rieskame

I commend you, Justin Kernen. My letter should hit magazines next month.

"Being an avid Mazda fan, I was glad to see the RX-8 make the 10Best list. However, the RX-8 available at dealerships is not the quite the same car that all the mags scooted to 14.5 sec quarter mile time observing 19 mpg. To satisfy U.S. regulations, Mazda reprogrammed the fuel maps to preserve cat life. As a result, no RX owner has been able to achieve 24mpg, and many are getting as low as 13 mpg.
Dynos show that only about 190 HP is hitting the pavement and most 8s are running low 15s. The amazing thing is that no one cares. The car is so fun to drive that owners are just filling up their tanks every couple of days and loving it. Well, not me. I want the 250 hp version that gets 18/24 like the sticker says. But if people keep buying it as is, and the media keep handing out awards, Mazda has no reason to give it to us."

C&D responds saying that Mazda swears that the revised cars equal the acceleration that they published and that they got 15mpg overall.

Too bad this guy didnt pound the flooding problem as well. My letter does that.

r0tor

iTrader: (1)

.. i got 23.5mpg on a trip

... I also ran neck and neck with a 2002 Mustang Gt


.... maybe some people should get their heads out of their *****...

Gord96BRG

Says who? I've got 26 (US) mpg, and several others have beat 24 as well.

If the gas mileage and "flooding problem" bother you so much, you really would be better off selling your RX-8 and buying something more conventional and economical.

Regards,
Gordon

rxeightr

I read that letter to the editor in C&D over the weekend.

Nice to know where C&D stands ..... planted in the driver's seat.

Ike

And blinded by faith in Mazda's claims...




P.S. Mustang GT autos (which many are) are only low 15 second cars.

P.S.S. Gord & Prober, face it the gas and flooding issue is a big deal for a lot of people and getting the kind of numbers you guys are posting up seems very rare (low teens and below seems more common). Though I do agree, it's not the kind of car you should be buying if you are really that worried about mileage.

Tinkerer

I have no gripes with the performance -- I got the auto because I didn't want to beat the crap out of this car.

I did just experience my first flood though and I'm pissed! Brand new car -- 1K miles and it took me the better part of TWENTY MINUTES to get it started!!

Fact is that I haven't taken any precautions so far to prevent this from happening and I shouldn't have to! I've started the engine for three minutes and shut off. I've run it for four minutes and shut it off and never a problem. What makes this instance totally unacceptable is that the last time the car was shut-off was after a 20 mile ride. Making matters worse is that this flooded AFTER a long drive -- definitely at temperature when it was shut down! The car was at running temperature (by far) when I shut it off.

I got in the next day (today), turned the key -- it was actually running for about TWO seconds and quit. When I turned the key again it wouldn't start and I knew either this thing died, or it flooded (thanks to all I've read here).

So I pulled out the manual (instead of running into the computer), saw what they had to say about starting and started a very long PO'd campaign to get it running again.

After twenty minutes of BS it finally started to kick to life. Even after it was running I was throwing black smoke for better than two minutes.

This isn't a livable BUG -- this is a serious issue. With all of that black smoke flowing over my NEW car I was just waiting for a fire to start! Mark my words -- somebodies baby is going to go up in flames over this -- it's going to happen -- just wait and watch! If even just a few of these go up in flames it will be just enough to catch the governments attention and then there will be a total recall. Won't that be sweet...

I'm going to document EVERY flood with the factory and if they don't fix it, they'll be looking at a lemon law return.

I love this car -- this flooding issue is NOT ACCEPTABLE to me, and it shouldn't be acceptable to ANYONE that owns one.

Did the dealer tell you about the flooding feature when you bought the car? No, I didn't think so...

Tinkerer

zoom44

i've gotten over 24 on several occasions, most notably on my big road trip through cali. i have seen several people poste 30 mpg on trips, elara being one i think.

the french guy just got 27.7mpg

r0tor

iTrader: (1)

it wasn't an auto...

