how can i get 30mpg or higher with an fd
11-29-04, 12:13 AM
#101
Originally Posted by rpm_pwr
If you can't afford the fuel you can't afford the car.
11-29-04, 12:46 AM
#102
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by FDNewbie
"In the 1980s..."
They're saying that Mazda originally achieved 20/27-28 mpg, and this was marked down to 18/24????
They're saying that Mazda originally achieved 20/27-28 mpg, and this was marked down to 18/24????
Mazda achieved what appeared in the economy guide on the window stickers of the FD (5-speed: 17/25, Auto: 17/24), using the rating method and testing procedures in place at that time. This change wasn't a plot by the EPA to expose the rotary engine's fuel economy issues. It applied to all vehicles, and years before the FD was available for sale.
11-29-04, 12:52 AM
#103
Originally Posted by jimlab
Sometimes I just don't know about you Ramy.
Mazda achieved what appeared in the economy guide on the window stickers of the FD (5-speed: 17/25, Auto: 17/24), using the rating method and testing procedures in place at that time. This change wasn't a plot by the EPA to expose the rotary engine's fuel economy issues. It applied to all vehicles, and years before the FD was available for sale.
Mazda achieved what appeared in the economy guide on the window stickers of the FD (5-speed: 17/25, Auto: 17/24), using the rating method and testing procedures in place at that time. This change wasn't a plot by the EPA to expose the rotary engine's fuel economy issues. It applied to all vehicles, and years before the FD was available for sale.
I'm saying that w/ the standard practice of adjusting the estimates on ALL cars, the adjustments were scaling DOWN what the factory tests produced. That means Mazda originally got MORE than 17/24. HOW?! lol. I'm trying to figure out what secret driving skill they used to get 17/24.
To further clarify, I'm saying 17/24 is an inflated # anyways, seeing most of us get 12!! So to say Mazda got even MORE than 17/24 in test...they must be doing some magic!
(Now you understand my point?)
11-29-04, 12:58 AM
#104
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by FDNewbie
Jim, I think you mistunderstood my point.
That means Mazda originally got MORE than 17/24.
11-29-04, 01:11 AM
#105
Originally Posted by jimlab
No, I think you misunderstood mine.
No, they "originally got" 17/25 for the FD using the EPA testing procedures in place at that time. They didn't get better results and then were scaled back. The reduction was already in place and part of the process long before the FD arrived.
No, they "originally got" 17/25 for the FD using the EPA testing procedures in place at that time. They didn't get better results and then were scaled back. The reduction was already in place and part of the process long before the FD arrived.
"In the 1980s, an EPA study found that drivers were typically achieving lower fuel economy than predicted by EPA laboratory tests. As a result, EPA required the laboratory-derived city and highway MPG estimates posted on the labels of new vehicles to be adjusted downward by 10 percent for city estimates and by 22 percent for highway estimates to better reflect the MPG real-world drivers can expect."
To me, that says that the drivers (me and you) were getting results higher than what was found in EPA lab tests (by Mazda and other respective manufacturers). As a result, the EPA made Mazda and other manufacturers take their original numbers and adjust them downward, and THAT # was placed on the stickers on the cars. So if it says 17/24 on the sticker, it was actually found to be higher during EPA testing, but that number you're looking at is the mark down for adjustment purposes...
Specifically notice their wording: "estimates posted on the labels of new vehicles to be adjusted downward" ie the label #s were adjusted, thus the original #s were higher...
Where did I go wrong?
11-29-04, 01:57 AM
#106
Damn people, let it go.
IF you want to worry about exact mileage calculation, fill your tank up until it is absolutely full and will not hold anymore. Then go for your road trip. You dont even have to burn the whole tank...1/4 or 1/2 tank will do. Then, when you're done babying it for test purposes, pull over and refill it, all the way, again. Note the miles you travelled, and note the gallons you just had to refill with. Simple math will yeild your test results.
I may do this on a mildly modded FD just for the hell of it. I'd say 25-30 would be attainable, but 20-25 would be average. I would say 30+ would not be attainable without specific fuel economy mods.
IF you want to worry about exact mileage calculation, fill your tank up until it is absolutely full and will not hold anymore. Then go for your road trip. You dont even have to burn the whole tank...1/4 or 1/2 tank will do. Then, when you're done babying it for test purposes, pull over and refill it, all the way, again. Note the miles you travelled, and note the gallons you just had to refill with. Simple math will yeild your test results.
I may do this on a mildly modded FD just for the hell of it. I'd say 25-30 would be attainable, but 20-25 would be average. I would say 30+ would not be attainable without specific fuel economy mods.
