RX-8 Fuel Rant

GR-8 · Postby **GR-8** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

I have a huge problem with magazines and people on shows and youtube and whatever have you. I always here it and it bothers me so much cause it potentially hurts sales. "It has horrible gas mileage" I think the only reason they say that is cause it's a 1.3. They just don't understand it's not your average 1.3. It's a freaking sports car, gets the same or better gas mileage than a lot of sports cars especially ones that sell well (ie. Mustang). It even has better or equal gas mileage of BMW and Mercedes sports cars. You have to compare gas mileage not by the size but by power I guess. Compare it to V6 and V8 motors not other 1.3 motors that have 1/8th of the power and are electronically assisted. I mean come on.

Any other owner feel the same way. If so post up.

Buffalo · Postby **Buffalo** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

I agree that it sucks to hear that we have bad MPG but the truth is 17 MPG out of a 1.3 is bad. I would hope anyone considering getting a sports car would drive all the ones they liked and picked the best one based on performance and not MPG.

GR-8 · Postby **GR-8** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Buffalo @ Jul 22 2008, 09:21 AM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=57570]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>

I agree that it sucks to hear that we have bad MPG but the truth is 17 MPG out of a 1.3 is bad. I would hope anyone considering getting a sports car would drive all the ones they liked and picked the best one based on performance and not MPG.[/b]

Yeah for the size it's bad but actually for the power it makes it isn't all that bad it's normal. It's great for a sports car. I mean you don't hear anyone talk about the Mustangs MPG in magazines or anywhere and it has worse. I think it's along the lines of 16city/20highway. The 8 was rated at 18/22. People have even done better than that to. No one says the 350Z has horrid gas mileage. It just pushes my buttons.

Huzer21 · Postby **Huzer21** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

A new Mustang GT gets about 17 city, 25 highway. Not horrible for having significantly more power than the RX-8. The Honda S2000 (roughly same engine characteristics, HP, TQ, redline) gets 18/25. The Lotus elise (similar dynamically to the RX-8) gets 20/26. The RX-8 itself is rated at 16/22 for the '09. (I have yet to get over 20 in mine, I believe). The '04 was rated at 18/24, which is a bit optimistic.

While the RX-8 is a sports car, it's a handling car, it definitely is NOT a powerful car or efficient car. The rotary is unique, but it's not for everyone. However, I do get sick of the repeated jabs at the fuel economy. It's a known issue, get over it already.

Renesis Rx · Postby **Renesis Rx** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

I've had mine for a year now and for this whole time I thought I was getting around 14 city MPG. I actually filled up and set my trip. Come to find out that I get about 17 city. Alot better than I thought but still not the greatest. Its give and take ya know. It's either I want power and no economy, or no power all economy. I never believe what it "says" a car gets MPG wise. First off we live thousands of miles above sea level and have much thinner air. Therefore, you burn more fuel. Another thing people gotta remember is the 8 has a smaller tank than most cars.

AIM WO4 · Postby **AIM WO4** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

Blah, blah, blah. Who cares what they say? Do YOU like your car?

I had a Mustang that got 30+ MPG HWY with a V8. I could have cared less. I got about 12 when I drove it at 70+MPH in 2nd gear. It was FUN!!! :P

Buffalo · Postby **Buffalo** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

The best way to help someone understand the MPG thing is to just take them on the road. Hit a mountain pass and by the end of the trip i would be willing to bet they never ask about the mpg's again.

Problem solved.

RedRoadster · Postby **RedRoadster** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Renesis Rx @ Jul 22 2008, 10:52 AM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=57586]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>

First off we live thousands of miles above sea level and have much thinner air. Therefore, you burn more fuel.[/b]

???

Less fuel. The ECU will only give as much fuel to use the available air and maintain the target a/f ratio.

Unless I'm grossly mistaken.

GR-8 · Postby **GR-8** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Red95FMII @ Jul 22 2008, 11:18 AM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=57592]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>

???

Less fuel. The ECU will only give as much fuel to use the available air and maintain the target a/f ratio.

