-September 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Mazda RX-8 Gas Mileage Reports
This topic is for RX8 owners to share and compare their actual MPG.
"Real World" Fuel Economy vs. EPA Estimates
"Real World" Fuel Economy vs. EPA Estimates
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
After my first oil change and the engine getting broken in a bit, I am getting 18-19 in mostly town driving. Mostly highway, I have been getting around 24 1/2 or so.
on the highway, I tend to drive around 70-75mph.
I'm happy with it, because it's such a fun car to drive!
I am a a VERY happy owner of a Nordic Green AT RX8 - have had it since October, '93. I keep a detailed mileage log - so far have driven a total of 8,075 miles - used 443 gals of premium gas - average to date is 18.23 - lowest on one fill was 14.67- highest for a filling has been 23.24. Definitely get the high mileage in good weather - all highway driving - the lows when only in town trips.
BUT - why worry about mileage when you can drive such a superb car ?? Want 40 miles a gallon ? - Buy a Yugo. Want the most fun you can have with your clothes on ? Get the RX8 - never had more fun in 53 years of driving ! ! !
Cheers~
Bob - Cheshire, CT
Velocity Red 6MT All Options but spare tire.
Daily Drive of approx 24 miles (4 X 8 short jaunts)
10/2003 - 5/2004 15-17mpg
6/2004 - 12/2004 16-17 mpg
1/2005 - current 17-18 mpg
hwy trips of 100 miles or more 20-22
I'd have to say it drinks gas...yep....more than I expected, its fun to drive, but
sure would have been nice to have gotten a true reflection of gas consumption
from MAzda or EPA.
at 13000 miles, my '04 6 speed RX-8 has an overall average of 20mpg in mostly 50/50 mixed stop-n-go and highway driving.
I'm not complaining, the car is just so much fun to drive!
After 5000K 2005 Rx-8 man
10L/100k highway
13L/100k city whatever how hard I drove it.
Had to put 2litres of oil total since the beginning
So let say 1L/2500k
Mine is a 6mt w/GT.
Dennis
Velocity Red 6MT All Options but spare tire.
Daily Drive of approx 24 miles (4 X 8 short jaunts)
10/2003 - 5/2004 15-17mpg
6/2004 - 12/2004 16-17 mpg
1/2005 - current 17-18 mpg
hwy trips of 100 miles or more 20-22
Don't think it'll get any better....
Paddling vs Full Auto on the fun level depends. Having to watch the RPMs to shift can get tiresome in stop and go traffic, but if the road is clear, Paddle shifting is the only way to drive.
Shifting with a clutch is the only way to drive
Plus you get the added HP and higher revs in the 8 - and with a VooDoo shift knob the shortest, tightest manual tranny I have ever used - and that includes both of my S2000s.
Now if I had to crawl in traffic, I might feel different....
Still getting 13-15mpg commuting about 25 miles round trip each day, but driving the car in the manner for which it was designed
Dennis
Paddle shifting is quite fun though. You know that's how real racers shift, Indy and Le mans types at least. It's just the NASCAR folk who force the manual standard stick and clutch to remain in use. Professional drag racers went fully automatic years ago.
Stick and clutch vs Paddles shifters is like carburetor vs fuel injection I think. At first everyone complains about loss of power and added complexity, but eventually the efficiency of the later over the former wins out.
OTOH, when I want to just cruise around as easy as possible, full automatic is real nice too.
The new 6 speed auto would be more attractive, but I still can't get around the lack of revs and ponies with the 8's version of the auto-box. Would I really miss it, don't know - but I would KNOW I was missing it :confuse:
The 8 (and the S2000) is a true joy to drive with a stick - just a great transmission and 8k-9k redline. I wish you lived where you could have one too.
The good news is having an auto does not seem to cost anything at the pump - either way we get dismal numbers.
Dennis
It's only a small step now (06 auto cars) to get a 9000 RPM torque converter. When that happens, the auto will be faster than the manual! It might be a tad heavier, but there is no letup of accelleration when it shifts.
I'm not sure I like that, though my first auto equipped car (2001 Pathfinder) is winning me over! I wanted leather and it was only available with the auto. Of course it is a SUV, not a sports sedan.
NASCAR by his estimation controls the entire US manufacturing industry because Stock car racing is the ONLY thing that's holding off the imports from completely taking over the US market.
Ultimately, stick and clutch is the cheapest way to offer the maximum power, but shifting gears via a clutch is not necessarily the best way nor the most efficient.
Could be the cold weather, could be the mileage is getting better with more miles on the car. Could also be the pump shut off too soon - but I filled up at the same station and the same pump (the one I know has the working lock) as I always do. in the event this was the case, then next time I should see worse than normal mileage.
Dennis
After 3500 miles with my RX-8 AT using full auto, no paddle shifting, no fast take offs, and staying under the speed limit, I pulled 17mpg. Full auto constantly shifts to the minimum speeds for 2nd, 3rd and 4th and drops rpm to 1500 or less for maximizing coasting. You end up riding the brake a lot more since there is little engine breaking available in 2nd, 3rd and 4th at low rpm levels. But driving like that all the time would be a horrible waste of the RX-8 resources and probably would cause carbon build up in the engine systems along with extra brake wear.
Driving with paddle shifting between 2500 and 4000 rpm strictly, I get 15mpg. This is the best balance of enjoying the RX-8 resources and traffic reality during the day.
Driving with paddle shifting between 4000 and 6000 rpm strictly I get 11 mpg.