11-29-04, 02:01 AM
#107
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by FDNewbie
To me, that says that the drivers (me and you) were getting results higher
than what was found in EPA lab tests (by Mazda and other respective manufacturers). As a result, the EPA made Mazda and other manufacturers take their original numbers and adjust them downward, and THAT # was placed on the stickers on the cars. So if it says 17/24 on the sticker, it was actually found to be higher during EPA testing, but that number you're looking at is the mark down for adjustment purposes...
Specifically notice their wording: "estimates posted on the labels of new vehicles to be adjusted downward" ie the label #s were adjusted, thus the original #s were higher... Where did I go wrong?
11-29-04, 02:02 AM
#108
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by RotaryResurrection
IF you want to worry about exact mileage calculation, fill your tank up until it is absolutely full and will not hold anymore. Then go for your road trip. You dont even have to burn the whole tank...1/4 or 1/2 tank will do. Then, when you're done babying it for test purposes, pull over and refill it, all the way, again. Note the miles you travelled, and note the gallons you just had to refill with. Simple math will yeild your test results.
I would say 30+ would not be attainable without specific fuel economy mods.
11-29-04, 02:16 AM
#109
Originally Posted by jimlab
I think you meant to say lower.
EPA testing includes whatever reduction factor is currently part of the process. The end results of EPA testing for the FD were 17/25 for the 5-speed and 17/24 for the automatic. End of debate.
If you knew the exact year the change was made and compared results for one particular car prior to the adjustment and results for the same car after, then you could say "the original numbers were higher". However, in the FD's case, the testing procedure had long since included the adjustment, so there were no other "original" results.
If you knew the exact year the change was made and compared results for one particular car prior to the adjustment and results for the same car after, then you could say "the original numbers were higher". However, in the FD's case, the testing procedure had long since included the adjustment, so there were no other "original" results.
I dunno how you came to the conclusion that the reduction was a part of the process (ie the test results automatically yield reduced/adjusted values) vs. it being an after-the-fact reduction for "real world experience." I didn't see that distinction clearly on the website, but no matter...pulling 17/24 is still a feat in an FD IMO.
11-29-04, 02:21 AM
#110
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by FDNewbie
I dunno how you came to the conclusion that the reduction was a part of the process (ie the test results automatically yield reduced/adjusted values) vs. it being an after-the-fact reduction for "real world experience."
2. Mazda reports the results of their testing (17/24) to the EPA.
3. The EPA chooses (or not) to independently verify those results (17/24) using the same testing procedures.
Nowhere in that process did someone take the results Mazda got, haul out their calculator, and reduce them for publication. The results already included the reduction factor. I think you're trying to split a hair that doesn't exist.
Last edited by jimlab; 11-29-04 at 02:23 AM.
11-29-04, 02:50 AM
#111
Thanks for rephrasing what I already described earlier.
Like an LS1?
Dont get me wrong, IM not gonna get involved in that debate. But I think you can hardly sit there and claim the LS1 as the cure all mod for the 7, nor as the fuel ecomomy giant of the industry. Sure, its more reliable, overall cheaper, and gets 5-10% better mileage than the turbo rotary, but we don't really care.
11-29-04, 12:15 PM
#113
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FDNewbie
Example (I'm making up the mileage):
-Trip odometer reads mileage as 212 @ 1/4 tank
- Gas tank capacity = 20.1, and using 3/4 of the tank gives you 15.075 gallons
- Divide mileage driven (212) by gallons used (15.075) = 14.06 miles per gallon.
Some ppl may forget to factor in the unused portion of gas, and instead of dividing by 15.075 gallons, they divide by 20.1 gallons (a complete tank). That would, of course, yield significantly lower gas economy (in this case bringing it down to 10.55 mpg). Am I missing something?
-Trip odometer reads mileage as 212 @ 1/4 tank
- Gas tank capacity = 20.1, and using 3/4 of the tank gives you 15.075 gallons
- Divide mileage driven (212) by gallons used (15.075) = 14.06 miles per gallon.
Some ppl may forget to factor in the unused portion of gas, and instead of dividing by 15.075 gallons, they divide by 20.1 gallons (a complete tank). That would, of course, yield significantly lower gas economy (in this case bringing it down to 10.55 mpg). Am I missing something?
The fact is, regardless of what Mazda or anyone else published, people in the real world get about 12 mpg city and 22 mpg highway. 30+ mpg is complete BS.
11-29-04, 02:53 PM
#114
Rotary Enthusiast
UK mpg numbers ...
Originally Posted by widebody2
Jim I've posted that number before and was called for BS that time too. Here's a picture of the page. Its actually 37.2 at 56. If you want to call BS on Mazda thats fine...but not on me. I actually believe the statement...it goes right along with some of the figures that others have claimed...DamonB's claim is one that comes to mind.