Unless I'm grossly mistaken.[/b]

The ECU jsut uses the fuel maps loaded in (Universal map) and adjusts from there but it still runs richer up here than at Sea Level. Unless I'm mistaken which I very well cuold be.

I have gotten over 22MPG several times but I have also gotten 12MPG. But I still don't see why everyone picks on the 8 for it. It's where everything in it's class is. 1MPG this way or that really isn't noticeable. Also the rating system is kinda screwy because some cars are easier to drive fast and hard than others in turn making easier to burn more fuel when not neccssary. I don't know. Today it just really bothers me. Mebe cause I my baby is at the dealer. IDK.

The tank in the 8 is pretty huge. I thought it was 15 gal tank but I think it's a 16 gal (approx.) Tim can verify. So the tank is pretty huge IMO.

Huzer21 · Postby **Huzer21** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

You don't have worse fuel economy because your car runs richer, you have worse economy because you have to work the engine harder to compensate for the less dense air. The RX-8s run pig rich to start with. The "enriched" gasoline we're stuck with doesn't help matters any. As far as I know, there are only a handful of gas stations in the metro area that sell "pure" (for lack of a better term) gasoline.

Gas tank size, 16 gallons. (Technically, I think it's 15.9)

GR-8 · Postby **GR-8** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Huzer21 @ Jul 22 2008, 12:19 PM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=57602]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>

You don't have worse fuel economy because your car runs richer, you have worse economy because you have to work the engine harder to compensate for the less dense air. The RX-8s run pig rich to start with. The "enriched" gasoline we're stuck with doesn't help matters any. As far as I know, there are only a handful of gas stations in the metro area that sell "pure" (for lack of a better term) gasoline.

Gas tank size, 16 gallons. (Technically, I think it's 15.9)[/b]

If a car runs richer sure you'll have worse fuel economy because the motor is dumping more fuel in than if it were leaner. How noticeable it is IDK but from a few 8's with AP and MM maps claim that Fuel economy is better with the leaner tune.

Just to throw this in, an FI RX-8 gets roughly the exact same fuel economy as an NA 8 but makes 150WHP more and puts it up there in the power range of a GT mustang. So it really isn't all that bad. Sorry if you all read it wrong and like I'm yelling but a lot of things at the moment have me worked up and I don't feel like venting it out here or in the vent thread. I'll cool down in a little.

Huzer21 · Postby **Huzer21** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

I was referring to the "richer" comment from Renesis Rx. The cars run rich at any altitude, not just here. And the reason economy would be worse here is because of the air density, not that the car is running any richer than at sea level. The ECU ST/LT FT help adjust, but they only adjust to the factory specs of, well, already running rich. And car manufacturer defaults at rich. Less risk of boom-boom club.

My standard Cobb tune has produced marginally better mileage. Probably 1-2 mpg, at best. But hey, I've run it a little harder since I received the AP, so better mileage under harsher circumstances is ok in my book.

GR-8 · Postby **GR-8** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Huzer21 @ Jul 22 2008, 12:45 PM) [url=index.php?act=findpost&pid=57607]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/url]</div>

I was referring to the "richer" comment from Renesis Rx. The cars run rich at any altitude, not just here. And the reason economy would be worse here is because of the air density, not that the car is running any richer than at sea level. The ECU ST/LT FT help adjust, but they only adjust to the factory specs of, well, already running rich. And car manufacturer defaults at rich. Less risk of boom-boom club.

My standard Cobb tune has produced marginally better mileage. Probably 1-2 mpg, at best. But hey, I've run it a little harder since I received the AP, so better mileage under harsher circumstances is ok in my book.[/b]

Ok missunder stood. Sorry. Still freindly neighbors?

T-time · Postby **T-time** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

double post

T-time · Postby **T-time** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:14

theres no way you get better mileage at sea level i just got back from nj and i drove home... 900 ft elevation and i lost about 5 mpg down there (maybe i shoulda reset my ecu idk)

RX-8 Fuel Rant

Who is online