are "Lifeless steering"
This is also the reason why I love my 8 so much. Gas price? WHAT GAS PRICE? like I said b4 it was like 5 bux a gallon 2-3 years ago I drove 13K that year.
Last edited by nycgps; 02-29-2012 at 07:50 PM.
02-29-2012, 09:54 PM
#93
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado Springs , CO
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently had a Diesel truck stolen and replaced her with my 8 so if Diesel goes to $6 a gallon which would be $160 a tank i am in no position to agree my gas millage on the 8.
just saying
just saying
03-01-2012, 04:53 AM
#94
Registered
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This all is like from another reality to a finnish guy. Our petrol costs about 1,75 euros per litre right now. That is about 8.9 USD per gallon. Now... That might sound like a lot, but you gotta take into consideration that we have one of the strictest new car taxes in the world. That means my car cost about 90.000 USD when it was new.
Frankly, here people who drive RX-8s, don't really care that much about fuel prices.
---and yes, we ARE getting robbed by our government. That is what you get when you want a REAL working public health care.
Frankly, here people who drive RX-8s, don't really care that much about fuel prices.
---and yes, we ARE getting robbed by our government. That is what you get when you want a REAL working public health care.
03-01-2012, 09:13 AM
#95
Momentum Keeps Me Going
You forgot one thing : People don't want to think. It's ALWAYS the less thinking the better.
..
So what does this mean to Manufactures? it means they don't need to focus too much on "good handling", cuz good handling comes with "cost", so what's the point of creating so many good handling cars when people don't even appreciate it (plus they even bitch the manufacture back and wonder why their cars cost more now!)
..
So what does this mean to Manufactures? it means they don't need to focus too much on "good handling", cuz good handling comes with "cost", so what's the point of creating so many good handling cars when people don't even appreciate it (plus they even bitch the manufacture back and wonder why their cars cost more now!)
Get your very own "Ultimate Drivng Machine"! Be 'cool', 'sophisticated', or whatever people believe that means. Customers line up to hand them a big bunch of their disposable income. It's great marketing for sure.
There certainly aren't enthusiasts enough to support BMW so most BMW owners never use that "Ultimate Drivng Machine's" capabilities - any more than the Camry owner who does't care at all. How many times have I followed some newish BMW (or other sporty/powerful car) on the onramp to the interstate and they brake to 30ish to go on the enterance curve, accelerate down the straight part 50ish, brake to go on the leadon ramp to 35-40ish, then FINALLY start to accelerate once they are actually are IN the slow lane -WTH??!! Yup .. yet another guy (girl) who believes their car will FALL RIGHT OVER if they actually went around a curve with any speed, regardless of the cars capabilities!
What Mazda needs is to hook into those well heeled peps who desire good "handling" because it's part of a 'cool car' but don't really use it or even know what it is for the most part. Who thinks the rotary is 'cool' besides us crazys? No one. And certainly Mazda isn't (never has) tried.
Mazda just markets to the (economical minded) young driver or so you'd think from all their ads (cartoons cars movies for SUV, eco cars tearing around the desert, etc.). Nothing upscale about that and so no 'upscale status symbol' profit premium back to Mazda.
Last edited by Spin9k; 03-01-2012 at 09:18 AM.
03-01-2012, 09:26 AM
#96
Also, in this country at least, even many car guys don't care about handling. They want power. Remember, a good 4/5 of the country lies between the coasts where roads extend hundreds of miles, straight as a ruler. (Have you ever driven anywhere within two hours of Chicago?) So why would these drivers want "handling" – or, for that matter, even know what that is? Form follows function; it's no wonder that so many of the great sports cars came from England, German and Italy, where roads actually curve.
Anyone who chooses an RX-8 or a Miata is saying they prize handling over power. And how many car guys in the Midwest and the vast Great Plains are gonna do that? Hell, one of the reasons I left Chicago and moved back here was because I was tired of having to drive over an hour to find a twisty.
