Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> John, that's good news on the mileage and of course these days, well you
> know, it's appreciated even more right?
>
> I don't think you mentioned what your old NA got on that similar trip. I'm
> guessing 25 mpg, how close am I?
>
> Chris
> 99BBB
>
> "Dana Rohleder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John,
>>
>> I'm new to Miata's myself, but a lot has happened to cars since 1991. Now
>> that absolutely everything is controlled by computer, and with more
>> efficient engine and transmission design as well as making the
>> aerodynamics more slippery, more consistant fuel economy should be the
>> norm. Also remember your new car has a higher compression engine that
>> needs higher octane fuel, so consider yourself lucky that you are on the
>> high side of the EPA estimates!!
>>
>> I have only run three tanks through my 2001, but I have been impressed,
>> getting ~30 mpg with my daily commute. But you win some & lose some - my
>> new Honda Ridgeline rated at 16/21 mpg, so far has yet to crack 17 even on
>> the highway. But with only 1500 miles on it, it still needs to be broken
>> in a bit more.
>>
>> Boreal
>>
>> 2001 LS Silver/Tan
>>
>>
>> "John McGaw" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> I suspect that no reasonable person would consider a new MX-5 to be an
snip...

I realized after posting that I hadn't actually stated with the '91 got
on the trip. It actually got in the 30-31 range over the identical
interstate route under the same conditions. Of course that was a lighter
vehicle with no AC and I wasn't likely to make it too bloody often in
the heat of summer when the interior felt like a convection oven. AC
makes all the difference in the world sometimes.

I made up my mind right away to slip down a notch from the "recommended"
fuel for the long consistent cruising sort of trip and filled with 89
octane fuel. I'll continue filling with the good stuff for driving where
I'm likely to want every last bit of power.

--
John McGaw
[Knoxville, TN, USA]
http://johnmcgaw.com