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!

Are you considering a vehicle subscription service or did you previously consider one and decide against it? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 10/30 for more details.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Mazda RX-8 Gas Mileage Reports

Karen_SKaren_S Posts: 5,092
edited October 2014 in Mazda
«1

Comments

  • wpavlik2wpavlik2 Posts: 32
    OK, I have a 2004 6speed RX-8 with only 7600 miles on it. before my first oil change, I got significantly worse gas milage, around 15 mpg around town, and BARELY 20mpg on the highway.
    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! :D
  • ojisanbobojisanbob Posts: 3
    HI,
    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
  • flatpickflatpick Posts: 43
    Purchased Oct 2003
    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.
  • the_big_hthe_big_h Posts: 1,583
    and report my MPG report

    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!
  • mba2dnamba2dna Posts: 8
    of my new 6MT is around 16-17 mpg, city driving.
  • I like your detailed mileage log - have you tracked oil consumption as well?
  • Hi, For the record
    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
  • at about 7500 i'm gettin 21 or so with 50/50 driving
  • dwynnedwynne Posts: 4,018
    I have a little over 1,200 miles now and I am getting 14-15mpg commuting to work. It is about 15 miles each way with about 1/2 stop and go and part 45-55mph. I tried a couple of tanks of mid-grade Chevron with no (apparent) ill effects on performance, but not increase in fuel economy - but it did cost a little less to fill up.

    Mine is a 6mt w/GT.

    Dennis
  • It's 4000KM now, last tank was 14.2L/100KM, that is around 20mpg. 1/3 high way.
  • After 12000 miles of commuting to and from work I finally took a 1000 mile road trip. I drove up to san francisco using 5th gear as my final one.On this segment I averaged 19-20mpg. Very little difference from what I get commuting[18-19mpg].But I got stuck in LA traffic some.For the return trip I used 6th gear as the final drive--here I averaged 20-21.5mpg. Not much difference considering this segment is with the wind.
  • I just got my rx8 4 weeks ago with 12k miles now i have 15k miles and i get about 210-250 miles to a full tank
  • Purchased Oct 2003
    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....
  • trispectrispec Posts: 305
    After 3500 miles it appears the Paddle shifting vs Full Auto about 10% less efficient, but the 10% loss probably is because I keep the RPMs between 2500 and 3500 when Paddling. Full Auto constantly seeks to drop the RPMs to the minimum 1600 RPM.

    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.
  • dwynnedwynne Posts: 4,018
    Paddle shifting is the only way to drive

    Shifting with a clutch is the only way to drive :D

    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
  • trispectrispec Posts: 305
    Drove sticks for decades, even after moving to Boston. Had to give'm up when my knee, angle and leg just couldn't take the stop'n'go crap any more. Also my wife wanted to start driving in Boston and she would not not drive a stick in the city.

    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.
  • dwynnedwynne Posts: 4,018
    Years ago I flew into Boston a few times and rented a car and TRIED to drive it. Man - traffic on the freeway stopped for no reason (other than volume) in the middle of the day. I too, would abandon stick in such a city :D

    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
  • pathstar1pathstar1 Posts: 1,015
    Cart force the cars to use a stick. They had paddles (buttons, actually) but they (Cart) decided it takes more "skill" to shift with a lever. It's up on the right side of the cockpit just forward of the steering wheel. Formula 1 now have fully automatic transmissions - but they can shift them manually. I'm not sure we can call them fully automatic, as the driver has to usually blip the throttle to make them shift - and they don't actually have a torque converter.

    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.
  • trispectrispec Posts: 305
    Thanks for the clarifications. I was mainly reporting information from years ago when living in North Carolina where I worked with a guy who did NASCAR pit crew work when he could get it.

    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.
  • dwynnedwynne Posts: 4,018
    Filled up yesterday and got my best mileage so far. Around 1,800 miles on the car now (6mt) and got about 16.25 mpg. This is the best I have gotten for just commuting.

    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
  • trispectrispec Posts: 305
    I have a 40 mile round trip stop and go heavy traffic commute in Boston with no highway time.

    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. :) This is hard to do on a practical level in the city. Late nights is the only possible time and even then traffic can get in the way.
  • trispectrispec Posts: 305
    Did a small trip today, mostly highway. Got 22.3 mpg. Used full auto, no paddles. Had some nice long stretches at 80+ mph going north on I93 Boston to Franklin above Concord, then across on 11a and 11 to 16 and then down I95.

    I'm very happy with that.
  • ukjimukjim Posts: 63
    2004, MT with 14,200 M on the clock. Took weekend trip to Palm Springs from LA.
    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 :blush: ) 20.12 MPH
  • ukjimukjim Posts: 63
    20.12 MPG
  • I've been keeping track of gas mileage since day one, which is over 2 yrs ago.

    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!
  • dwynnedwynne Posts: 4,018
    Filled up yesterday and got my best mileage so far. Around 1,800 miles on the car now (6mt) and got about 16.25 mpg. This is the best I have gotten for just commuting

    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
  • lr3rx8lr3rx8 Posts: 7
    2004 RX-8 33500 miles bought new Nov 2005 for a real good price.