Anyone who chooses an RX-8 or a Miata is saying they prize handling over power. And how many car guys in the Midwest and the vast Great Plains are gonna do that? Hell, one of the reasons I left Chicago and moved back here was because I was tired of having to drive over an hour to find a twisty.
Last edited by New Yorker; 03-01-2012 at 09:35 AM.
03-01-2012, 09:49 AM
#97
100% agree with the 'no think' thought lol! BUT - Not always true on the focus on handling part. SOME car makers can actually generate (year over year hugely increasing) sales (and more to the point - PROFIT) from building and selling a "good handling" car. Case in point - BMW - their cars aren't cheap by anyones standards, or even very economical, but they preach (and deliver) on 'good handling' built in. So they invest a bit in 'handling cost' and get a BIG payback from buyers because their NET profit per car is AVERAGE ~$7000!
an entry level 3 Series doesn't cost that much. sure it cost more than a Camry, but if people cared about "handling" that couple thousand wouldn't be that much of a problem. Reliability is an issue.
Get your very own "Ultimate Drivng Machine"! Be 'cool', 'sophisticated', or whatever people believe that means. Customers line up to hand them a big bunch of their disposable income. It's great marketing for sure.
There certainly aren't enthusiasts enough to support BMW so most BMW owners never use that "Ultimate Drivng Machine's" capabilities - any more than the Camry owner who does't care at all. How many times have I followed some newish BMW (or other sporty/powerful car) on the onramp to the interstate and they brake to 30ish to go on the enterance curve, accelerate down the straight part 50ish, brake to go on the leadon ramp to 35-40ish, then FINALLY start to accelerate once they are actually are IN the slow lane -WTH??!! Yup .. yet another guy (girl) who believes their car will FALL RIGHT OVER if they actually went around a curve with any speed, regardless of the cars capabilities!
There certainly aren't enthusiasts enough to support BMW so most BMW owners never use that "Ultimate Drivng Machine's" capabilities - any more than the Camry owner who does't care at all. How many times have I followed some newish BMW (or other sporty/powerful car) on the onramp to the interstate and they brake to 30ish to go on the enterance curve, accelerate down the straight part 50ish, brake to go on the leadon ramp to 35-40ish, then FINALLY start to accelerate once they are actually are IN the slow lane -WTH??!! Yup .. yet another guy (girl) who believes their car will FALL RIGHT OVER if they actually went around a curve with any speed, regardless of the cars capabilities!
What Mazda needs is to hook into those well heeled peps who desire good "handling" because it's part of a 'cool car' but don't really use it or even know what it is for the most part. Who thinks the rotary is 'cool' besides us crazys? No one. And certainly Mazda isn't (never has) tried.
and ppl are so stubborn here. just think about it, some morons still said "SYNTHETIC DOES NOT WORK WITH ROTARY!" and most of them don't even know why how this **** first started. If I'm MNAO I wouldn't bother wasting my breathe on this ****.
Mazda just markets to the (economical minded) young driver or so you'd think from all their ads (cartoons cars movies for SUV, eco cars tearing around the desert, etc.). Nothing upscale about that and so no 'upscale status symbol' profit premium back to Mazda.
Also, in this country at least, even many car guys don't care about handling. They want power. Remember, a good 4/5 of the country lies between the coasts where roads extend hundreds of miles, straight as a ruler. (Have you ever driven anywhere within two hours of Chicago?) So why would these drivers want "handling" – or, for that matter, even know what that is? Form follows function; it's no wonder that so many of the great sports cars came from England, German and Italy, where roads actually curve.
Anyone who chooses an RX-8 or a Miata is saying they prize handling over power. And how many car guys in the Midwest and the vast Great Plains are gonna do that? Hell, one of the reasons I left Chicago and moved back here was because I was tired of having to drive over an hour to find a twisty.
