+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Lounge (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: with all this Miata love going on, maybe you guys can answer (/showthread.php?tid=3128)
Pages:
1
2
with all this Miata love going on, maybe you guys can answer - BLINGMW - 11-08-2005
Why do Miatas get such poor mileage anywho? Is the top just poorly designed and drag is terrible? I was amazed that even the new ones are rated at only 30 MPG highway. I mean, I'm sorry, my car gets that. And it's a BOX. It can't even pass emissions it's so rich and the O2 sensor doesn't work. And Jess' Accord gets ~35, with a bigger engine (2.2 vs. 2.0) and again, can't present less of a frontal area than a Miata, right? And it certianly doesn't have any fancy engine stuff going on. Neither does mine. Certianly a 2L DOHC 4 cyl with variable valve timing should be able to make both 170 HP and run very efficiently when taking it easy. Isn't that the point of VVT? My E36 had some of that fancy stuff, it got ~32 MPG, bigger engine, more HP, bigger, heavier car. You know what? All the last few sedans my parents have owned have done better than that. Camry, Acura goofy 5cyl TL thing, another Camry, they are heavy sleds. WTF is going on. Does Mazda just not care or not know how to make-a the v-tak?
In fact, I'm dissapointed by a lot of newer-ish car mileage from any company. It just seems to have hit a wall, and that wall hasn't changed much since the late 80's. The increasing weight of cars shouldn't be affecting it, that doesn't matter much at highway speeds. Drag coefficients keep going down, variable this and that technology keeps going up, and it seems like many companies have been shooting for something around 30 MPG highway for a long time and figure that's enough for anyone. Even an efficient car like the Civic has been pretty much stuck at high 30's for what, 20 years? And like the Camrys I mentioned earlier, anything less than 35 MPG in the ~98ish Camry we had was like, wow, I must have been doing something crazy. And in the ~02ish one, it hasn't ever attained 35. Obviously changes in CAFE standards would force them to try harder, but I'm surprised the market hasn't already demanded it. Do you think the increasing fuel costs of recent will finally bring about some change? Discuss. I haven't even been drinking. :?
- Mike - 11-08-2005
just another data point... my s only gets like 23mpg around town and 29 on the highway...
gearing maybe? awful drag due to being convertibles?
- BLINGMW - 11-08-2005
hey, if the Miata's 2L was making 240HP, then maybe I'd go a little easier on it. :wink:
But really. Your motor is obviously tuned for max performance with record breaking HP/L for a NA street tuned engine. Obviously they pushed the envelope a little to design it. That it still gets almost 30 MPG is also an acheivement.
- Mike - 11-08-2005
it makes 0hp below 6000rpms, which is where i spend most of my time on the highway.
- Evan - 11-08-2005
gearing and drag. cruising on the highway you are over 4k rpm.
the engines are also relatively low compression, so they arent as efficient, and use a pretty agressive cam to get power
30mpg isnt horrible anyway. Better than my 240
- .RJ - 11-08-2005
I've never seen 30 mpg
- BLINGMW - 11-08-2005
Evan Wrote:gearing and drag. cruising on the highway you are over 4k rpm.
the engines are also relatively low compression, so they arent as efficient, and use a pretty agressive cam to get power
30mpg isnt horrible anyway. Better than my 240
ok, the 4k could be much of it. Although I bet the '06 doesn't turn that much. And the drag coefficient is pretty high at .38 on the earlier Miatas (which is actually higher than what I've found for E30's-- that's disgusting). Maybe that's all it takes to explain the earlier Miata's poor economy. But from what I can find out, the first gens were about 9:1 (pretty normal for early 90's), up to 9.5:1 later, and now 10.8:1 in the '06. And the drag coefficient has dropped slightly to .37 from what I can find. With no improvement in economy.
So on the '06, we've got variable valve timing, slightly lower drag, lower hwy RPMs, much higher compression ratio. Why didn't economy go up. :?:
- HAULN-SS - 11-08-2005
I get about 1/2 that mileage with my blazer, and 1/3rd with my MC. If I got 20, i'd be thrilled
- bassmangrammy - 11-08-2005
HAULN-SS Wrote:I get about 1/2 that mileage with my blazer, and 1/3rd with my MC. If I got 20, i'd be thrilled
I feel that.
- Beej - 11-09-2005
S2k's rev 4k at 75.
So there.
- Andy - 11-09-2005
BLINGMW Wrote:So on the '06, we've got variable valve timing, slightly lower drag, lower hwy RPMs, much higher compression ratio. Why didn't economy go up. :?:
THe new miatas also have a 6speed which should help with the cruising rpms. Odd.
- Jeff - 11-09-2005
I don't understand why such a small car gets such bad (for its size) mileage. The Sebring (the big fat fag car) gets 19 in the city and 27 on the highway. I think that is what the sticker said. No VTAK or the like. Also obviously an automagic trans and this car is loaded down with all the options...which I am sure adds weight.
2.5L SOHC 24V V6
168 hp/170 lb.-ft.
curb weight - 3,382lbs - 0-60 in 10.2
I know nothing about Miatas, I was just throwing up that info for more comparison. It might be the same thing as a 3.9L in a Dodge Dakota. The engine is poor in efficiency and the Dakota isnt a light thingwhich turns into bad gas mileage. The V8 used to beat it in the Dakotas for mileage. Its better to be over powered then underpowered for fuel mileagesave the Metro.
- HAULN-SS - 11-09-2005
That's pretty ridiculous if an s2k rev's 4grand at 75..is that in 2nd gear or something? My SS has 3.73 rear in it, and 4 grand would be like 90mph, and that's if you kept it held in 3rd gear. 5 grand in my car is about 118 in 3rd
- CaptainHenreh - 11-09-2005
I'm not sure what Jeff is getting at with the Metro, but Dad and I noticed an oddity in the Mazda 626 we had.
The 2.5L V6 got significantly better fuel economy (5-6 more MPG) than the 2.0 4 cyl. This didn't surprise me at all, for a number of reasons, but dad just hated the 626 because of it. We as a nation equate "4 cylinder" with "efficient", but alot of times, it ain't.
Part of the problem with this particular motor, though, is that it isn't a high-rpm screamer Vtak system that this motor has. It's pretty much the same motor in the focus, which has a nice, broad powerband, and the Vtak attack is where you get the extra 40 horsepower from.
What I love, though, is people doing the comparisons between the solstice and the MX-5, but with the MX-5 having the six speed (which makes the price nearly 4,000 more than the Solstice) Even a solstice with every single available option comes out to be less than the GT MX-5, and with 18 inch wheels (if you're into that sort of thing.)
- Mike - 11-09-2005
HAULN-SS Wrote:That's pretty ridiculous if an s2k rev's 4grand at 75..is that in 2nd gear or something?
6th :twisted:
- HAULN-SS - 11-09-2005
weird...what's the differential in those?
- Mike - 11-09-2005
4.11
- CaptainHenreh - 11-09-2005
HAULN-SS Wrote:weird...what's the differential in those?
Final drive is 4.44 for a 2002, 4.10 for more recent models (with the lower redline)
- HAULN-SS - 11-09-2005
well, that explains it then..I never woulda guessed
- Mike - 11-09-2005
yeah, the final drive is nutso...