Shocka

ive never seen above 15mpg and the more i drive the car the lower the numbers.. i just dont let it bother me.. there is a reason i kept my civic.

as for Tinkerers point.. come to thing about the dealer did mention flooding to me. he specifically said "dont turn on the car and shut if off right away, leave it running for couple of minutes before you turn it off"

those were his words before he handed me the keys.. see i was paying attention

SpacerX

Nonsequitor.

The letter's author defeats his own argument. Additionally, the conclusion he draws regarding Mazda's motivations for future product plans borders on the fallacious. To wit: quite the opposite is true, relative to normal automotive product cycles. That is, Mazda will be much more motivated to produce improved designs if the product platform continues to sell well. If people weren't buying the car in numbers sufficient to close Mazda's business case, Mazda would more likely cancel the platform, vice sink more investment into the platform to improve it.

I test drove everything over the past year. Nothing else comes close to the driving experience (among other things) provided by the RX8. That's the real bottom line, and that's what sells cars.

Ciao!

crumpmd

Gord and prob
Do you really drive your cars for performance? I get 12mpg. My shift point is often 5-7000rpm. I bought the car for performance and not to have a "conventional" car.
BUT MAZDA is the one to make the claims. I trusted them. Had they said I would get 250hp and 12mpg I would have said OK and bought it anyway. BUT it does not make 250hp for the 12mpg. It probably does not even make 180hp for that fuel burn. My airplane gets better gas mileage, about 16mpg and 201mph and the engine really will get 200hp at sealevel.
The problem is not that we don't love our cars, we are mad that we were lied to from the start.

zoom44

"BUT it does not make 250hp for the 12mpg. It probably does not even make 180hp for that fuel burn."

you're mixing flywheel numbers with wheel numbers.

Gord96BRG

Absolutely. The very worst I've got was about 15 mpg US, and that was for very hard charging for a few hours solid through mountain twisties in Northern California.

Quote:

BUT MAZDA is the one to make the claims.

No, the US Government's EPA is the one to make the claims. They set the fuel economy test cycles, and they perform the tests on the vehicles submitted by the manufacturers. They determine the city/highway numbers, and they require the manufacturers to publish those numbers and nothing else. It's not Mazda's fault that the EPA test cycles are unrepresentative of actual consumption, but they have no choice about what numbers they are allowed/required to publish.

So, if you guys are so concerned about the mileage issue, I assume that you've all made appointments with your dealers to have the latest ECU reflash applied that leans out the mixture?

No?

So Mazda IS doing something about the fuel consumption, yet you haven't bothered to follow along with the information that's posted here and get this update applied? Too busy writing complaint letters to car magazines?

Regards,
Gordon

Tinkerer

"After he handed me the keys..."

Wow, what if he said make sure you carry a fire extinguisher just in case it goes up in flames? Would you still have driven away with the car?

Trust me, no one said anything about flooding prior to me buying this car. You know why? It would have to be some kind of joke, but hey -- where's the punch line?

Tinkerer

elphkotm

The funny thing is how pissed off people are about this. I currently own a 2003 Toyota Corolla (hoping to trade up to the RX-8 in a couple months) with a 130hp 1.8L 4-banger, and I NEVER get the specified gas mileage. I drive it a bit more aggressively, but even on road trips where it's 75 for 300 miles in cruise control mode, I've never achieved the lofty 38mpg. I've bested 34mpg, on a long road trip. When I drive around town, I get about 22-25mpg. The car is quoted as a 32 city/38 highway car by the EPA. When you drive ANY car hard, you get low gas mileage. Rotaries are just a little bit more sensitive. Live with it. Nobody is blinded, Mazda is just quoting what the EPA tested. It's not some conspiracy.

jniamehr

I do have a brand new 4 day old car... I have to agree with the gas mileage issue... I am def. not getting 19-24 mpg, Im getting something like 13.8, I scheduled an appointment with my dealer to get my ECU reflashed and to see how it goes... I just dont think its acceptable to be this low... I went by the sticker MPG and Im getting much less, but I am VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY happy with the car other than that, and wouldnt back out of buying it even knowing it would be this low...

zerobanger

Its simple, you want the published gas mileage numbers shift prior to 3000 RPM, the higher you shift the worse the gas mileage. Yes it SUCKS to shift at 3000 RPM, deal with it.

