Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Do you currently drive a 2019 Ford Ranger and live in Michigan?
A reporter would like to talk to you; please reach out to [email protected] for more details.

Fuel Economy Update for January - 30 MPG - 2016 Mazda MX-5 Miata Convertible Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 10,059
edited February 2016 in Mazda
imageFuel Economy Update for January - 30 MPG - 2016 Mazda MX-5 Miata Convertible Long-Term Road Test

After about four months in service, the Edmunds long-term 2016 Mazda MX-5 Miata is achieving its EPA-estimated 30 mpg combined fuel economy rating.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • Wait, it needs Premium? Is that just for "maximum performance" or is that really required?
  • 91 octane is the manufacturer's recommendation, and 87 is the minimum requirement. I can't think of a currently available sports car that doesn't have the same or higher requirements. Go with premium unless you're willing to sacrifice some performance, mileage and driveability to save a couple bucks per tank.
  • nagantnagant Posts: 176
    carrex said:

    91 octane is the manufacturer's recommendation, and 87 is the minimum requirement. I can't think of a currently available sports car that doesn't have the same or higher requirements. Go with premium unless you're willing to sacrifice some performance, mileage and driveability to save a couple bucks per tank.

    Ummm for the amount of HP the Mazda has it sure seems like it should not need 91 octane to produce that. Sports cars with turbos or with more HP per CI usually call for Premium but not cars with this HP level. Oh and there will be zero "driveability" issues with 87. A NA 2.0 with 155 HP is not that impressive. The 2.0 in the 3 has the same compression ratio (13-1) has more tq (150 @4000) at lower RPMs than the Miata with the SAME HP, at the SAME RPM (6000) and the same redline (6800) AND the specs say that rating is on 87 octane. There is obviously some tuning differences but not enough to call for 91 since there is no difference in rated HP.
  • nagant said:

    carrex said:

    91 octane is the manufacturer's recommendation, and 87 is the minimum requirement. I can't think of a currently available sports car that doesn't have the same or higher requirements. Go with premium unless you're willing to sacrifice some performance, mileage and driveability to save a couple bucks per tank.

    Ummm for the amount of HP the Mazda has it sure seems like it should not need 91 octane to produce that. Sports cars with turbos or with more HP per CI usually call for Premium but not cars with this HP level. Oh and there will be zero "driveability" issues with 87. A NA 2.0 with 155 HP is not that impressive. The 2.0 in the 3 has the same compression ratio (13-1) has more tq (150 @4000) at lower RPMs than the Miata with the SAME HP, at the SAME RPM (6000) and the same redline (6800) AND the specs say that rating is on 87 octane. There is obviously some tuning differences but not enough to call for 91 since there is no difference in rated HP.
    Exactly right. The Skyactive 2.0 is great on gas...but as a sports car engine it's kind of a lump. The money was spent on the new platform. It's an econobox engine
  • banhughbanhugh Posts: 315
    Need a supercharger similar to frs
  • nagantnagant Posts: 176
    Hey editors.....what octane are you using?
  • vince_nhvince_nh Posts: 9

    Wait, it needs Premium? Is that just for "maximum performance" or is that really required?

    It's tuned differently than the 2.0L Skyactiv used in other Mazdas. You can use regular, but you won't take advantage of all the extra work that went into changing the throttle response, etc. It does feel a bit different than the "same" engine in a 3.

  • vince_nh said:

    Wait, it needs Premium? Is that just for "maximum performance" or is that really required?

    It's tuned differently than the 2.0L Skyactiv used in other Mazdas. You can use regular, but you won't take advantage of all the extra work that went into changing the throttle response, etc. It does feel a bit different than the "same" engine in a 3.

    And in exchange for slightly better throttle response, we have an engine that, octane for octane, makes LESS power than the engine in the 3...which is already down on power compared to any NA I4 on the market. Quite an achievement.

    The platform engineers/designers deserve to be knighted - once it was determined this was the powertrain they were going to be saddled with, they really stepped up...
  • bankerdannybankerdanny Posts: 1,021
    "...and it's not like we're not having any fun, either."

    I don't see any evidence of that in the posts. How about somebody takes some time to actually write about the fun they are having.
  • agentorangeagentorange Posts: 893
    nagant said:

    Hey editors.....what octane are you using?

    Well I guarantee the one editor will use 87. He won't put premium in anything with a sub $50k price tag. The same guy was the one who refused to put premium in the turbo Cruze.
  • nagantnagant Posts: 176
    Premium sure appears to be a waste of money in the Miata. With the same HP at the same RPM and 2 lbsft LESS of torque at a little higher RPM what true benefit is there? As for being more "responsive" than the engine in the 3.......the only way to tell for sure is to have each engine in the same car to tell the difference. How "responsive" the engine is depends on a lot of things; flywheel weight, gearing. curb weight etc. Of course the Miata "feels" better because of the 500LB weight difference. I would rather have the 3's engine since it makes more torque lower and only needs 87. Actually I suspect 87 is all the Miata needs as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.