MPG after L re-flash
03-29-2004, 03:08 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPG after L re-flash
I had the L re-flash done a few weeks ago and it does seem to improve MPG. Here is what I am seeing:
My daily commute (20 mi each way) consists of:
10 mi highway
2 mi city – slow moving traffic and frequent stops
8 mi “parkway” – 45-55 mph with 3-4 stops
With the old maps I was getting 15-16 mpg doing normal driving and 17 mpg doing very easy driving (shifting < 3K RPM, except on a highway where I stay between 3500 and 4500 RPM).
After the L re-flash I am getting 19 mpg driving like a grandma and 17 mpg driving normally (enjoying the car but not driving it nearly as hard “as if I sole it”).
My daily commute (20 mi each way) consists of:
10 mi highway
2 mi city – slow moving traffic and frequent stops
8 mi “parkway” – 45-55 mph with 3-4 stops
With the old maps I was getting 15-16 mpg doing normal driving and 17 mpg doing very easy driving (shifting < 3K RPM, except on a highway where I stay between 3500 and 4500 RPM).
After the L re-flash I am getting 19 mpg driving like a grandma and 17 mpg driving normally (enjoying the car but not driving it nearly as hard “as if I sole it”).
03-29-2004, 03:34 PM
#2
Who Cares?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Robins Air Force Base, Georgia
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not kept track of mileage since that is not the reason I purchased a sports car. My theory being if I can't afford the gas I can't afford the car.
I have had the "L" reflash performed and my experience is that it runs a lot, and I do mean A LOT smoother at cold idle and first gear takeoffs. Whether or not Mazda admits that it adjusts the fuel mixture to be more lean, it sure has had that effect on my 8. I love my baby and wouldn't trade it for anything else on the road.
My .02
I have had the "L" reflash performed and my experience is that it runs a lot, and I do mean A LOT smoother at cold idle and first gear takeoffs. Whether or not Mazda admits that it adjusts the fuel mixture to be more lean, it sure has had that effect on my 8. I love my baby and wouldn't trade it for anything else on the road.
My .02
03-29-2004, 03:57 PM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the car a lot and I would have bought it even if I knew about the gas mileage and HP.
I don't know about you but it does affect my overall staisfaction with a product when it fails to perform as I was led to believe it does.
The 8 is a great car, but that alone is not enough to owning it a great experience.
I don't know about you but it does affect my overall staisfaction with a product when it fails to perform as I was led to believe it does.
The 8 is a great car, but that alone is not enough to owning it a great experience.
03-29-2004, 05:35 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Algonquin, Il....west of Chicago
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have my car in the shop...huge hole in tire and broken tire sensor monitor. I told them I wanted the "L" flash done since I have experienced flooding, hesitation & poor gas mileage. He said he would see about it...it may already have been done on my car. I got mine in November...built in August.....anyone know if my 8 would need the L flash or were they updated by then? I want to see improvements in these areas and want something done. Thanks for any help on this.
03-29-2004, 05:47 PM
#5
Chicks dig me!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: What Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas!
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the "flash" my MPG remains the same......12 MPG driving hard all the time.
The idle is rougher, but it screams now.
It is faster........but.
The Baller
The idle is rougher, but it screams now.
It is faster........but.
The Baller
03-29-2004, 07:08 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: GA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Air Force RX8
[
I have had the "L" reflash performed and my experience is that it runs a lot, and I do mean A LOT smoother at cold idle and first gear takeoffs. Whether or not Mazda admits that it adjusts the fuel mixture to be more lean, it sure has had that effect on my 8. I love my baby and wouldn't trade it for anything else on the road.
My .02 [/B]
[
I have had the "L" reflash performed and my experience is that it runs a lot, and I do mean A LOT smoother at cold idle and first gear takeoffs. Whether or not Mazda admits that it adjusts the fuel mixture to be more lean, it sure has had that effect on my 8. I love my baby and wouldn't trade it for anything else on the road.
My .02 [/B]
03-29-2004, 07:20 PM
#10
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do most of the ones being sold now have the L?
