New MPG Rating... Realistic ?
#28
Originally Posted by ZoomZoomH
all 3 numbers look pretty much dead on...
My wife's Grand Prix with the V8 one ups the 8 on average but the same city mileage.
She needs to learn stick so she can feel the difference driving the 8. Night and day difference even though she has the performance GXP it is heavy and feels heavy driving it.
#30
New and improved accurate numbers from the EPA so people don't get discouraged when they can't get the numbers that were advertised.
Over the years I have always known to deduct at least two from the numbers posted.
Do you think car sellers will go back and implement the new estimates on used cars?
Be really sad if someone was looking at new cars and saw the older cars estimated higher... and bought the older thinking it actually got better mileage.
Over the years I have always known to deduct at least two from the numbers posted.
Do you think car sellers will go back and implement the new estimates on used cars?
Be really sad if someone was looking at new cars and saw the older cars estimated higher... and bought the older thinking it actually got better mileage.
#32
Not only does this seem more accurate, it actually helps the 8... look up some comparable cars... I really don't feel too bad about getting 2 mpg less than an S2000, or 3 mpg less than a V6 Accord... Wanna know who this really hurts? Look up how much all the Hondas have dropped.
#33
New MPG Rating... Realistic ?
Well, they came out with the new MPG ratings for cars that is supposed to reflect more realistic of everyday driving today. In general every car dropped, with a 2004 manual RX8 (what I have going from 18/24 (20 combined) to 16/22 (18 combined). Do you think the new MPG is realistic with what you have gotten from your 8 ?
MPG
MPG
#36
Here is what is is supposed to be :
at least 22.5 No tax
at least 21.5, but less than 22.5 $1000
at least 20.5, but less than 21.5 $1300
at least 19.5, but less than 20.5 $1700
at least 18.5, but less than 19.5 $2100
at least 17.5, but less than 18.5 $2600
at least 16.5, but less than 17.5 $3000
at least 15.5, but less than 16.5 $3700
at least 14.5, but less than 15.5 $4500
at least 13.5, but less than 14.5 $5400
at least 12.5, but less than 13.5 $6400
less than 12.5 $7700
Here is the standard. But even under the old standard we were supposed to get a tax, wonder how Mazda skirted around that. I wonder with the new standards how they are going to apply the GG Tax, as a ton of vehicles just fell under these criteria.
For example :
2007 Nissan 350 Z 18/25 (20 combined)
2007 Honda S2000 18/24 (20 combined)
2007 Ford Mustang GT 15/23 (18 combined)
2006 Mitsubishi Evo 16/22 (18 combined)
at least 22.5 No tax
at least 21.5, but less than 22.5 $1000
at least 20.5, but less than 21.5 $1300
at least 19.5, but less than 20.5 $1700
at least 18.5, but less than 19.5 $2100
at least 17.5, but less than 18.5 $2600
at least 16.5, but less than 17.5 $3000
at least 15.5, but less than 16.5 $3700
at least 14.5, but less than 15.5 $4500
at least 13.5, but less than 14.5 $5400
at least 12.5, but less than 13.5 $6400
less than 12.5 $7700
Here is the standard. But even under the old standard we were supposed to get a tax, wonder how Mazda skirted around that. I wonder with the new standards how they are going to apply the GG Tax, as a ton of vehicles just fell under these criteria.
For example :
2007 Nissan 350 Z 18/25 (20 combined)
2007 Honda S2000 18/24 (20 combined)
2007 Ford Mustang GT 15/23 (18 combined)
2006 Mitsubishi Evo 16/22 (18 combined)
Last edited by Fanman; 02-24-2007 at 04:00 AM.
#41
I like the new ratings as they reflect a more realistic set of results. I hope they apply the gas guzzler taxes to trucks as well.
The downside is it will slow down some new car sales, but it will also force the automakers to get off their butts and increase fuel efficiency. It will probably fit the sales of the over indulgence of car/truck buyers as well. Unfortunately it doesn't do any favors for the future of rotaries unless Mazda has a few aces up their sleeves for the next gen - which it sounds like they do.
Interestingly, the new RX8 mileage seems to be on the money for mine. The CX7 and 5 mileages are a bit lower then what we actually see, especially the 5. My wife's 5 gets 27-28 MPG at 80-85 MPH average through west Texas fully loaded down, yet they only give it 25. City traffic (she calls it 1st-2nd) on the clogged US 75 in Dallas yields 23. The CX7 gets exactly what the old rating shows and I'm not the easiest driver on it.
The downside is it will slow down some new car sales, but it will also force the automakers to get off their butts and increase fuel efficiency. It will probably fit the sales of the over indulgence of car/truck buyers as well. Unfortunately it doesn't do any favors for the future of rotaries unless Mazda has a few aces up their sleeves for the next gen - which it sounds like they do.