    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.
  • stbartonstbarton Posts: 1
    Would I be harming the RX8 engine if I used regular 87 octane gas? Also would that effect my gas mileage negatively?
  • trispectrispec Posts: 305
    I put 89 octane Shell gas into my RX-8 AT that was 20% full with the Shell 93 Octane. My MPG jumped from the normal 14.5 MPG to 16 MPG pure city driving. I'm going to continue mixing back and forth, 93 octane to 89 octane, to see if the MPG correlates consistently. Pathstar said it might happen, but I wasn't thinking it could be that dramatic of a difference in MPG. I tried the 87 octane once, and there was no difference.
  • carfanatic007carfanatic007 Posts: 267
    I could never justify buying such a small car, that isn't as fast as the competition that gets such lousy gas mileage. The 350Z gets about 25 MPG. Even the Mustang GT gets better mileage and it is a V8! I owned a 1973 Mazda RX2. Fast little bugger, but it had oil burning problems. I wish they could work out the kinks in the Rotary engine. Seems like they haven't yet.
  • trispectrispec Posts: 305
    There are not really any "kinks" in the rotary engine. Rotary's are designed to burn oil. Point of the rotary design has little to do with MPG. If high MPG is the goal, then buy a Hybrid that only a NASA scientist can fix.

    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.
  • trispectrispec Posts: 305
    There are not really any "kinks" in the rotary engine. Rotary's are designed to burn oil. Point of the rotary design has little to do with MPG. If high MPG is the goal, then buy a Hybrid that only a NASA scientist can fix.

    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.
  • mstricklermstrickler Posts: 1
    About half of the AT's revs/hp deficit was eliminated for 2006. The old Mazda 4-speed forced the drastic cutback in engine speed and output.
    Mitch
  • trispectrispec Posts: 305
    The 2004-5 RX-8 AT only has 4 ports for intake rather than the 6 ports on the MT. Also, 1st gear on the 4sp AT matches 2nd gear on the MT. The 2006 RX-8 AT 6sp has 6 ports, but the AT tranny still can't handle 9000 RPM, so rev/hp are limited at 7500 RPM.
  • paul_in_dcpaul_in_dc Posts: 6
    '05 RX-8, bought in Dec '04

    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. :blush:

    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.
  • from_flfrom_fl Posts: 113
    RX-8 is a sports GT(4 seats).
    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.
  • from_flfrom_fl Posts: 113
    Correction..

    Mazda has this engine for at least 20 years but yet ..
  • trispectrispec Posts: 305
    When there's no more gas, the rotary engine be the only non-electric engine running and it'll be burning hydrogen. Piston's will go the way of steam engines.
  • paul_in_dcpaul_in_dc Posts: 6
    Not a sports car? Ever seen one on the track? Check out the Grand Am series. :D :D :D
  • paul_in_dcpaul_in_dc Posts: 6
    Where in the world do you get 20 years? The Renesis is only a couple years old. Ford has been making piston engines for almost 100 years, yet the Mustang gets worse gas mileage than the RX-8. What's their excuse? :lemon:
  • pathstar1pathstar1 Posts: 1,015
    If we talk literally then the renesis is only a few years old. The renesis is based on the earlier rotaries, however. In fact it is very close to the same except for the side exhaust ports (some performance builders are using renesis parts when rebuilding older motors as some of them are improved/lighter - and they fit, just so you see how close the engines are). The earliest rotary car from Mazda that we saw in North America was in 1968, as I recall (the R100). So that would make the engine design at least 38 years old. The basic design hasn't changed much, but the materials have changed a lot - for the better. ;)

    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!
  • late8late8 Posts: 7
    '06 RX-8 Sport/3500 miles. Average 40% city/60% highway, I'm getting 20 mpg. Love the ride!!
  • murfbearmurfbear Posts: 17
    I have a 2006 RX8 Shinka 6-speed. I only have 450 miles on the vehicle. At my last check I'm only getting on average 17.5 MPG, I haven't been on any extended hi-way trips, but I feel my miliage is a little low. Break in is 600 Miles, will the miliage get any better with break in? I feel I drive fairly conservative.
  • trispectrispec Posts: 305
    Heck, I'd love that number. I'm getting 14MPG in Boston traffic in my 2005 RX-8 AT. But I get 23MPG at 85MPH and 25MPG at 60MPH pure highway.
  • geckozoidgeckozoid Posts: 3
    My '02 Mustang GT (manual trans, zero - 60 in about 6.2 seconds) with 82,000 miles on the clock gets 28.5 mpg highway, and 20 mpg in town (lots of first and second gear). Seems to me that's better mileage than most people are reporting in this forum for their RX8's. And the Mustang has never needed a drop of oil between changes.
  • ClairesClaires Chicago areaPosts: 1,222
    Hi, geckozoid,

    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? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review

  • murfbearmurfbear Posts: 17
    You think you might want to try the mustang forums? This is the Mazda RX-8 area.
  • trispectrispec Posts: 305
    MPG is a stereo typical consumer benchmark. It is meaningless without context. RX-8's are rev happy driving machines. 'Stangs are straight shot torque heavy brute machines.

    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.
  • div2div2 Posts: 2,580
    I've been lurking in this forum because I'm considering picking up a used RX8. I've enjoyed reading your comments on the car. I usually hang out on a few of the BMW boards and over there we frequently get those "My [insert make here] is faster/cheaper/better then a BMW" postings. I'm glad to see we're not alone...
    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
  • trispectrispec Posts: 305
    I do enjoy 'Stang roasting when giving an opportunity. The MPG thread was just such.

    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. ;)
This discussion has been closed.