No one asked you whether or not you thought it was true.

'Hard interstate driving' is a lot of passing via downshifting to 4th, inconsistent speed and possibly bad traffic.

Regardless of the modifications to my car, they, nor your opinion, will alter the fact of what my fuel numbers average.

I think he means doing 3rd gear pulls up every hill around here. I never saw this myself with this particular FC (which use to be NCross's), but I did ride along on a long ass trip from GA to VT in his old FC with an RB exhaust system and we got around 27 mpg the whole trip, so he can drive pretty efficent. I really wouldn't doubt it though on this FC- it's the most badass n/a I've driven and you pop the hood and there's hardly anything.

It takes a lot of effort and thought to pull 30mpg out of an FC on the interstate, especially if it's hilly. Throttle control, following distances kept in check, using road tractor trailers to your advantage, consistent speed without losing too much going uphill or using too much throttle, etc.

I simply will not argue my experience with you Khan, I really will not. If you don't believe me, that's fine.

Brett, did you remind everyone that that 27mpg average was with the A/C on? Oh yes, I went there.. Watch the shit start flying because I said power-sucking A/C was used. Well, to be honest, using the A/C and achieving such numbers makes remarkable sense for the simple fact that while using the A/C saps power, you are able to run windows up and sunroof closed which streamlines the aerodynamics ridiculously, and reduces drag. A reduction in drag is reduction on CONSISTENT load on the motor, reducing the amount of fuel necessary to keep a consistent speed...where as the A/C compressor only runs now and again.

Streetported 91 non-turbo 5 spd Coupe = solid 360-375 miles before she starts coughing.

That's about 22-23 mpg over mixed driving 70% highway / 30% street. Oh yeah, I drive the piss outta her too.

Out of all of the FCs that are in my area I don't know one car, that when running properly, doesn't break 20mpg in the city. Most of them are N/As but there's a couple turbo cars thrown in also. Oh and I'm right outside of DC so it's usually pretty bad city traffic.

Pop's 91 N/A Prof Catback: 21ish city ~25 highway
Billy's Stock 91 N/A: same numbers
Josh's Stock 87 N/A: 22 city, 26+ highway, when running correct
Jimmy's Sotck 88 T2: 20 city, ~22 highway, out of boost of course lol

I rest my case...

Thats funny because you made three posts after mine to defend yourself. I think deep down inside you know that its complete bullshit or you have a serious flaw in your calculation method.

An S4 FC is rated at 15mpg city, 21 highway. There is no fucking way in hell you picked up 9mpg from deleting emissions (i.e. lowering fuel economy) and freeing up the exhaust and removing accessories AND driving the car hard. Every retard is out to prove that his car is special in some way. Like the water temp threads where some dipshit always comes in and goes "MY WATER TEMP STAYS AT 160 ALL THE TIME, YOU GUYS SHOULD FIX YOUR CARS!" :lol:

Khan, it's not my fault you cannot drive.

It doesn't take much to beat stock fuel economy ratings from 20 years ago. I read somewhere that the EPA ratings are easily beaten in any car nowadays because with the typical driving styles of normal people, those numbers are all they can get, and it's what they expect from the car.

I can get 26.something out of my S4 n/a with a shit ton of miles and a huge exhaust, so I can see getting 30 mpg driving down from SC to GA with a stripped, fairly low mileage block and a more-free-flowier exhaust. I really doubt he took more than 5 hard pulls, so that shouldn't kill fuel economy much.

Just to think though- he's never really tested the a/f ratio on the car, so it's possible that it's running lean or something. Idk, I'm just backing up a friend. I've known him for years and he's always been good at squeezing out the numbers, even in my FC, so I trust them :dunno:

LOL! :lol: Are you fucking kidding me? Not only do I have a boosted car but I also don't drive like a grandma to try and squeeze every last mile out of the tank. You obviously bought the wrong car for gas mileage. I can imagine how much it must suck to drive slow as fuck in a POS like an FC (like all FCs as far as daily driving is concerned).

Theres no way he'll just run lean 24/7, rich possibly but not lean. Now that you've mentioned all the actions you take to ensure the best possible gas mileage though I'm almost convinced that its actually true. If it is then I apologize, my reasoning being that I had absolutely no clue an FC owner could actually do things like draft semi's to reduce fuel mileage. Props to you, I guess...lol.

Who says I drive like a grandma? Brett, do I drive like a grandma? Wait, now I'm really confused..

