Off topic: I must take issue with #7 here. There are no HH-53 Jolly Green's anymore. All of the -53s in the Air Force are now MH-53s (see my avatar), which perform insertion, extraction and resupply missions for the various special operations teams. The Jolly Green rescue mission is now carried out by the no talent ass clowns who fly the Air Force's HH-60s. And #7 fits them to a tee. :D

Back on topic: Unless a whole bunch of people catch cancer just from living in a certain place or drinking water contaminated by some dastardly company, class action lawsuits are for sissies. You bought a sports car; if you can't afford crappy gas mileage and the car payment, then you shouldn't have bought the car.

Let
 

Yeah, they took a little risk to avoid two bad (honest) choices: re-do the catalytic converter system so it would meet EPA longevity standards, or re-run the tests on the reflashed engines they finally released from port.

The first may have been commercially impossible, cost aside, because redesign and re-production would delay delivery so long it would be a scandal that would blacken Mazda's and Ford's names, not to mention faith in rotary power.

The second would be a lesser, but still severe, blow. The story of the original numbers and their lowering (from tests of the reflashed engines) would immediately call attention to the rotary's weakest point, mileage, and to Mazda's failure -- contrary to all the pre-delivery promises -- to make it better than before, or competitive with like-powered cars.

Compared to those catastrophes, holding your breath and hoping that EPA won't suddenly become an aggressive enforcement agency and impound the test engines, looks like a good bet.

I haven't inspected those high-mileage test engines either. But one thing that is crystal clear to me is Mazda's desperate need to keep the true, as-delivered in July, 2000, mileage from the public.

Don't forget, while all this was going on, Mazda was being humiliated and given a big financial hit by the horsepower fiasco. They couldn't afford to admit a second failure. And they probably figured that people really outraged about the economy would either turn in their cars or be bought off by the $$/service bribe.

OK now -- an about face. Despite all these things, I love my 8 because it gives me things I couldn't find elsewhere, certainly anywhere near the price. It wouldn't exist but for people at Mazda who love cars and are willing to take chances (credit to some Ford execs, too, for backing the project). But the bad parts are true, too, and I refuse to close my eyes to them.

Mitch

Let's talk facts
 

Yeah, they took a little risk to avoid two bad (honest) choices: re-do the catalytic converter system so it would meet EPA longevity standards, or re-run the tests on the reflashed engines they finally released from port.

The first may have been commercially impossible, cost aside, because redesign and re-production would delay delivery so long it would be a scandal that would blacken Mazda's and Ford's names, not to mention faith in rotary power.

The second would be a lesser, but still severe, blow. The story of the original numbers and their lowering (from tests of the reflashed engines) would immediately call attention to the rotary's weakest point, mileage, and to Mazda's failure -- contrary to all the pre-delivery promises -- to make it better than before, or competitive with like-powered cars.

Compared to those catastrophes, holding your breath and hoping that EPA won't suddenly become an aggressive enforcement agency and impound the test engines, looks like a good bet.

I haven't inspected those high-mileage test engines either. But one thing that is crystal clear to me is Mazda's desperate need to keep the true, as-delivered in July, 2003, mileage from the public.

Don't forget, while all this was going on, Mazda was being humiliated and given a big financial hit by the horsepower fiasco. They couldn't afford to admit a second failure. And they probably figured that people really outraged about the economy would either turn in their cars or be bought off by the $$/service bribe.

OK now -- an about face. Despite all these things, I love my 8 because it gives me looks and handling I couldn't find elsewhere, certainly anywhere near the price. It wouldn't exist but for people at Mazda who love cars and are willing to take chances (credit to some Ford execs, too, for backing the project). But the bad parts are true, too, and I refuse to close my eyes to them.

Mitch

Just out of curiousity, I hooked the CANScan unit to my auto RX-8 and monitored mpg over few miles of twisties/hills - moderatly speed driving. The plot is everywhere between 5mpg and 70 mpg.... Any "average" of these values is non-sense. I'll redo the test on cruise control at 70 mph on hwy this coming weekend and edit this post again. But again, I have A/T, 2200 miles, and run BP 87 gas - M flash though. Well too many parameters in the secret mpg equation EPA used :o)

PS I did my homework and did not expected high mpg out of it anyway - no class suit, I'm happy with ~19mpg in mixt driving conditions.

Nissan Deserves What They Get!
 

