A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Mazda
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fuel Economy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 20th 06, 05:02 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fuel Economy

I suspect that no reasonable person would consider a new MX-5 to be an
economy car or give the fuel economy a huge role in the decision to buy
one but I thought that this might be of interest. Immediately after
getting my "break in" miles put in on my '06 Sport with handling option
done I drove up to Pennsylvania to visit my mother over Easter. The
mileage between here and there is virtually all interstate -- just short
of 500 FWIW.

I knew what sort of economy my '91 Miata had consistently achieved on
the same trip and expected the new one to get just a bit worse or, with
luck, to achieve the same. Here is what happened on four fillups that
were on the interstate mostly at 70-75 under cruise control: 32.0, 33.9,
35.1, and 32.7 MPG. I was truly shocked by those results but calculation
of the overall consumption since delivery, including 1,800 miles of
city, suburban, and interstate driving shows that it has been getting
30.7 MPG. I realize that the four interstate legs might be skewed by the
imprecision of how consistently I was able to fill the tank each time
but the overall figure should be relatively accurate.

BTW: the interstate miles were done with 30psi in the Michelin tires
rather than the recommended 29psi but I don't know how much that might
have affected the economy.
--
John McGaw
[Knoxville, TN, USA]
http://johnmcgaw.com
Ads
  #2  
Old April 21st 06, 02:14 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fuel Economy

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
>economy car or give the fuel economy a huge role in the decision to buy one
>but I thought that this might be of interest. Immediately after getting my
>"break in" miles put in on my '06 Sport with handling option done I drove
>up to Pennsylvania to visit my mother over Easter. The mileage between here
>and there is virtually all interstate -- just short of 500 FWIW.
>
> I knew what sort of economy my '91 Miata had consistently achieved on the
> same trip and expected the new one to get just a bit worse or, with luck,
> to achieve the same. Here is what happened on four fillups that were on
> the interstate mostly at 70-75 under cruise control: 32.0, 33.9, 35.1, and
> 32.7 MPG. I was truly shocked by those results but calculation of the
> overall consumption since delivery, including 1,800 miles of city,
> suburban, and interstate driving shows that it has been getting 30.7 MPG.
> I realize that the four interstate legs might be skewed by the imprecision
> of how consistently I was able to fill the tank each time but the overall
> figure should be relatively accurate.
>
> BTW: the interstate miles were done with 30psi in the Michelin tires
> rather than the recommended 29psi but I don't know how much that might
> have affected the economy.
> --
> John McGaw
> [Knoxville, TN, USA]
> http://johnmcgaw.com



  #3  
Old April 21st 06, 03:51 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fuel Economy

John McGaw wrote:
> I suspect that no reasonable person would consider a new MX-5 to be an
> economy car or give the fuel economy a huge role in the decision to buy
> one but I thought that this might be of interest. Immediately after
> getting my "break in" miles put in on my '06 Sport with handling option
> done I drove up to Pennsylvania to visit my mother over Easter. The
> mileage between here and there is virtually all interstate -- just short
> of 500 FWIW.
>
> I knew what sort of economy my '91 Miata had consistently achieved on
> the same trip and expected the new one to get just a bit worse or, with
> luck, to achieve the same. Here is what happened on four fillups that
> were on the interstate mostly at 70-75 under cruise control: 32.0, 33.9,
> 35.1, and 32.7 MPG. I was truly shocked by those results but calculation
> of the overall consumption since delivery, including 1,800 miles of
> city, suburban, and interstate driving shows that it has been getting
> 30.7 MPG. I realize that the four interstate legs might be skewed by the
> imprecision of how consistently I was able to fill the tank each time
> but the overall figure should be relatively accurate.
>
> BTW: the interstate miles were done with 30psi in the Michelin tires
> rather than the recommended 29psi but I don't know how much that might
> have affected the economy.