Anyone who chooses an RX-8 or a Miata is saying they prize handling over power. And how many car guys in the Midwest and the vast Great Plains are gonna do that? Hell, one of the reasons I left Chicago and moved back here was because I was tired of having to drive over an hour to find a twisty.
03-01-2012, 10:01 AM
#98
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
To see if there is validity in New Yorker's above statement, I went looking for vehicles by state. Found this report: http://www.nada.org/NR/rdonlyres/079...A_08222011.pdf (website: http://www.nada.org/Publications/NADADATA/2011/default)
Specifically page 17, with some stuff thrown in.
So there is some validity to New Yorker's point.
I also came across this yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry
Specifically the chart showing the size of each manufacturer. BMW is BARELY beating out Mazda in terms of sales. Is BMW really that small? Or is Mazda's size just constantly understated? Certainly the exchange rate is hurting Mazda more than BMW.
Specifically page 17, with some stuff thrown in.
Code:
Data from report (2010 cars in operation by state) My columns, just using passenger cars State Passenger Cars Light Trucks Total % of Total Alabama 2,185,400 2,109,879 4,295,279 1.69% South Alaska 185,506 406,102 591,608 0.14% Pacific Arizona 2,056,596 1,950,883 4,007,479 1.59% Southwest Arkansas 1,025,787 1,238,276 2,264,063 0.79% Midwest California 15,818,947 14,284,532 30,103,479 12.26% Southwest Colorado 1,869,083 2,006,512 3,875,595 1.45% Midwest Connecticut 1,946,771 1,026,802 2,973,573 1.51% Northeast Delaware 414,488 316,451 730,939 0.32% Northeast D.C. 217,076 54,621 271,697 0.17% Northeast Florida 8,067,952 6,507,813 14,575,765 6.25% South Georgia 3,646,720 3,824,313 7,471,033 2.83% South Hawaii 511,929 523,376 1,035,305 0.40% Pacific Idaho 499,878 666,175 1,166,053 0.39% Rockies Illinois 6,241,993 4,621,079 10,863,072 4.84% Midwest Indiana 2,815,718 2,526,691 5,342,409 2.18% Midwest Iowa 1,410,659 1,257,004 2,667,663 1.09% Midwest Kansas 1,177,060 1,135,806 2,312,866 0.91% Midwest Kentucky 1,845,169 1,508,699 3,353,868 1.43% Appalacia Louisiana 1,761,732 2,020,083 3,781,815 1.37% South Maine 590,967 605,129 1,196,096 0.46% Northeast Maryland 2,624,579 1,980,104 4,604,683 2.03% Northeast Massachusetts 3,213,722 2,233,158 5,446,880 2.49% Northeast Michigan 4,879,192 3,984,703 8,863,895 3.78% Midwest Minnesota 2,215,620 2,100,534 4,316,154 1.72% Midwest Mississippi 1,041,331 824,124 1,865,455 0.81% South Missouri 2,505,855 2,399,466 4,905,321 1.94% Midwest Montana 387,248 541,013 928,261 0.30% Midwest Nebraska 734,096 899,049 1,633,145 0.57% Midwest Nevada 860,591 763,343 1,623,934 0.67% Southwest New Hampshire 629,323 595,430 1,224,753 0.49% Northeast New Jersey 4,463,957 2,945,236 7,409,193 3.46% Northeast New Mexico 721,731 869,292 1,591,023 0.56% Southwest New York 7,793,968 5,137,915 12,931,883 6.04% Northeast North Carolina 3,751,660 2,851,158 6,602,818 2.91% South North Dakota 318,770 321,270 640,040 0.25% Midwest Ohio 5,787,607 4,434,601 10,222,208 4.48% Midwest Oklahoma 1,455,926 1,509,200 2,965,126 1.13% Midwest Oregon 1,525,423 1,377,502 2,902,925 1.18% Northwest Pennsylvania 5,827,998 4,224,572 10,052,570 4.52% Northeast Rhode Island 530,918 340,806 871,724 0.41% Northeast South Carolina 1,734,079 1,379,613 3,113,692 1.34% South South Dakota 376,086 437,284 813,370 0.29% Midwest Tennessee 2,569,724 2,089,289 4,659,013 1.99% Appalacia Texas 8,068,323 8,537,303 16,605,626 6.25% Midwest Utah 890,078 896,745 1,786,823 0.69% Rockies