lefuton

well i'm up to 59 miles and have gone through about 20% of a tank...dun look good =p

RomanoM

there's a 15.9 gallon tank, 20% of that is ~3.2 gallons over 59 miles is:

about 18.5 MPG, mostly city or mostly highway?

Also, most cars get better fuel economy with miles. Then again some get worse:o

wakeech

i will reserve judgement until we can see some more accurate measurements, and a much larger population of data...

then again, why worry about the milage so much?? it's a bloody sports car... if you drive it fast (as it's designed to) you're going to pay a consumption penalty, that's all there is to it.

lefuton

i forgot we filled the tank @13miles on the odometer so it's a lil worse yet. and i think all my driving is considered city driving and not highway at all...los angeles and all, constantly rowing through gears on the freeway, usually 2nd-4th. anyhow shouldn't be too worried...my toyota truck got 14mpg the first 500 miles or so and has been at a steady 22mpg ever since.

brownchiro

The gas guage seems to go down faster than the actual tank. I filled up thinking I was almost 1/2 empty. Put in only 6 gallons for 20 mpg. Mixed city/highway. I am trying to stay 5000 rpm and below.

RomanoM

This is academic,

when I had my BMW living in MI I was getting 24 MPG 80% highway. Moved back here and it dropped to 17 MPG 90% city.

But in the first few thousand miles I was getting below 20 MPG all the time. And when I went from touring tires to Michelin Pilots the MPG changed. Also, got different MPG in the winter (for multiple reasons).

There's driving style, type of fuel, climate, type of tire, etc....

In the end it's personal and changes over time. Only with a very large number of cars and drivers over many miles can a more accurate picture of fuel mileage be drawn.

FredB

Still the RX-8 gas mileage is going to be very important to some of us including Mazda. I remember having to baby my 93 RX-7 to get somewhere around 17 mpg combined. The usual was 12 mpg and if you really enjoyed the boost often...lower than that. I swear you could almost see the gas gage move downward on boost!

With all the early talk about 20+ mpg (I even saw 30 mpg highway quoted somewhere) I had a renewed interest in purchasing a 2nd rotary engine car. We all know about the obvious attributes of the rotary engine and appreciate them very much. But if this car will routinely get 14 mpg around town with a relatively conservative driving style, it's really going to turn off a lot of potential buyers, myself included. Remember this car is a compromise sports car meant to appeal to wider range of buyers than the FD did. And fuel consumption could really make or break it if it's on the much on the south side of the estimates.

Lastly, with a 15.9 gal tank, I can see having to fill up every 4 days at 14 mpg! That's enough to make me take a wait and see approach and get my deposit back. I think I only have a day or two to decide and it's really a tough decision because in all other respects....this is a car to love!

Werner

I don't worry about the cost but I do worry about the range that I can go without refueling. Under very similar driving conditions (about 120-130 mph whenever possible), our 320i Touring took about 12l/100 km (20mpg) which gave it an operation range of +500 km. This means that on our typical late night trip back home from the Alps, we got home with one stop for fuel. The WRX we have now uses about 18l/100km under similar driving conditions (14mpg). With a tank that effectively holds just 55l, operation range is below 300 km and that means two stops for fuel on that typical kind of trip. I have not preordered an RX-8 because I am afraid it might be as bad as the WRX or worse. Again, this is not about cost but about how far I can get with a full tank. An interesting tidbit: the Z gets a slightly bigger tank for Europe (+5l) for that same reason (operation range at higher speeds). Back when Porsche used to build sportscars, they offered a real big tank (around 100l IIRC) for people like me who do long high speed stints.
BTW, once I managed to empty the tank of the WRX in an hour ......

bdclary

EPA estimates for my 86 GXL with manual: 17 city/24 highway

My real world results: 17.2 city/roughly 23-25 highway (only once have I driven highway for a full tank).

Since you're implying that the EPA's test methods are flawed, what are the flaws?

Quick_lude

In your case for some reason it worked out. I doubt that will be the case with most of the cars, especially sports cars.
I'm not saying the methods are flawed, just unrealistic.
http://autorepair.about.com/library/.../aa022501a.htm

bdclary

Aha. I had tried to find the EPA procedures on their web site, but the navigation is horrible.

The only part I see that may cause the EPA estimates to differ from real world is the acceleration. The EPA assumes normal "cruising" acceleration which doesn't apply 100% to sports cars, whose drivers are usually more heavy with the pedal.

And is also explains why the estimates are spot on for my car: I rarely accelerate hard anymore. At 194,000 miles, the car needs to survive one more year until I graduate and get a real job.

But I do agree that since all cars are tested in the same condition, the numbers are good for comparison, if not prediction.

Speed Racer

How would you guys like some real numbers instead of EPA estimates?

I picked up my RX-8 last Wednesday and have already logged over 1,000 miles. So far I'm seeing 17 MPG around town and 22 on the highway. I have been driving "spiritedly" but I wouldn't say that I have driven the car flat out. The mileage is a little worse than my last car (Celica GT-S) but I think all of the other benefits of the RX-8 easily make up for the decrease in mileage.

TDS

I got 16 MPG for my 3rd fill-up. All LA traffic during rush hour. Hope I can get it tweaked up during my 1000 mile check-up.
Love the Nordic Green.