Went to Boston this week and my rental was a Pontiac Grand Prix. )Overall it got 15.3 MPG which is about 3-4 MPG than my RX8 gets in similar driving conditions.

So, my car gets 15 - 20% better mileage..

When I try to economize with my 8 a few weeks ago, I pulled off a 23.5MPG in mixed driving. Soon I will try all highway, but it is hard for me to get a whole tank of highway driving with my travels.

 

Yeah... When I got the car, I read thread after thread (and even a few reviews) commenting negatively on the 8's fuel mileage. But then, I started noticing the mileage figures for other competing vehicles, and just other cars in general. We're not really all that off. Just depends on how you drive it!

 

yeah before I went out and signed the papers and made the purchase for real, i was worried from what I read here. I get 280 miles to a tank so im pretty happy with that. This is with me running the tank down to where it only has about 2 gallons left in it (gas light comes on) So I see anywhere from 19 to 20MPG. This is of course 100% highway driving... and it really is 100% i travel between dallas and this shitty town in arkansas for work every week for work.

 

Just bought a new RX-8 and it looks like I'm heading toward 200 miles for the first tank. I hear MPG get better with age lets hope.

 

i think most of that complaining does have to do with the size of the engine, a 1.3L that chugs gas like a V8

 

That could be part of it, too. The rotary just doesn't follow the same "rules" as traditional engines.

 

My mileage got alot better with age. My first tank was just under 15 MPG. Also, I drive more conservatively now than I did when I first got it.

 

I guess I never really cared what it got for MPG. Whats a few dollars more a week in gas so long as I'm enjoying my car? People pay 30k for a car and whine about how it should get an extra 3-4 mpg, who cares?

 

yea, i noticed it big time, i went from a 2001 toyota celica to the 8. My celica was getting 350-400 miles to the tank. I'm lucky if it hit 250 miles in my 8.

 

Yeah, like stated most people who complain take issue with the size of the engine, power made, and fuel economy offerd.

Engines like Chevy's LS V8's that make 400HP and get better fuel economy than the Renesis probably "fuels" the complaints.

For me...in all city I've never hit below 18.6mpg and even have driven grandmaISH to hit 20.5mpg in all city. So...while I would love better fuel economy, I'm satisfied...

 

I get 22mpg highway, isn't bad for 230 hp rotary. even though it's a 1.3L it should'nt be compared to a 4 or 6 banger putting out 140 or 170 hp. There are Lots of small 6 cylinders that only do allitle better with alot less power. The rotary can also burn 87 octane which balances it out abit. The rotary should be compared to a 3.2 six cylinder 24valve motor for milage. I think it competes well. 400hp/torque corvettes overcome poor mileage cus of the high torque and lowrpm at 70mph hwy. They suffer when your foot gets heavy and mileage can drop down to v8 gas gussler territory. Built quality, design and fun factor make up for lower mpg on the 8.

 

The interesting part to me is that I've also gotten 23MPG in mixed driving on a tank... With only city driving I usually get around 17- 18mpg. The EPA rating on the car is 18/24. How could I complain when I can meet the EPA ratings?

Of course, I could care less what the mileage is as most sane people, and if I flog the car I get no where near those numbers (but I wouldn't get close to the EPA ratings for any car if I flogged it).

My biggest complaint related to fuel and the RX8 is wishing it had a couple more gallons of trank available. No biggie.

 

But if people couldn't complain about gas mileage, flooding, oil consumption ... THE FORUM WOULD DIE!!!

 

I have a feeling those who get 15 MPG are also those that beat the hell out of their cars.

 

(Not that I haven't done it. But when I do, I don't complain about the mileage.)

 

Yes, on some gut level anyone would expect a small engine to offer good fuel economy, so it's easy to understand why so many are disappointed by the mileage. What everyone's forgetting is that this is not a little 4-cylinder engine, but a rotary. Rotary engines are different - and they use what "seems" like a lot of fuel for their size. But—and this is a huge but—it's the rotary's small size and weight—and resulting near mid-engine placement—that lets the 8 handle so well and "feel" so good.

The "disappointing" mileage (and low torque) is, I think, the price we pay for superb handling and "feel". It's what we give up to get an engine not much bigger than a bowling bowl bag—and a car with "feel and handling" that's lauded in every published road test. Hey, muscle car guys are perfectly happy to trade mileage for power; the 8 simply asks us to trade mileage for handling and feel instead. (Some wish for an RX-8 with a bigger, more powerful piston engine. I suspect the greater size and weight of that engine would be at the expense of the very thing that makes the RX-8 feel so special.)