Vermont 310,889 288,169 599,058 0.24% Northeast Virginia 3,594,665 2,597,048 6,191,713 2.79% South Washington 2,528,121 1,952,521 4,480,642 1.96% Northwest West Virginia 736,647 760,828 1,497,475 0.57% Appalacia Wisconsin 2,513,930 2,389,846 4,903,776 1.95% Midwest Wyoming 171,181 342,700 513,881 0.13% Rockies Total 129,052,669 110,594,048 239,646,71 100.00% Midwest 43,782,953 33.93% Northeast 28,564,656 22.13% South 25,783,539 19.98% Southwest 19,457,865 15.08% Appalacia 5,151,540 3.99% Northwest 4,053,544 3.14% Rockies 1,561,137 1.21% Pacific 697,435 0.54%
I also came across this yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry
Specifically the chart showing the size of each manufacturer. BMW is BARELY beating out Mazda in terms of sales. Is BMW really that small? Or is Mazda's size just constantly understated? Certainly the exchange rate is hurting Mazda more than BMW.
03-01-2012, 10:30 AM
#100
Registered
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 16,684
Likes: 0
Received 240 Likes
on
110 Posts
?
As far as your diff is concerned, 60mph is 60mph. The diff has a single gear, which means that it's a fixed ratio from wheel speed to driveshaft speed, I.e., both sides of the diff. It doesn't care what the engine RPM is. Your driveshaft is spinning at the same speed at 60mph in 2nd as it is at 60mph in 6th.
Lower RPM for the same speed DOES provide a benefit, but it's not as large as most people think. The difference is largely in low RPM at high load vs higher RPM at lower load. You use less throttle to maintain 60 mph in 6th than you do for 60mph in 4th. If you have something to read ODB2 data, you will see that there is only a very faint increase in the MAF g/s flow in 4th vs 6th at the same speed. The only efficiency that is changing is the drivetrain loss items that are based on engine RPM. Such as the water pump. You are losing more power to drivetrain at 60mph in 4th than you are at 60mpg in 6th. It's still a fixed amount of power to keep the car at that speed, but the engine has to work faintly harder because of the slight increase in drivetrain loss. But it's not an earthshattering amount. You won't pick up much mileage by simply changing the rear gear or 6th gear ratio to cruise lower. Probably less than 1mpg average.
As far as your diff is concerned, 60mph is 60mph. The diff has a single gear, which means that it's a fixed ratio from wheel speed to driveshaft speed, I.e., both sides of the diff. It doesn't care what the engine RPM is. Your driveshaft is spinning at the same speed at 60mph in 2nd as it is at 60mph in 6th.
Lower RPM for the same speed DOES provide a benefit, but it's not as large as most people think. The difference is largely in low RPM at high load vs higher RPM at lower load. You use less throttle to maintain 60 mph in 6th than you do for 60mph in 4th. If you have something to read ODB2 data, you will see that there is only a very faint increase in the MAF g/s flow in 4th vs 6th at the same speed. The only efficiency that is changing is the drivetrain loss items that are based on engine RPM. Such as the water pump. You are losing more power to drivetrain at 60mph in 4th than you are at 60mpg in 6th. It's still a fixed amount of power to keep the car at that speed, but the engine has to work faintly harder because of the slight increase in drivetrain loss. But it's not an earthshattering amount. You won't pick up much mileage by simply changing the rear gear or 6th gear ratio to cruise lower. Probably less than 1mpg average.
Last edited by RIWWP; 03-01-2012 at 10:33 AM.