Fuel economy

Mike · Post by **Mike** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:55 pm

Hi there,
What sort of fuel economy should I expect out of our 97 18oocc auto mx5 , done
97000kms it seems a bit thirsty compares to my 323 , took it to the garage
for a tune up and they said nothing can be adjusted on it
Any suggestions
Thanks
Mike

From jifjif@gmail.com Fri Apr 27 17:07:41 2007
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id

from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
b=A3dIlH9WCOo7WbeKNp96vK/WW3rICJ9q84qjeV2QT1MKZqkkvYju6YhcPMwjM51MKthSsjVOraiiTQG/k3LipcKqoIB95GYsDG+EHlkjogCSQdr7moAK4kX2YyAnL4LhmBlKNgz8Zgm0Byhe/leUe5XajslitAYlGQDKuMrcBk0=
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:57:34 +1200
From: ~Jeff~ <jifjif@gmail.com>
To: MX5List <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Subject: Re: fuel economy
In-Reply-To: <000801c53d70$678c5a10$0401010a@Carolyns>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <000801c53d70$678c5a10$0401010a@Carolyns>
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <nHNYZD.A.g0.TdYMGB@L733>

Mike - As well as the tips below, higher air pressure in the tyres
helps. I use 34psi and get ~10.5 km/l around town with lots of short
trips and typical Auckland snarl-ups. Best of 15.2 km/l on a round
trip to Hamiltron.

Oxygen sensor might be on the way out also, worth checking.

What's "bad" mileage to you?

http://www.energywiserally.org.nz/fuel/fuel_tips.asp

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:55:42 +1200, Mike <mikeys@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[...]

EricW · Post by **EricW** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 3:57 pm

Hi Mike,
My wife drives our 94 1800 auto to work, about 32 kms each way in a mixture of
reasonable open road, motorway and heavy Auckland traffic and seems to get
about 7.4 litres to 100 km average, (which is around 38 miles to the gallon by
my old fashioned way of thinking about it). That does not seem too bad for an
auto, You might expect a manual to do slightly better. We have not done a
really long trip in the car for quite a while, so I am not sure how it goes
say Auckland to Wellington, but I would hope to see around 40 MPG

Eric

MX5PWR · Post by **MX5PWR** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:30 pm

Hi Mike, I have a 1998 1.8 series II and have been keeping a record since I
bought it last year. Have done 15,763km and best MPG is 38.5 and average is
32.98 or Ltr per 100km best is 7.33 and average 8.26 (or KM per Ltre, average
is 12.11km per ltre) I use my car everyday and it does a mixture of city and
open road running.
There are a lot of factors that can have an effect on your economy, not least
of which is your right foot.

Regards Nigel

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 6:36 pm

I'm getting around 12.4 km/l (35mpg) in my 1998 1800 auto (46000km). It's a
bit early to tell accurately as I haven't had it very long. This running is
between Blenheim and Nelson and around the Marlborough Sounds roads. These
roads are very windy and this does adversely affect the fuel economy because
you have to use the right foot somewhat more then when cruising (why else
would you have an MX5 on these roads?). This is slightly better than I got
out of my 1992 1600 auto on the same roads. I run on 96 petrol and have
found this improves the economy more than offsetting the slightly higher
cost. The cars all run better on 96 as well.

Grant.

bert wouda · Post by **bert wouda** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:37 am

Hi Boys and Girls of the MX 5 world

With the ever increasing fuel prices , ...I have checked out my fuel
economy the last few weeks with my NB ' 99 1.6 ltr 5 speed ...

( just 6 weeks owner of this low flying beauty )

Have used 91 unleaded and all short distances ...774 km - 63.1 ltr =

1 ltr - 12.26 km ... ( 8.15 ltr - 100 km ) << ( I have used the

metric system , that's the world we live in now ) ...

I reckon, it's very good ... What is your experience ??

BERT

*******************

Mike Jolley · Post by **Mike Jolley** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:57 am

have you tried 96,some debate on better last year, mike

EricW · Post by **EricW** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:11 am

Hi Bert,

I am pretty sure your 99 will be a 1.8,

That aside, 8.15 ltrs per 100 km is around 34.4 mpg (the world us oldies live
in).

That's a tad more than my wife uses driving 32 km each way to work daily in
our 1.8, she averages 38 mpg which is 7.46 litres/ 100 km, but a lot of her
driving is on a rural section of road at around 80 km/h,

So I guess you are in the ballpark driving around town or at continuously
higher speeds

Regards

Eric

From jifjif@gmail.com Fri Apr 27 16:59:55 2007
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id

from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=pzlzR1sY4Axcy5EznbjDh1F6TyXN+LfqY2M5zDthExPSRqmVa+QiD773yKp4KHKMxQPNvcPbt1XO35HUak8uwtyC88XxtAZqx5F7wrdhQBRKkrWXjMTmznVUnhAJWpZq8qaE5GWVdLIUVUrtwJTDiw2lLsdJV0wiLwPMyW+6FkY=
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:16:25 +1200
From: ~Jeff~ <jifjif@gmail.com>
To: MX5List <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Subject: Re: Fuel economy
In-Reply-To: <001001c57905$25135af0$a808f6d2@bert9xwsd3z4xb>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
References: <001001c57905$25135af0$a808f6d2@bert9xwsd3z4xb>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <sr-Tk.A.6_.UdYMGB@L733>

Between 10.5 and 11 km/l (monster 2" taller tyres and stock tyres
respectively) around town, which is a 15 min 5km commute each way.

Nudging 15 km/l on a round trip to Hamiltron !

MX5's aren't wonderful for economy - the gearing is pretty short. The
old CRX used to get 15km/l around town, if I was feeling particularly
broke that week...