Trx8

My saleseperson went over the flooding details with me on numerous occasions, well before I bought the car, and prior to my test drive. He knew what the issues were and made sure I understood them. When I picked up the car we went through the short drive procedure.

I got 15.7 MPG once, that is my all time low. The last two were 19.2 and 19.7 MPG in a mixture of city/highway driving, each tank over 200 miles. The best I have gotten was 21.7 MPG, that was mostly highway with some city.

A regression analysis has been posted here since October 25, 2003, and was based on raw date provided by RX8CLUB members. It showed that for drivers that
> "don't normally use high RPM range, only occasionally"
The computed MPG was:
> City: 17.04 MPG
> Highway: 22.26 MPG
Those are real results and are well within the EPA MPG range that is printed on my RX-8 sticker.
> City: 15-21
> Highway: 21-29
On the same sticker the EPA states the results will vary .... Elsewhere in this forum is a discussion of how the EPA actually computes MPG, and they seem to be comparable with the conditions used for the regression analysis. As stated above Mazda doesn't pick the MPG that is reported.

ranger4277

I've read that the 2004 Prius, touted to get 50-60 mpg is only getting about 40 in the real world. This is according to owners and long term test cars for magazines. I think this is way worse than losing a measly 4-6mpg in the 8.

Oh yeah.. the new "L" reflash for the 8 does help mileage too

Tinkerer

I don't think I'm annoyed at the MPG at all -- I really just wish I got better range and that could have been solved with a bigger tank. I seem to be filling up about every 240 miles or so at this point...

Tinkerer

shebam

I honestly think one factor, in addition to the smallish tank, is that big, linear fuel gauge, that starts to sink in the first 10 miles. Most cars have small gauges that stay "above" full for 30 - 50 miles and stay very optimistic until somewhere into the third quarter, where they plummet, telling you it's time to refill. I am NOT claiming that the mileage issue does not exist; I get 14- 15 on my commute. But I did on my BMW too and I NEVER drove it with an eye on the fuel gauge as I'm too inclined to do now (even when I decide to ignore it in my driving).

Gord96BRG

Fer cryin out loud! Would you mind at least breaking in your engine before you start complaining about the gas mileage!

For the record, on almost ANY new vehicle, fuel consumption drops after the break-in period - horsepower also improves after the break-in period as well. There have been many, many reports here of people who's gas mileage numbers improved after they had 2000 or 3000 miles on their RX-8s!

Regards,
Gordon

iamcanadian

I can understand your anger. From your original post your car started and stalled after 2 seconds. That is why it flooded . . . yes the last time your drove it (the night before) it was warmed right up. That does not help you the next morning. As soon the 8 lights up I give her a quick rev. Anyways, my details . . . had the car since last August, never flooded mileage is about 23 on the highway and b/w 14-17 in the city. Keeping the revs below 3000, avoiding idling and getting up to 5th as quick as possible has helped me. Dealer told me about the flooding. Absolutely love the car.

shebam

No -- at least in my experience, reverses cause and effect. When mine flooded, because I had moved it for about 30 seconds in very cold weather and returned to it 2 days later, it ALSO ran for about 2 seconds then died and wouldn't come close to catching again. The flooding was caused by the move 2 days before, not the dying after 2 seconds. Can't explain the why or wherefore, but that was my experience too (raising the very scientific sample to 2).

khoney

Gordon,
I have had the reflash, not for mileage but for a recurrent CEL. After 5 tankfuls with the reflash, I have seen no difference in my mileage. However, I have typically had very constant, and adequate, MPG (18-20) regardless of driving style.

I haven't seen any evidence that this is the solution to poor MPG. I do recall at least one post claiming better mileage. I'm happy for him, but let's face it - we aren't seeing a bunch of reflash owners coming back from the dealership with smiles on their faces. I love this car, but I can also appreciate people's concerns over poor mileage and flooding. They are real issues, at least for some folks.

Regards,
Kevin