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.

RX-GR8

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.

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.

8_wannabe

My point exactly. Will you take offense if I call you Idle?

idle0ne

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 **** as long as i can tell it is directed to me

idle0ne

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

RX-GR8

LOL :D

RX-GR8

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

8_wannabe

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

RX-GR8

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

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.

RX-GR8

Later

241Commuter

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.

hotpot

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

hotpot

Sounds like a Woody Allen line.

Spin9k

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

hotpot

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

aussie77

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.

MMGDC

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.

8_wannabe

I blame Bush.

8_wannabe

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.

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... But he souldnt have started insulting people and maybe they would not have jumped his ****.

8_wannabe

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.

Smoker

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 !

Spin9k

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!