I'm very happy with that.
One passenger, trunk full but back seats empty.
Outbound: 168.2 miles at average speed of 29.5 MPH (2 hours plus in stop/go 1st gear traffic due to overturned truck on 10 FWY :mad:) 17.84 MPG
Return: 136.7 miles at average speed of 63.5 MPH (steady 75 -83 mph on 60 FWY
miles: 26275.7
gallons: 1398.596
miles/gallon: 18.79
price: $2847.39
price/gallon: $2.036
miles/dollar: 9.23
miles/day: 30.62
octane: mostly 89
The normal mpg range is 17-22. The 3 exceptions were when I took the car to Sebring Racetrack where it average 8-9 mpg. Fun, fun, fun!
Well, the next tank is back down to 14.5 mpg for the same commute, so getting over 16 mpg was just a temporary thing
Dennis
Worst mileage 14.8 Georgia mountain autocross
Best 22.8 hwy - 74 mph (wife driving)
Daily driving 16-17 45 mile round trip commute. Drive easy 17.7 maybe, Drive hard 16.0 - I pick drive hard...
BTW first set of tires lasted 30K now have Dunlops - much quieter, better ride, slightly better mileage.
The following are the points to the rotary engine design:
1) Simple design engine design with few moving parts raises overall reliability over time. A design life of 200K miles on the old rotary designs, a sports car engine, was unheard of in the complicated multi-value piston world of the past. The Renesis Rotary's design life is 500K miles. Racing a rotary engines means one re-build per season, where as racing a piston engines means re-builds after every race.
2) Much lower torque at low RPMs is a wear and tear saver on the entire drivetrain.
3) The drag racing mentality of torque heavy engine design, based on a NASCAR formula in the USA is just dumb. Go watch any VOD Car video as torque heavy monster cars drag off screeching burn tires, only to crash half a block down the road as they simply loose control of the poorly torque balanced car.
4) Engine weight and size eliminate frontend steer compared to the high center of gravity weight of any piston designed engines. Acions might go to the flat four and flat six piston designs of Porche and Subaru.
The following are the points to the rotary engine design:
1) Simple design engine design with few moving parts raises overall reliability over time. A design life of 200K miles on the old rotary designs, a sports car engine, was unheard of in the complicated multi-value piston world of the past. The Renesis Rotary's design life is 500K miles. Racing a rotary engines means one re-build per season, where as racing a piston engines means re-builds after every race.
2) Much lower torque at low RPMs is a wear and tear saver on the entire drivetrain.
3) The drag racing mentality of torque heavy engine design, based on a NASCAR formula in the USA is just dumb. Go watch any VOD Car video as torque heavy monster cars drag off screeching burn tires, only to crash half a block down the road as they simply loose control of the poorly torque balanced car.
4) Engine weight and size eliminate frontend steer compared to the high center of gravity weight of any piston designed engines. Exceptions might go to the flat four and flat six piston designs of Porsche and Subaru.
Mitch
17 around town
23 highway
11 track
My worst "around town" mpg was 15, but that was mostly due to a heavy foot and high revs.
Why do people b*tch about the mileage? This is a sports car, not an econ-o-box. Our mileage is similar to other comparable sports cars.
It is not a true sports car. RX-7 was a sports car.
I like RX-8 but couldn't get over its poor MPG issue.
Mazda has this engine for at least 10 years but yet they still couldn't improve its fuel consumption and motor oil issue. My IS250 can go 400 miles(75% freeway) per tank at 29/30+ MPG. Expect more from your sporty car.
Mazda has this engine for at least 20 years but yet ..
Early on Mazda tried using side exhaust ports, but in those days the apex seals were very experimental (read unreliable) and needed a lot of oil. This very quickly plugged the side exhaust ports so Mazda had to put the ports on the rotor housing for production vehicles. So the renesis is really not new, just vastly improved over the previous designs.
What was improved?
1. Moving the exhaust ports to the side housings allows much better control of the port opening timing, resulting in potentially better mileage and better power.
2. Many moving parts were lightened, raising the redline from 7500 RPM to 9000 RPM (the side exhaust ports also helped with this - when the apex seals traversed the old ports on the rotor housing they "bounced" a lot at high RPM and this eventually resulted in seal breakage). Of course when I say "many parts" I'm talking of only many compared to how many there are - there are very few moving parts in a rotary engine!
3. The PCM (engine computer) is greatly improved, allowing much better control of the engine and providing much better protection for it.
So you are both right in some way!
You might want to post those numbers in our Ford Mustang MPG: Real World Numbers topic. Or, if you'd like compare and contrast the Mustang vs. the RX8, you're welcome to start a new topic. :-)
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
Now lets take both cars to a non-NASCAR race track. Which car gets better millage going around the track. In the hands of a pro driver the 'Stang's MPG drops like a rock down to 5 MPG where the RX-8 gets 7 MPG. The way to drive a 'Stang around the track at it's fastest is much less efficient than the way to drive an RX-8 around the track. Plus the pro drivers would probably choose the RX-8 as they would be able to win more often with it's intelligent balanced drivability over the 'Stangs raw brutishness.
To paraphrase one of my fellow Bimwads, I doubt many RX8 owners lie awake at night wondering if they should have bought a Mustang :P
Agreed 'Stang envy is not a problem here. An RX-8 sighted on the road still strikes me as "Wow that looks good, and I'm driving one". Where as the new 'Stangs looks like that '70ties show sans the chrome.