my cousin just got an rx-8, I am confused by the gas mileage


fuck....um....what is it...oh yeah

2

[Edited on December 31, 2008 at 4:06 PM. Reason : communists]

12/31/2008 4:05:35 PM

They suffer from Bulimia.

12/31/2008 4:06:00 PM

I think its just as bad as my Audi

12/31/2008 4:08:53 PM

i read the rx8 forum for awhile when i was considering buying one. 15mpg = no thanks

12/31/2008 4:20:07 PM

I usually get above 18.

12/31/2008 4:33:09 PM

sweet I get like 13 around town

12/31/2008 4:34:35 PM

pretty bad that my 5000# truck with about the same whp as a stock rx-8 gets about 20mpg avg.

12/31/2008 4:39:05 PM

Quote :

"I usually get above 18."

You should contribute your gas mileage log to their thread on rx8club to up the average.

12/31/2008 5:01:27 PM

Perhaps. I think I have only 9 posts on that forum.

My highest was like 19.8 when I drove mostly highway to Greensboro.

12/31/2008 5:36:21 PM

hurley brings up a good point, my cummins will pull over 22 mpg all highway. it seems hard to comprehend a car that size getting such bad milage

12/31/2008 7:30:34 PM

Quote :

"The Renesis engine – also 13B-MSP, for Multi Side Port –, which first appeared in production in the 2003 Mazda RX-8, is an evolution of the previous 13B. It was designed to reduce exhaust emission and improve fuel economy, which were two of the most recurrent drawbacks of rotary engines. Unlike its predecessors from the 13B range, it is naturally aspirated, leading to lower power from its two versions (Mazda RX-7's twin-turbocharged 13B-REW (280hp). The engine entailed two major changes. First, the exhausts ports are no longer peripheral but are located on the side of the housing, which allowed engineers to eliminate overlap and redesign the intake port area. This produced noticeably more power, thanks to a better compression ratio. Second, the rotors are shaped differently, especially their side seals and low-height apex seals, which offer optimized lubrication. All the Mazda rotary engines have been praised for their "light weight" but there are few accounts of the actual weight. The unmodified 2005 13B-MSP Renesis has a curb weight of 344lbs without engine fluids (such as coolant, oil, etc), transmission (automatic transmission weighs more than manual gearbox), carbon-fiber-composite drive-shaft, differential weight, or any aftermarket components (such as the Mazdaspeed turbo system). These and other innovative technologies allow the Renesis to achieve 49% higher output and dramatically reduced fuel consumption and emissions (the RX-8 meets LEV-II). It won International Engine of the Year and Best New Engine awards 2003 and also holds the "2.5 to 3 litre" size award for 2003 and 2004, where it is considered a 2.60 L engine. Finally, it was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 2004 and 2005."

12/31/2008 8:30:55 PM

it was probably just the damn gas cap. but i can clear your code for you if you want to. i love in Falcon Ridge right on Kaplan

and despite what they say, the gas mileage is basically the same. I got about 17-18 combined in my nonturbo rx-7 and all the turbo cars I've driven get 15-16 combined if you are easy on it, and 11-13 if you drive it hard around town

[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .]

1/1/2009 10:56:39 AM

The rotary may not be the most efficient, but don't compare it to a diesel motor that can't rev past 5k either. Everything is a compromise, however the free revving nature of a rotary in a sports car certainly seems to have merit.

1/1/2009 11:30:53 AM

ITS NO S14 THOUGH AM I RIGHT?

1/1/2009 1:10:28 PM

^^we're just shitting around dude



but it is interesting when you ponder on the 1000rpm useful operating range of an 89-98 cummins 6bt...1500-2500



[Edited on January 1, 2009 at 2:41 PM. Reason : and thankyou my engine wont rev past 2750, currently......]

1/1/2009 2:40:07 PM

^^ /// baby!!

1/2/2009 3:58:31 PM

I personally don't care for too many inline 4 engines, BMW or otherwise.

1/2/2009 5:14:09 PM

^ I guess the 2.5L Forced induced Porsche is the exception here?

1/2/2009 7:25:40 PM

I mean, I can appreciate the engineering that went into splitting the 928's V8 to make that inline 4... /sarcasm.

Yes it's a cool engine, but liner-less floating cylinders aren't the toughest and it wasn't exactly rev happy. Porsche is great at taking a bad design, and refining it till it works, sort of. At the time I believe it was the world's highest specific output 4 cylinder, while the 924 GTRs running at lemans shared the same crank and some of the block, and had the least amount of down time (one way to measure reliability for an endurance race car). "Cool", but I'd rather an M50 variant BMW inline 6, or really an LSx from the general, amongst others (flat 6s, obviously, some Subaru motors, etc). As for strictly inline 4 engines from more modest backgrounds, the early 1.6 and subsequent 1.8 liter engines from VW (only the 8 valve stuff) are hard to beat. I don't like too many engines. :/

1/3/2009 4:16:13 AM