I've been getting anywhere from 24 to 28 mpg with my 2006 MX-5. I get
the 24 if almost all driving is stop/go and 28 if about 1/3 of the
driving is cruising on the interstate.
  #4  
Old April 21st 06, 07:42 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fuel Economy

John McGaw wrote:
> I suspect that no reasonable person would consider a new MX-5 to be an
> economy car or give the fuel economy a huge role in the decision to buy
> one but I thought that this might be of interest. Immediately after
> getting my "break in" miles put in on my '06 Sport with handling option
> done I drove up to Pennsylvania to visit my mother over Easter. The
> mileage between here and there is virtually all interstate -- just short
> of 500 FWIW.
>
> I knew what sort of economy my '91 Miata had consistently achieved on
> the same trip and expected the new one to get just a bit worse or, with
> luck, to achieve the same. Here is what happened on four fillups that
> were on the interstate mostly at 70-75 under cruise control: 32.0, 33.9,
> 35.1, and 32.7 MPG. I was truly shocked by those results but calculation
> of the overall consumption since delivery, including 1,800 miles of
> city, suburban, and interstate driving shows that it has been getting
> 30.7 MPG. I realize that the four interstate legs might be skewed by the
> imprecision of how consistently I was able to fill the tank each time
> but the overall figure should be relatively accurate.


My '02 SE gets 22-ish combined around town + highway. I got 28+ on a road
trip recently.

Oh, my SE is running 6psi or so boost.

Dana
  #5  
Old April 21st 06, 11:38 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fuel Economy

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
  #6  
Old April 21st 06, 03:01 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fuel Economy

> I suspect that no reasonable person would consider a new MX-5 to be an
> economy car or give the fuel economy a huge role in the decision to buy
> one


<koff>

I had a 94 midsize that needed premium, got 20mpg on a good day, and had
110M on it. Radiator needed replacing, AC was broken, tires had mysterious
random slow leaks, muffler ready to fall off, and the fuel injection
computer would act up on cold mornings.

For $3000 I traded on a 96 Miata with 45M and no issues that gets high 20's
around town on regular. It would have cost me close to $2000 just to keep
the other car going!

There's a lot to like about the Miata (including the way no one needs you to
drive them to the airport anymore but for me the economy was an important
part.

miker



  #7  
Old April 21st 06, 06:15 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fuel Economy

John McGaw wrote:
> I suspect that no reasonable person would consider a new MX-5 to be an
> economy car or give the fuel economy a huge role in the decision to buy
> one but I thought that this might be of interest. Immediately after
> getting my "break in" miles put in on my '06 Sport with handling option
> done I drove up to Pennsylvania to visit my mother over Easter. The
> mileage between here and there is virtually all interstate -- just short
> of 500 FWIW.
>
> I knew what sort of economy my '91 Miata had consistently achieved on
> the same trip and expected the new one to get just a bit worse or, with
> luck, to achieve the same. Here is what happened on four fillups that
> were on the interstate mostly at 70-75 under cruise control: 32.0, 33.9,
> 35.1, and 32.7 MPG. I was truly shocked by those results but calculation
> of the overall consumption since delivery, including 1,800 miles of
> city, suburban, and interstate driving shows that it has been getting
> 30.7 MPG. I realize that the four interstate legs might be skewed by the
> imprecision of how consistently I was able to fill the tank each time
> but the overall figure should be relatively accurate.
>
> BTW: the interstate miles were done with 30psi in the Michelin tires
> rather than the recommended 29psi but I don't know how much that might
> have affected the economy.


That sounds about average for a Mk1 1.8 in the same circumstances. I
got 34mpg over the winter here in the UK, which is about the same
allowing for our larger gallons. I'd expect it to improve by 2mpg or so
in summer as the warm-up period is shorter and the fuel blend is different.

MX-5s/Miatas have never been economical cars given their small size and
weight. The engine is highly tuned (and runs quite rich at over
4000rpm) and the Cd is poor.
  #8  
Old May 1st 06, 04:20 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fuel Economy

I'm getting between 27.5 and 28.5 in combinded city and SoCal freeway
driving. Remember that SoCal has "taffic from hell" freeways. I have
'06 MX-5.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Understanding emission numbers and how they work Steve H Honda 11 November 3rd 05 06:19 AM
98 concorde starting problems xmirage2kx Chrysler 90 August 21st 05 04:32 AM
High Gas Prices Fuel an Octane Rebellion MrPepper11 Driving 434 August 18th 05 12:25 AM
warman i am surprised you mix oil [email protected] Ford Mustang 5 May 8th 05 04:04 AM
In-the-tank fuel pumps cause death and destruction Silver Surfer Chrysler 293 November 7th 04 04:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.