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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Understanding emission numbers and how they work | Steve H | Honda | 11 | November 3rd 05 05:19 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 03:41 PM |