Okay, so I was looking at gas mileage ratings on Consumer Reports. They pointed out that cars get worse mileage than their EPA ratings. Especially city mileage.

So I searched... Most small cars were rated 17-20mpg city. The Miata came out on top at 21mpg. The Civic got 18mpg. The s2000 got 19mpg. The RX-8 gets 14mpg, but I think that's only before break-in (then owners report 17mpg). OTOH the Civic's freeway mileage is 43mpg. And the manual gets 20/40.

Most forum members with FCs in good shape seem to get 17mpg city (EPA is 18). With synthetic oil all around I'm getting 18mpg... unless I hot foot it. Then I get 17 too. Historical factoid: During the last gas crisis, rotary-dependant Mazda pushed the EPA into establishing the city/freeway mpg system, rather than reporting a single number.

Theoretically weight affects city mileage, while aerodynamics affect freeway mileage. And the Miata seems to confirm this. Anybody with major weight reduction want to report their city mileage?

 

I think once you do major weight reduction, you don't care about MPG anymore.

 

My Civic has gotten me 43.9 over a span of 7k miles.

Gets mid 50s if I'm not doing over 60.

 

Also, once people do major weight reduction, its safe to say the engine is pretty heavily modfied and not getting normal milage. Mine actually got over 20 in the city the one tank I drove it slowly to see how good I could get the milage.

 

my friend has a 240 with a sr20 and he gets about 31-32 mpg but he has done a huge amount of weight reduction and still daily drives it

 

BS, don't kid yourself... a rotary is not the most efficient engine out there no matter how you want to twist it.

 

i got 524 miles on 7/8 of a tank at 3500rpms the hole way plus passing cars in a 87 tII with 215/50/17 tires.

 

i'm calling BS on this as well, that is almost 35MPG which these cars may do falling out of a plane but not while going down a level road no matter how light your foot is.

i'm thinking either your speedo is off, you miscounted when you reset your tripmeter or added up the mileage or you forgot that you put 5 gallons in near that last rest stop.

 

i was going to say. my TurboII doesn't run the greatest but i'm pushing it trying to get 250 miles out of a full tank. Straight freeway miles at 70mph not passing anyone.

 

215/50/17? That's...taller than the stock tire. Weird.

 

yeah

in practice
rx7 vs civic
the ONLY place the civic wins, is fuel milage, I don't care what the EPA ratings say, the civic is going to use less gas.

 

Real world mileage (Consumer Reports road test), not EPA. City mileage, not freeway. On the freeway the Civic gets 40mpg, the RX-7 gets 25mpg. I'm just saying I do a lot of city driving, so I'm shocked at 18mpg city from a Civic.

I think Karack is getting rotten mileage and is jealous... I don't believe jeff_man either, though. At 7/8 a tank I believe he' claiming 40mpg.

Sideways7: Was that a full tank? Is your car stock weight or is it lightened?

 

RX7..bought for GO,GO!!!..not for Stop and GO!..which means bought it Because it will get up and Go.I STILL don't care if it gets Crappy Mileage!.I liked the Look,And I would rather get Bad gas mileage than be Seen drivin a Tin Can Honda.

 

well, all cars get 0 mpg when they're stopped, so what does any of this matter? At 80 mph, my vert got 23 with the top down, ive heard that 29-30 isnt out of reach if you are cruising at 65 in 5th gear... with like, no stop and go. Ive never had the patience to find out.

 

The thing your not taking in to account is that the real world scenario used in the civic to get 18 MPG would NOT get 18 mpg in an RX-7. You would prob see 15-16 at best in similar driving. If you drove the civic the same you drive the 7 to get 18 mpg, the civic would see well over 20. I still don't see how you can get a civic to have 18 mpg unless you do nothing but drive it in rush hour traffic in LA. EPA estimates are usefull in comparing gas milage between cars because I think they use a standardized pattern of driving to test them. So compare the 17 mpg the EPA says our cars get to whatever the EPA says the civic gets and you'll get a much more fair comparison.
Edit: Yes, 30 MPG is attainable in an NA coupe with a good engine on the highway, I've done it. Not sure about a convertable, though.

 

I get 17mpg around town. That's redlining it at least once a day and usually shifting between 4k and 5k. To and from work every day.
Not a bad daily driver for a 20 year old sports car.

 

you're going to want to haul *** a lot more in a 7, so this is kind of a pointless discussion.

 

my fc has city milage of 12-14 at best...., my n/a I had 4 years ago got 19 once I think. I drove a civic for a few months once and always got around 27 city at least. how is this the same?

 

What year/trim civic? the Si model is going to get worse fuel economy than the DX obviously...

 

Brand new.
"automatic transmission": 18mpg
manual: 22mpg city
Si: 19mpg city

 

my TII is street tuned for best mileage, it gets decent at best in the city and gets about 22-24MPG on the freeway(14.5AFR, begins to lean misfire any leaner with the porting and exhaust) at near 300RWHP. i just recently picked up a n/a that got horrible gas mileage in town like many n/a owners complain about due in part to the aggressive fuelling on the n/a's. i was hoping it would get better than my TII but i was disappointed, it is basically a push with my TII in that i can run 87 octane in the n/a but at least i am not putting many miles on my TII anymore since i have over $10k invested into it i am glad to park it in the garage and drive it on occasion now rather than everyday.

so about your comment, do some research before assuming.

now i could omit the cat and lean the n/a out for a bit better gas mileage in town and on the freeway but is a standalone worth it for the mileage? well that also is debatable.

 

I get 250 miles out of my si when im non stop racing it, that about 20mpg.. So unless you can go and race the **** out of the 7 and get 20mpg then please dont compare the two...

 

actually when i beat on my 7 i still get ~18MPG, tuning makes a huge difference and how much time you spend on it.

 

Im not talking about beat on it, I can beat on my civic and still get 28 mpg, im talking about atleast 75% non conservative driving.. Means WOT like a ****, and city driving.. The truth is, that no matter what, a rotary motor will never be as efficient as a piston motor.. Which is why n/a need big *** injectors from factory, that you are most likely to find on turbo counterparts.. Not only that, but it takes more air to make same horsepower as it would take for piston motor... Bottom line, I never built my 7 to have the best MPG, so if you bought a 7 with economy in mind then you made a wrong decision..

 

not me, i already tried to explain the rotary is not the most efficient engine out there. even fully tuned it gets mediocre gas mileage but then again we are comparing a 2000lb piston motor car to a 2700lb rotary powered car, may as well choose something a little more closely matched like a 240.