I owned an 03 350Z touring package. I wen t through 4 sets of front tires, (2) paid for by nissan. 2 from my own personal money. There is a serious problem on some of the Z's. If you think its ok to spend $3-500 on tires 3 times a year because of they failed to properly test the cars then don't sue. Personally i lost around $5000 when I traded my Z in for an 8 and while i love my 8 I never wouldn't of traded my Z and lost money if I wasn't looking at an extra $2-3000 a year to fix a problem nissan had no interest in helping me with. Personally I am going to look into joining the suit and maybe reclaim some of the money I lost.

You obviously don't understand how the EPA generates test numbers - they use a dyno test cycle that is computer monitored or controlled - the vehicle being tested never sees a real road. Their test cycle also bears NO resemblance to any real world driving - so of course there's a discrepancy between EPA and real world driving, which also depends hugely on the vehicle characteristics. Obviously, Mazda can do nothing about how the EPA tests cars.

But again, notice how hybrid vehicles like the Prius and Civic hybrid are achieving an even lower % of their rated EPA economy numbers than RX-8s? For a vehicle that is focused primarily on fuel efficiency, THOSE are the guys who should have a real beef. I'm certainly not suggesting that Toyota and Honda are ripping off their customers or trying to hide anything or deceive them, but I am saying that the EPA tests are not representative of real world performance and it's NOT Mazda's fault.

Regards,
Gordon

[QUOTE=Gord96BRG]You obviously don't understand how the EPA generates test numbers - they use a dyno test cycle that is computer monitored or controlled - the vehicle being tested never sees a real road. Their test cycle also bears NO resemblance to any real world driving - so of course there's a discrepancy between EPA and real world driving, which also depends hugely on the vehicle characteristics. Obviously, Mazda can do nothing about how the EPA tests cars.

Gordon, I have high regard for your expertise, but here it is used to ignore and bypass the comment you were replying to. That comment -- and many have made it -- is that motive and history suggest that Mazda used different engines to get EPA ratings than the ones they...finally...released to buyers after the port-of-entry reflash that increased gas consumption.

You repeat a lot of stuff about how EPA tests and how such tests compare with the real world. So what? That has nothing to do with the "bait and switch" charge in the post you replied to. I must regretfully say it reads like an attempt to distract.

The post you replied to had little detail. I and others have recited Mazda's suspicious claims and actions, especially holding the first load of cars in port for long periods before releasing them for delivery. I have never heard an innocent explanation offered for that. If you know one, please pass it on.

Mitch

1. Mazda gives epa car before the issue the catalytic converters
2. Issue comes up, power is lost/mpg drops, cars are sold
3. Mazda starts fixing the issue and mpg is pretty much back to the testing rate.

I don't see the problem. But I'm sure you know so much about the Renesis that you would have been able to take steps to save the cat and maintain power/mpg before the car was about to ship.

Or, would you have (as I asked before) Mazda re-submit the car after the 'richening' and have a sticker saying 14-16 and pay an extra 2k in guzzler tax?

I'm getting 18-20 mpg.. I guess Mazda made more than one 'ringer' cars..

Unless Mazda provided a car to the EPA with different mixture and timing mapping than the production version, I don't see how Mazda could be responsible for the EPA results. If you are serious, maybe you could get the EPA to pull a couple of 8's off the street and see how they test. That may show a discrepancy and spell trouble for Mazda!

[QUOTE=Mitch Strickler]Mitch,
I didn't ignore the forum member's comments, but I addressed it indirectly. Let me be more direct - he claimed "I've been averaging about 16 mpg which is way below the EPA rating. (...) There a big discrepancy between this average and the EPA numbers. " My response was "so what?" The difference between EPA and his real world numbers is irrelevant, because the EPA test is not based on real world driving. The difference does NOT suggest that Mazda cheated the EPA with a specially-tuned vehicle.

Have you ever read the exact description of the EPA test cycle? The test vehicle NEVER uses full throttle, and the test vehicle NEVER exceeds about 50% of the max rpm. So, let's address your next question: "I and others have recited Mazda's suspicious claims and actions, especially holding the first load of cars in port for long periods before releasing them for delivery. I have never heard an innocent explanation offered for that. If you know one, please pass it on."