03-29-2004, 07:53 PM
#11
MAN, I'M HAVIN' FUN!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, then.
In summary, requesting the "L-Flash" seems risky business. I do notice a little jitter at cold startup that goes away once in 2nd gear once baby gets a little juice. So the hell with it. My 8 runs like a top, ...and what kind of Type-A even keeps track of "mpg" in a LOVING CAR LIKE THIS ?
In summary, requesting the "L-Flash" seems risky business. I do notice a little jitter at cold startup that goes away once in 2nd gear once baby gets a little juice. So the hell with it. My 8 runs like a top, ...and what kind of Type-A even keeps track of "mpg" in a LOVING CAR LIKE THIS ?
03-30-2004, 08:48 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walpole, MA
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still on the first tank after the flash. MPG seems to about the same, 19 mpg. It's frustrating that my friend's Honda Pilot with a V6, AT, and about 1500 more pounds than the RX8 gets 21mpg in similar driving. Now, I hate driving the Pilot, but there is no question the RX8 gets crap MPG. I'm still hoping the flash will improve the mileage, because one tank is not enough to give a good indication. If I could get in the low 20's with mixed driving, I would be happy.
03-30-2004, 01:10 PM
#16
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
srm858, i think that 19 mpg is pretty good compared to many. i got 21 mpg driving like a complete moron , respecting ALL the speed signs... i will never ever get that kinda mileage in my live because i was bored to death !!!
03-30-2004, 01:19 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hotlanta
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
srm858 said :
Still on the first tank after the flash. MPG seems to about the same, 19 mpg. It's frustrating that my friend's Honda Pilot with a V6, AT, and about 1500 more pounds than the RX8 gets 21mpg in similar driving. Now, I hate driving the Pilot, but there is no question the RX8 gets crap MPG. I'm still hoping the flash will improve the mileage, because one tank is not enough to give a good indication. If I could get in the low 20's with mixed driving, I would be happy.
Yeah, well let's see how your friend's Pilot carves up a road course ... most likely like a dull spoon ... I'll take the knife-edge reflexes and cutting edge style of the RX and give back a few mpg any day
Still on the first tank after the flash. MPG seems to about the same, 19 mpg. It's frustrating that my friend's Honda Pilot with a V6, AT, and about 1500 more pounds than the RX8 gets 21mpg in similar driving. Now, I hate driving the Pilot, but there is no question the RX8 gets crap MPG. I'm still hoping the flash will improve the mileage, because one tank is not enough to give a good indication. If I could get in the low 20's with mixed driving, I would be happy.
Yeah, well let's see how your friend's Pilot carves up a road course ... most likely like a dull spoon ... I'll take the knife-edge reflexes and cutting edge style of the RX and give back a few mpg any day
03-30-2004, 01:58 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walpole, MA
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derwankel, no question the Pilot drives like a whale. I love driving the RX8, that's why I bought it. I would like to see a technical explanation as to why rotary engines get worse mileage than a comparable piston engine. They seem like they would have less friction and with the new Renesis design eliminating the intake/exhaust overlap, the engine should be efficient. I traded in a BMW 528i, 5-speed and that car would get in the low 30's for mpg on straight highway driving. It had less power than the RX8, but it's heavier and had way more torque.
The rotary has a lot of advantages. Small size, smoothness, high rev. ability, but why the poor mpg? If anyone can explain this to me, I would love to know.
Oh, by the way, just filled up the tank after the L flash. This first tank yielded 18mpg. About where it normally has been. Although my wife drove it over the weekend and she always revs the daylights out of our cars, so the mpg could be pessimistic.
The rotary has a lot of advantages. Small size, smoothness, high rev. ability, but why the poor mpg? If anyone can explain this to me, I would love to know.
Oh, by the way, just filled up the tank after the L flash. This first tank yielded 18mpg. About where it normally has been. Although my wife drove it over the weekend and she always revs the daylights out of our cars, so the mpg could be pessimistic.