 

[. (Some wish for an RX-8 with a bigger, more powerful piston engine. I suspect the greater size and weight of that engine would be at the expense of the very thing that makes the RX-8 feel so special.)[/QUOTE]

A 1.6L rotary engine probably wouldn't change the charactor of the car. It would still be light,compact and low on torque. Mazda will probably increase the size eventually.

 

3 rotors would be nice, so would 4

 

my main complaint is the performance per gallon.

I have no problem with my rx8's performance, it's fast enough for me.

BUT, when I have 150 pounds of torque, 1.3L of displacement, and am getting 14mpg, something just doesnt add up.

14mpg in a z06, fine, 14mpg in a sl55 sure, 14 mpg in a mustang done, but 14mpg in my little rx8, cmon!!!!!!!

I guess i'm one of the hopefulls that mazda will release a magic reflash that fixes the MPG

Please, dont anyone try to use the "Its a sports car..." logic on me. I know many a sports car with better performance and mpg...

 

I don't remember the numbers exactly so I can't make a real comparison, but when you have an engine that fires more times per crank revolution than a piston engine and is very happy revving very high you get an engine that is going to eat a lot of fuel.

I really like that idea where there is a 3rd small rotor that provides cruise power, while disengaging the main rotors, that would probably increase mileage by 10mpg.

 

You drive a 230 hp 1.3 liter car. That kind of specific output just boggles the mind. To get those 230 horses with a boinger would require *at least* (assuming it is an atmospheric engine) a 2.5 to 3 liter engine.

It makes that 230 hp from very little displacement because the wankel can move a LOT of air. When you move lots of air, you must burn gas in proportion -- hence, you'll burn about as much gas as other 230hp cars, but a bit worse -- due to the wankel's poor *thermal* efficiency. Until they find a way around that, the wankel's fuel consumption will be right up there with a gas turbine's.

Noticed you ding on torque. Then downshift. If you want to bend timespace, you HAVE to be over 5000 rpm. Once you've over that range, the car changes in character and becomes very agressive and responsive. If you don't like driving in the really high RPM ranges, then you bought the wrong car. This is more like a ferrari than a corvette. Hi-winders are known to make little torque relative to their HP numbers. It's nothing new to people who've driven traditional (read: European) sports cars. Most of 'em have a noticable lack of torque and HP even, relying on handling vs. horsepower to get the job done.

Us 'murcans, otoh, grew up with v8s with incredible torque (and really low redlines...ugh.) So when you get someone like that in a wankel car, they go and mash the gas in top gear, and nothing happens... duuuuh. DOWNSHIFT a cog or 2, THEN mash the gas! Whoa, wotta concept. Suddenly headlights turn into little dots in the rearview mirrors and the scenery becomes a blur. To do this, tho, one must master the double-clutched rev-matched downshift, lest you eventually blow up the clutch or worse. Done right there's little to no stress to the driveline. I routinely go from 6 to 3 (when speed is under 60) or from 6 to 4 when it is over 60. These cars have sweet gearboxes.. use it. It's there to let you get the engine into the right RPM range for a given job.. wanna blow off Grampa Jones in the winnebago? Drop to 3rd, mash the gas... begone, pesky rolling eyesore. Or you can stay in top gear, mash the gas, and wonder when will the speed come on... your call.

Would you believe me if I told you a 900 hp (19,000rpm or so redline) formula-one (3-liter v10) engine makes 'only' about 250-300 ft-lbs? Doesn't seem to hurt *them* any...

 

I get around 15 sometimes but I don't "beat the hell" out of it. I drive it. This is a performance car, not a fuel miser.

I agree with you that it's really not that far off of many other cars--especially for the performance that it achieves.

 

Personally I don't pay too much attention to the mpg, I did not buy this sweet car for the mpg. I bought this car for the fun factor and handling.

I sometimes ride around keeping the rpm's above 5K just so when I want to feel the power it just a mash away and it's good to help keep the motor carbon free.

 

My car is still new and I'm waiting to run through a couple of tank fulls but initial estimates have me around 13mpg all city. I think what puts me off about the whole thing is that there are those who can hammer this car and get 16~18 mpg while I'm going mild during the break in and am getting 13 ish. What is with the quality control at Mazda.

Love the car but hate the fact that different cars can have should radically different mileage and no one knows why.

 

I agree with the thread title. We all bought the car, we all should have been well aware of what we were getting into as far as gas mileage is concerned. And from what I've seen, the long term gas mileage tests of cars like the G35c are fairly close to ours.