An innocent explanation has been offered and discussed many times here. The original ECU tune showed late in long term testing that catalytic converter durability would not make the required 120K miles, because the close to stoich mixture at high rpm and large throttle openings resulted in exhaust gas temperatures that were too high. The cars were held at port for an ECU flash that changed the fuel maps to provide a richer mixture at high rpm (ie above 6500 rpm) and large throttle openings, to lower the exhaust gas temperatures at those operating ranges. This was done to ensure that the US (and Canadian) RX-8s complied with the 2004 EPA regulations. Is that innocent enough? The result of that new flash with the richer high-rpm mixture, however, was that the maximum rated power was reduced (Note that the peak torque, reached at lower rpms, was NOT affected).

Now, note carefully - the revised ECU maps were ONLY modified for >6500 rpm, large throttle openings. Now compare with the EPA fuel economy test cycle - the EPA test NEVER uses high rpm, or large throttle openings. Therefore, simple deduction - the port ECU flash had NO impact on EPA ratings. It could NOT have had any effect, and a pre-port flash car and a post-port flash car would achieve identical EPA test results. Mazda did nothing wrong - it's not their fault if the EPA test results (which they are legally required to post) are not representative of real world use and results.

Regards,
Gordon

Great, just what we need another lawsuit. :eek:
Better mileage would be nice but, I'll take a telescoping steering wheel and satellite radio instead.
The new engine has 15.2% more torque and 63% more horsepower :D than my NA ’88 RX-7. The 8 can be revved to 9000+ rpm. It has four usable seats, a trunk, a beautiful interior, a slick 6-speed shifter, and world-class brakes. If you drive it like you stole it … What do you expect your mpg results to be? It's a sports car ... they demand to be driven hard and require a little TLC by the owner. Checking the oil and adding some gas are small prices to pay for such fun. I’m content with the improving 19.3 mpg overall I’m getting and grin each and every time I drive it.

I had read the explanation of Mazda's reflash before, but jumped to the conclusion that it would have shown up as lower numbers on the EPA test. Thanks for explaining why that would not be so. I owe Mazda an apology for suggesting they pulled a fast one.

That said, I'd like your opinion on some related mileage puzzles.

The EPA doesn't claim its test relates directly to the real world -- in fact, it surveys the real world and makes large corrections in the test figures to try to be somewhat realistic. The point is that the test gives a basis for comparison, vehicle to vehicle. As we all know, there are immense variations in driving style, maintenance, etc. etc. But that doesn't mean that EPA has no predictive value.

In my case, I pay attention only to highway figures taken on certain routes, in certain conditions, with my consistent driving style. By thus eliminating most variables, I have produced the same EPA/real world relationship with several different family and sports sedans through the years. (It happens that I get EPA or slightly higher, although driving well above speed limits.)

So, OK, here comes the RX8. For my mileage testing, I have driven it less vigorously, if anything, than my past cars, even avoiding a/c and open windows/sunroof. And the 8's smallerfrontal area and lower CD (versus the others) should have given it an extra edge in fast cruising. Result: 3 mpg low. (My city mileage is even further below EPA, which I suspect reflects gas-hog idling, but that's all non-scientific; ignore it.) BTW, I drive an AT, which as you know runs pretty low RPM even at highway speeds. Final fact: The M flash gave me back a mpg.

My best guess is that I'm unlucky. Production cars vary, and I got a thirsty one. I'd be interested in your comments.

Mitch

dont forget the california conundrum Gord. this is where it gets really tricky for automakers and more than just mazda have problems with balancing california and federal cat/emissions regs. the cali part is that the cats on all cars have to be at full operating temp within 5 minutes. as a result all companies began to move the cat closer to the engine. now they have to add in the new 120,00 mile federal longevity rule. Mazda had a particularly tough time finding the balance between the 2 because of the inherrently higher exhaust temps of the rotary especially at the higher rpms. they did what most automakers have done- dump extra fuel in so that it cools the cat. however this results in the pig-rich(thanks paul yaw for that term) extremely sooty tailpipes and less initial mileage. they needed this quick fix to get the cars out(remember how many of us pre-orders were screaming? another delay would have killed them) but as has been seen time and again rash actions often result in less than desirable outcomes. we've even seen cats that had to be replaced because the higher rpm exhaust temps can cause this fuel not burned in the engine to burn off in the cat causing overheating of the cat. that's the balance they have been stuggling with during the l and m flashes. get the cat hot quick for emissions testing regs in cali but not too hot for the fed rules.