Interestingly, the new RX8 mileage seems to be on the money for mine. The CX7 and 5 mileages are a bit lower then what we actually see, especially the 5. My wife's 5 gets 27-28 MPG at 80-85 MPH average through west Texas fully loaded down, yet they only give it 25. City traffic (she calls it 1st-2nd) on the clogged US 75 in Dallas yields 23. The CX7 gets exactly what the old rating shows and I'm not the easiest driver on it.
#42
Originally Posted by Fanman
Here is what is is supposed to be :
at least 22.5 No tax
at least 21.5, but less than 22.5 $1000
at least 20.5, but less than 21.5 $1300
at least 19.5, but less than 20.5 $1700
at least 18.5, but less than 19.5 $2100
at least 17.5, but less than 18.5 $2600
at least 16.5, but less than 17.5 $3000
at least 15.5, but less than 16.5 $3700
at least 14.5, but less than 15.5 $4500
at least 13.5, but less than 14.5 $5400
at least 12.5, but less than 13.5 $6400
less than 12.5 $7700
Here is the standard. But even under the old standard we were supposed to get a tax, wonder how Mazda skirted around that. I wonder with the new standards how they are going to apply the GG Tax, as a ton of vehicles just fell under these criteria.
For example :
2007 Nissan 350 Z 18/25 (20 combined)
2007 Honda S2000 18/24 (20 combined)
2007 Ford Mustang GT 15/23 (18 combined)
2006 Mitsubishi Evo 16/22 (18 combined)
at least 22.5 No tax
at least 21.5, but less than 22.5 $1000
at least 20.5, but less than 21.5 $1300
at least 19.5, but less than 20.5 $1700
at least 18.5, but less than 19.5 $2100
at least 17.5, but less than 18.5 $2600
at least 16.5, but less than 17.5 $3000
at least 15.5, but less than 16.5 $3700
at least 14.5, but less than 15.5 $4500
at least 13.5, but less than 14.5 $5400
at least 12.5, but less than 13.5 $6400
less than 12.5 $7700
Here is the standard. But even under the old standard we were supposed to get a tax, wonder how Mazda skirted around that. I wonder with the new standards how they are going to apply the GG Tax, as a ton of vehicles just fell under these criteria.
For example :
2007 Nissan 350 Z 18/25 (20 combined)
2007 Honda S2000 18/24 (20 combined)
2007 Ford Mustang GT 15/23 (18 combined)
2006 Mitsubishi Evo 16/22 (18 combined)
(1/(.495/City MPG + .351/Highway MPG)) + .15
If you do the math, it will explain how it skirted by.
#43
Originally Posted by pdxhak
16/22 seem right to me.
8.5/16
For me thankfully they dont ask me my real world milage so I hope I dont get any extra taxes 'cause of this lol.
#44
Hybrids took a big hit. Those are definately more realistic now.
I'm a 17/23 guy (not trying for economy, I can get 18/26 if I really want to), so almost spot on for my everyday driving.
I'm a 17/23 guy (not trying for economy, I can get 18/26 if I really want to), so almost spot on for my everyday driving.
#45
So… if the 8's original MPG numbers just barely avoided the guzzler tax, was that just dumb luck? Or did Mazda bend over backwards to get the numbers just high enough to avoid us having to pay the tax? Cause $1000 buys a lot of gas.
Separately, I would think the gas guzzler calculation would be adjusted to reflect the revised MPG ratings, no? Or at least that existing models like the 8 would be "grandfathered" so that the penalty only applies to new models—if that makes any sense.
Separately, I would think the gas guzzler calculation would be adjusted to reflect the revised MPG ratings, no? Or at least that existing models like the 8 would be "grandfathered" so that the penalty only applies to new models—if that makes any sense.
#47
gas guzzler is also based on weight, not just mileage.
For example the FC (2nd gen RX-7) was going to have gas guzzler for weight on cars over 3000 lbs while getting 17/24 until they put the FC on a major diet. Once the car dropped under 2800 on most models (due to things like aluminum hoods, aluminum suspension arms, uber liecht german custom jack and alloy spare tires) they avoided the gas guzzler.
That was also why the FC3C was not available in the USA with an automatic until the feds changed the weight limits in 89, because the auto tranny would have put it over the weight limit on earlier models.
For example the FC (2nd gen RX-7) was going to have gas guzzler for weight on cars over 3000 lbs while getting 17/24 until they put the FC on a major diet. Once the car dropped under 2800 on most models (due to things like aluminum hoods, aluminum suspension arms, uber liecht german custom jack and alloy spare tires) they avoided the gas guzzler.
That was also why the FC3C was not available in the USA with an automatic until the feds changed the weight limits in 89, because the auto tranny would have put it over the weight limit on earlier models.
#48
Originally Posted by kalix
Since when have they had a Gas Guzzler Tax? And is this taxed when you buy the car? This is mind boggling
Go look at a new BMW, they all list gas guzzler tax under the options on the window sticker... even if there is no tax. If they have a car (like a 3 series) that doesn't have the tax they just put $0 in the cost column for it.
#50
This thread should be merged with https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...&highlight=MPG