On 6/25/05, bert wouda <wouda@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
[...]

rodneyptaylor · Post by **rodneyptaylor** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:26 am

re 1.6/1.8 Did they not make a 1.6 with 5 speed in 99 if it was a1.8 would it
not be a 6 speed? P.S I should intro myself as a new member with a "white" 98
RS 1.8 6sp not checked fuel economy yet will do so

Rod. (New Plymouth)
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.7 - Release Date: 10/06/2005

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:28 am

My 1998 NB 1800 (auto) returned a maximum of 7.3 litres / 100km on a recent
trip up to north of Dargaville three weeks ago. So much for the winterless
North. Had to de-ice the windscreen while staying at Donnelys Crossing! I
find the economy is better in the North Island on a trip like this (2600km
over the week) than I can get here in the South. A lot more time cruising
along on a steady throttle, not many hills and the roads are not as windy.
This was mostly with the roof down which will make a small difference. Even
driving the Desert Road was great but did need to wear a warm hat with all
that snow down on the mountains.
Over the last two days driving quickly around some of the very windy
Marlborough Sounds roads and a couple of return trips between Blenheim and
Nelson, the fuel economy dropped to about 9l / 100km over a little more than
600km.
I am running 96 octane fuel and haven't tried 91 in this car yet.
In my 1992 1600 auto, running 96 improved the fuel economy about 6% overall.
The car runs better as well. The economy is not as good as the 1998 but it
is well used having now done about 198,000km. My 1998 has done 52,000km (or
so the counter shows!).

Grant.

MX5PWR · Post by **MX5PWR** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:59 am

Hi Bert,

In answer to some of the other replys, Yes the series 2 is available as a 1.6
with 5 speed as well as 1.8 6 speed.

Re fuel economy, I have had my 1998 series 2 for just over a year and have
kept a record of milage etc as follows;

Total Km travelled 21,613Km
Ltr used 1,779Ltr
Cost !!! $2,222 (Bugga)

Average ltr per 100km 8.23 (Best 7.11 Worst 9.15)
Average Km per Ltr 12.15

Mpg (I still think in this) 34.31 (Best 39.74 Worst 31.68)

My car is used everyday as my drive car and is a mix of open road and city
driving. I have used both 91, 96 and 98 with no real difference in economy.

Best economy was on recent trip to Hawkesbay for Queens Birthday when did
1500km. Worst is screeming (well stuck in traffic) around Auckland with no
open road running.

From your figures you are the same as mine.

If you have only owned it 6 weeks you may not yet be beyond saving as most of
us old hands are!!!

Forget the cost - just get out and have fun.

Where are you from Bert.

Regards Nigel

bert wouda · Post by **bert wouda** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 11:27 am

Yes Eric , ...I am 100 % sure , it's a ' 99 1.6 5 speed ( Jap import
, not a NZ new ) with a 5 MT transmission
it runs very, very smooth on 91 ... I haven't used it on the long trips
yet , and I will certainly try out the 96

Regards
BERT

**************

Okibi · Post by **Okibi** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:24 pm

The 1.6 is the "povo pack" still available in Markets like Japan, the UK
and Canada.

Last weekend I got 370 kms out of a full tank of 98ron in out 1.8 NB, a
lot of right foot and high revs were used.

- Dave.

Jon Addison · Post by **Jon Addison** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 3:41 pm

For those who still think imperially a quick calculation for
converting litres/100km to miles per gallon is to divide either into
283. Thus 10 litres/100km = 28.3mpg. Or 10mpg = 28.3 litres/100km.
For those who are really old, 283 is easy to remember as the cubic
capacity (in inches of course) of the original small block Chev V8.
Our '90 NZ 1600 with power nothing gets around 7.8 litres/100km
(36.3mpg) on mostly country roads. Don't know what it does with the top up.
For those considering lightening flywheels: This is unlikely to have a
significant effect on engine power output at steady rpms. What it will
do is make the engine feel perkier as it will respond more quickly to
throttle inputs, both on and off. It probably pays to fit a lighter
flywheel only after balancing the engine. You'd also want to ensure
anciliary drive belts are A1.
A lighter flywheel can also compromise clutch feel and gear shift quality.
Jon Addison

Wayne Sinclair · Post by **Wayne Sinclair** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:52 pm

Try an easier calculation. Your km's travelled divided by your litres used
(= km's/litre) multiplied 2.824 = mpg.

This site is worth a gander http://www.onlineconversion.com/automotive.htm

poison · Post by **poison** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 6:47 pm

Hey Jon

Thanks for the conversion, the ltr/km never meant a thing to me, awesome,
rock on chev.

Gazza
"PO1SON"

Euen · Post by **Euen** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:55 pm

Hi Gazza

"rock on chev."

Agreed, some of us actually owned a 283, housed in a 56 Bel Air... ah the
memories. Like driving from Norsewood to Hawkes Bay and back to Wellington
with a knackered big end bearing. The bent conrod was chromed and mounted as
a trophy. I think the cost of the repairs was the reason I have stuck with 4
cylinders ever since.

Cheers
Euen

EricW · Post by **EricW** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:13 am

Ok, you learn something new every day!

Eric

Bill Rehm · Post by **Bill Rehm** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:09 am

Candidly, the only time "kms per tank" or "kms per litre" was important
was during my drive-about in January, when traveling distances in the S
Island or in certain parts of the N Island --- AND when ensuring I
earned fly-buys when I "filled-up".

I mean let's get real here people: is there anyone on the list that is
going to make an "own, don't own" decision regarding an MX5 based on
"gas mileage" or "kms per litre"??? I doubt it!

Simple indicator: you can be almost certain to get 400 kms per fill-up.
Regards
William

Who is online