Khan, you're in Orlando (Wow, I'm sorry..).. Why don't you drive up here and ride with me for a few days. That way when you experience this whole shebang first hand, you can apologize to me while you kiss my gay ass and like it.

And on that bombshell, this is no longer amusing to me, so I'm done.

Oh, by the way...

24.2mpg as of yesterday's fillup. Lots of fun full throttle interstate merging, passing and cruising at 5,000 revs in 2nd then flooring it to fuck with my friend's ex boyfriend in his craptastic Integra. That also includes a 0-100 run.

i get 23mpg on the highway 100% OUT of boost..i have an 88 turbo 2, holeset h2e turbo, haltech e6k, and an fmic

Damn bro you are such a badass!

im with khan, there is no way that s4 n/a or tii will get in city 20mpg

im not arguing with you nor am i a homophobe but did you just admit you were gay and that you had a gay friend whos ex lover drove an integra. i think im gonna pass out, you know, from all the gayness.

...and back on topic...

'88 TII with s5 turbo, everything else stock.... typically around 18 mixed city/hwy

Incidentally, it is much tougher to beat 1980s EPA fuel economy estimates than it is to beat present-day estimates because the estimates in the 80s were famously optimistic. Today's estimates are much more accurate. Also, to be accurate, the S4 FC was rated at 17 mpg city/24 highway for the NA and 17/23 for the Turbo II (not 15/21).

I've logged about 140,000 miles in my two NA FCs. The current one is all stock, the previous one had an open exhaust and a mild streetport. Both got pretty consistent gas mileage: 14/23 for the NA streetport and 16/24 for my current all stock car. I'd say if you really took care, 30 on the highway should be possible. I'm more skeptical of the 20+ mpg city claims, but different people define "city" driving differently. I define "city" mileage as a tank driven mostly in stop and go commuting-type driving, not a mixture of highway and stop-and-go driving. In mixed driving, I could easily see averaging 20 mpg.

My numbers were taken from fueleconomy.gov which has proven to be a reliable source.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/4144.shtml

lol @ all your double digit city fuel economies
i get 7-8 city

Ah. Thanks for pointing that out. I see it says on the page you linked to that "We have revised the 1985-2007 MPG estimates to make them comparable to the new 2008 and later MPG estimates." This explains the difference. My figures came from the original Mazda brochures from the 80s.

in city without any boost im getting 21mpg

Stock (currently) S5 n/a, 21.5-22.5 hwy at 70 mph average. The car was rated at 25 hwy from the factory. With our current ethanol equipped crappy gas, if you figure I should have lost about 10% economy due to it, then that should mean I get about 22.5 mpg. That's about right.

This car runs absolutely stupid rich. It even sputters while warm at idle. The exhaust tips are completely black and the bumper gets dirty quickly as a result. If I leaned it out, I could probably pick up lots more hp and mileage. My old '88 didn't run nearly as rich stock and even with no tuning but some good exhaust work that car would get about 27 mpg hwy. With a 100 mile per day commute, I'd kill to get that again.

As far as not being able to beat stock mileage because removing emissions devices increases efficiency over not having them, that represents a complete lack of understanding of the RX-7 exhaust. The stock exhaust is extremely restrictive. You waste hp and economy just trying to push air out of it. Get a nicer free flowing exhaust on there that aids in scavenging and you'll increase the VE of the engine almost everywhere which means more power and more economy. There is a limit to everything though but just installing a header would net more mileage on these cars. That's assuming you can keep your foot out of it since it's so much more fun.

I tried hypermiling for 1 tank of gas on this car. It included coasting whenever I could and shutting off the engine at lights. It only got me 24.6 mpg which is only 2 better than what I typically get. It just runs too damned rich. Once I get an ecu on it and do some other things, if 30 mpg hwy isn't possible, at least getting right up near it shouldn't be an issue.

I wanna see those MPG figures with the Super snail attached. :naughty:

-- PS you going to SS this year?

I'll get around to that one day. Hopefully soon. I worked on the bracket a little bit in CAD but have been so busy lately that I haven't actually had a chance to get under the hood.

Nope not this year. Went the past 5 but it's just not going to happen this time around.

Roger that, i get about the same as you. 1600cc's all around. Can spend $100 a day on petrol no problem. gas here 94 $3.00 gallon my tank 18g i think. have to fill up at about quarter or them darn pumps start winening