This UK rating, in the early 90's, had 3 parts:
1) an "urban cycle" with 12 mph ave
2) a constant 56 mph
3) a constant 75 mph
http://www.warrington.gov.uk/shoppin...dance_FCFS.htm
The constant speed tests could be on a track, or chassis dyno with estimated loads. Note that the US method relies on the MFG's for all parasitic load info.
Your pic showed mpg values of 17.7, 37.2, and 29.4 for the 3 tests. This is consistent with 17, 35, and 28 from this uk-fd site:
http://www.rx7uknet.dircon.co.uk/rx7_fd3s_6.html
The big UK gallon is 1.2 US gallons, so US mpg's for your pic info would be 14.8 urban, 31 at 56 mph, and 24.5 for 75 mph. The last number is consistent with some observations in this thread.
I think I could hit near 31 mpg's at 56 with windows up, endless flat road, no wind, ac off, tires at max pressure, ideal align't, and very careful throttle use to stay in closed loop and no boost.
Last edited by KevinK2; 11-29-04 at 02:55 PM.
11-29-04, 08:26 PM
#116
Admitted 'rexaholic'
Keep the honda. It will give you something to look forward to when you get home to the FD. Plus, less wear and tear on your baby!
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I had a 1977 Datsun B-210 that got 37 MPG city and 47 highway. That was on the sticker, I averaged about 35 combo driving with AC on.
Didn't have enough power to pull a greasy string out of a cat's ***, but if cars could be made that thrifty way back then.....somethings going on!
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I had a 1977 Datsun B-210 that got 37 MPG city and 47 highway. That was on the sticker, I averaged about 35 combo driving with AC on.
Didn't have enough power to pull a greasy string out of a cat's ***, but if cars could be made that thrifty way back then.....somethings going on!
11-30-04, 12:51 AM
#117
Originally Posted by paw140
This is a *horribly* inaccurate way to do this. I've actually never even heard of anyone suggesting to do it this way. So, theoretically, I can top off the tank with fuel, drive for 30 miles, and when my gas gauge still reads 'full', I can conclude that the FD gets infinite gas mileage? I think the most I have ever put in my FD is about 17 gallons, and the gas gauge was below E and the fuel light was on.
The fact is, regardless of what Mazda or anyone else published, people in the real world get about 12 mpg city and 22 mpg highway. 30+ mpg is complete BS.
The fact is, regardless of what Mazda or anyone else published, people in the real world get about 12 mpg city and 22 mpg highway. 30+ mpg is complete BS.
The fact is, I didn't give it much thought, because I wanted a rough estimate, that's all. I'm sure there are all sorts of things you gotta take into consideration to be EXACT, many of which Jim already pointed out.
02-07-05, 10:58 AM
#118
Engine, Not Motor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 29,789
Likes: 0
Received 108 Likes
on
91 Posts
Originally Posted by von
I had a 91 geo metro. Got 47mpg but my dad got more out of it on long trips. The insights did not get a true 70mpg. They actually got 54 or something in a gas mileage test. A 1.6ltr miata will get 30mpg even. Now if you want you can rebuild a geo metro with lighter parts. Strip it then somehow retrofit a hybrid batery into it and squeeze out 80mpg
You're right, the Insight doesn't get 70 MPG. Mine nearly almost always does above 85 MPG on the highway, and 72MPG in the city. I've seen over 105MPG trip average on the highway before...
Now back to our regularily scheduled program....
02-07-05, 07:35 PM
#119
Originally Posted by iluvmy3rdgen
The insight is the hybrid, it gets like 70. One of my high school teachers was drafting behind a tractor trailor for hours upstate. He calculated 104 mpg. INSANE.
On another note, you guys can get 20+mpg on a lightly modified (intake, dp, mp, cb, ic, radiator, PFC) FD? damn, i should get one and save myself some money driving to school...get about 18 driving my minivan the 550 miles to school.
02-07-05, 08:52 PM
#123
Full Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Francisco, Ca
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After doing auto to manual swap (and keeping 3.90's) and taking out ps/ac, bose, and swapping out the pre-cat for a dp and cat for hi-flo, my gas mileage has went up. The only numbers I ever honestly used to gauge this are the dollars in my wallet. Good enough for me.
02-07-05, 09:10 PM
#124
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by chillin_rx7_guy
Now I know one of JimLab's buttons to push....mention "I got 30 MPG on my FD"......
02-07-05, 09:12 PM
#125
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by 150kFd
my gas mileage has went up. The only numbers I ever honestly used to gauge this are the dollars in my wallet. Good enough for me.