03-30-2004, 04:13 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hotlanta
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I am no expert, but I do know Mr. Wankel developed the engine for it's simple design, few moving parts and by extension, reliability. The original single-rotors (NSU Wankel Spider) got decent mileage (27 mpg) and would rev in the 8K rpm range (or 12K racing form). At 497 cc it made 50 BHP and 54 lb ft of torque. The current rotary is quite a bit larger, produces quite a bit more power, and consumes more fuel to accomplish these tasks. Original reliability was a serious issue, today's reliability is far better with cars exceeding 200K miles when properly cared for... more in line with Mr. Wankel's original hopes I should think.
But I digress ... there are others here who can better explain it, and I am sure it resides in these hallowed threads somewhere, but essentially, the shape of the combustion chamber is not by any stretch of the imagination an optimal design for "efficiently" burning fossil fuel. The distribution of the energy created with the ignition of the air/fuel mixture in a cylindical chamber is far more efficient. That is why cannons and firearms of all sorts utilize a cylinder to contain, compress and control the escape of the gas to accellerate a projectile ... sometimes called a piston in the automotive world ... and we ain't got no pistons here ;-)
But I digress ... there are others here who can better explain it, and I am sure it resides in these hallowed threads somewhere, but essentially, the shape of the combustion chamber is not by any stretch of the imagination an optimal design for "efficiently" burning fossil fuel. The distribution of the energy created with the ignition of the air/fuel mixture in a cylindical chamber is far more efficient. That is why cannons and firearms of all sorts utilize a cylinder to contain, compress and control the escape of the gas to accellerate a projectile ... sometimes called a piston in the automotive world ... and we ain't got no pistons here ;-)
03-30-2004, 06:39 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Mazda the re-flash is to help with the flooding problem and has nothing to do with gas mileage.
For owners who think they are getting better gas mileage consider it the placebo effect. There are so many factors in gas mileage that nobody can prove better or worse MPG, ambient temp, accelration rate, weight of the car with cargo, passengers, amount of highway vs. street driving, etc.
We just gotta live with the pothetic MPG of this car, kind of bad since I got 13 MPG on my last tank and in my area (Southern California) we pay $2.45 per galon of 91 octane gas.
So be it, I still enjoy driving this car.
For owners who think they are getting better gas mileage consider it the placebo effect. There are so many factors in gas mileage that nobody can prove better or worse MPG, ambient temp, accelration rate, weight of the car with cargo, passengers, amount of highway vs. street driving, etc.
We just gotta live with the pothetic MPG of this car, kind of bad since I got 13 MPG on my last tank and in my area (Southern California) we pay $2.45 per galon of 91 octane gas.
So be it, I still enjoy driving this car.
03-31-2004, 07:43 AM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walpole, MA
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
derwankel, thanks for the explanation. Combustion chamber design is certainly important for efficency.
I just had my PCM reprogrammed, but I don't know whether it was the L or M flash. The info. from the dealer does not specify. I can't tell the difference in the way the car runs, but the CEL no longer comes on. My wife had problems starting it, but I have had no issues.
What I need now is an extended period of not bringing the car to the dealer or not starting. I need to build some confidence again in the car. It's great to drive and I enjoy every minute in it.
I just had my PCM reprogrammed, but I don't know whether it was the L or M flash. The info. from the dealer does not specify. I can't tell the difference in the way the car runs, but the CEL no longer comes on. My wife had problems starting it, but I have had no issues.
What I need now is an extended period of not bringing the car to the dealer or not starting. I need to build some confidence again in the car. It's great to drive and I enjoy every minute in it.
03-31-2004, 11:19 AM
#25
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Mazda the re-flash is to help with the flooding problem and has nothing to do with gas mileage.
For owners who think they are getting better gas mileage consider it the placebo effect. There are so many factors in gas mileage that nobody can prove better or worse MPG, ambient temp, accelration rate, weight of the car with cargo, passengers, amount of highway vs. street driving, etc.
All these factors average out over time. Tracking gas mileage for 500 mi before and 500 after should provide a reasonable indication.
We do know for a fact that the new fuel map is leaner – read Canzoomer threads. It is of course possible that better gas mileage is the unintended consequence of the flooding fix, but who cares.