Printable View
Why are people posting stuff about getting better mileage after a *Break-in* period?? :loco :loco :loco
Your dealer told you that?? Mine did when I bought it...and at 5000km and again at 10,000km... If your mileage sux now..it always will.
I was lucky to get 400km doing 100%hwy.
If you got a car with bad mileage, get rid of it. They won't do anything for you.
just under 46L last fill up 565km
i went to niagara falls and back 350 kms on 1/2 a tank for hwy driving. i average 525km a tank now i drove on the DVP daily.
i got my 3 nore than 6 months now. at first i got around 580km per tank, now i got 680km per tank. its prety good for a 2.0L
50% highway, computer says 273km left in the tank. I agree that the second half seems to go down faster.
This is the best tank I've ever got at 660 km with about 30 km left. Dunno how I'm doing it, but I'll take it.
It's been 80% highway cruising at 120 kph.
Because its true in most cases!! Thats why some, but not all dealers will tell you that.I also experienced it myself the first 2-3k my vehicle was averaging approx 10l/100 km sometimes worse, but after it started to climb and now I average approx 7.9-8.4l/100km which isn't bad for a 2.3l engine and for the weight of our 3's.(That should give me somewhere in the 600's km range if I were to run the tank dry)Quote:
Originally Posted by SABIO
...IF people are still experiencing poor mileage at 10k or 20k and so on, they should be 1, looking at their driving habits and 2 talking to the dealer about it.
By the way I'm on my second tank since installing my exhaust and I haven't noticed any significant change in fuel consumption, ...maybe its still a little early to tell.
_3
.
I'd expect that the engine will learn whatever parameters it needs to learn within the first 1500 km or so. 3 tanks of gas should do it.
theoretically all our cars should get the same mileage if everything has been built and assembled to the same specs. the only main factors that should cause our cars to deviate in mileage is driving style and the environment.
allthough i may not be able to participate in what i am about to propose this might be something interesting to do.
get a decent amount of cars rounded up for a weekend meed hopfully >10. more the better esp if there is a good spread of atx and mt. if 20 or more can get together all the better because then it will be easy to determine if someone is actually deviating significantly from the rest of us. (ill leave the statistical math for after) everyone can meet at or near a gas station; if most people are around a quarter tank or less the better.
once everyone has gathered everyone will fill up with the same grade gas from the same station. a round trip will be made ~300k. stops can be made along the way but to keep things equal everyone will have to travel as a pack. the lead person in the row will drop back after 5-10 minutes to help keep things even as well. this will be pretty much a highway cruise because with this many people it will be hard to keep the amount of accelerating constant in city driving.
when the population of cars arrives back at their destination thay will be re-fueled and the mileage noted along with L's consumed. all the data will then be put into spreadsheet, (would be really convienent if someone could bring their laptop) the mileages will then be plotted. after some statistical calcs the values outside an acceptiable margin will be analysed further, ie. tires, mods, etc....
don't forget to account for the variances in CoD and the different types of tires and the pressures.. as well as folks who use cruise control and ones who don't.. the driver and cargo weight should be considered and only one pump used to fill up.. oh and everyone should be past break in.. too many variables.. but i like the idea ;)
as you see this exercise is not really feasible unless you're talking about that mtrl meet people are going to.. that is a nice 'cruise' to go on.. or till the fall tour maybe.. anyway
ERTW ;)
i was sort of hinting at all the variences in my first post. also to be corrected or noted before and after is tire pressire.
atx and mt would obviously have their own class but other than that i would group all the cars together at first then picking off highs and lows analyze other variables like tires(size/type), oil(mileage on current oil in esp if on the higher end), air filters(paper or k&n) and even lowering.
to do it on the mtl trip is a good idea but a round trip is truley nessessary for results that would be more useful than just on a comparison basis. allthough if everyone is willing to convoy up and back to the mtl fuelling at deperture and arrival both ways this would allow for a bit nicer set of data to work with.
also to help debunk the break in period all mileage cars are eligible to participate. the average mileage of different ranges of mileages can be photted to see if there is a significant increase in mileage from 0-5k, 5-10k, etc,...
i would be really interested to see this experiment go down. also everything would be documented along with a final analysis/report of findings. if there are some real consumption discrepencies between cars or if most can pull off good mileage but then theres a small group that did horribly than this information can alway be presented to mazda. this would have to documented carefully so that if it is used, it will be hard for mazda or a dealership to dismiss it.
ertw
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8...oto0929mo0.jpg
65% highway, 35% city driving
volume: 44.456L + 10.060L top up
distance: 660km
gas: petro-can regular filled to first click
hwy/city: 40%hwy / 60%city
L/100km: 8.26
car setup: stock toyos, automatic transmission, intake resonator removal.
my driving style was pretty relaxed most driving was kept to gentle acceleration <3000rpm. alond with coasting to lights and driving 105-110 on the highway. there was still the odd spirts of spirited driving on this tank as well.
Just under 2K km from new in 4 weeks and I filled-up last night after 489 km (70% hwy, 30 % city with hwy average of 120kph). 37.6 litres filled it to the cap so that's about 7.7 l/100km. I'm impressed! My previous car (98 Mercury Sable wagon) would've been almost twice that.
I LOVE MY CAR! I LOVE MY CAR! (new mantra)
i just installed a magnaflow catback on my car, and ever since then, ive been getting much better gas mileage!!
like, i used to averade about ~350km/tank, with driving slowly, shifting at lower rpms, and all that stuff....
now, i shift around ~4000rpm or so, speed a little, accelerate harder, and so far, ive gone half a tank, and i've gotten 200km!! and thats all city!!!
LOVE IT!!
I just had my car in @ Mississauga Mazda today. My car has been pulling cel's for a while. Every time a new code. They replaced a number of things that didn't fix the problem and they re-installed my old parts when they found it didn't fix the problem. They didn't bill me for the new parts but they did for the labour. I was cool with that as it let us find the problem. They ended up doing the purge soleniod valve and putting my old one back in. They ended up giving me the throttle body service and cleaned everything back out. They said when they started it was running rich at +18 (whatever that means lol) and they said when they finished and scanned it it was running lean at -3.5 and they said I should see a massive increase in response and fuel economy instantly. Also told me it should run like new again. :)
On the drive home it drove amazing. It used to almost stall when I'd start in 1st at lights. I hope the cel doesn't come back.
Excellent service from Tiffany at Mississauga Mazda. They ended up charging me for 4 hours labour but knocking it down to 3 hours & no parts charges. 10/10!!!!!
This thread is a concern for me .I`m about to pull a trigger on a 2007 sport .I`m getting a steady 6.5 to 7.2 L/100KM .This is for 80% HWY use.I commute about 100km per day .Going from 7.2 to 10L+ is not sitting well with me .
what do you drive now? a balls-less corolla?
get the 2.0L and you won't see such huge disparity.. btw.. i do about 50/50 if not more city and last few tanks have been 7.5-8L/100km.. YMMV (pun intended) :chuckle
Quote:
Originally Posted by majic
I drive a 2003 Civix LX .Judging by your post you must think you own a sports car .Stop watching comercials and realise that you car is a econobox .A station wagon at that .No matter what you say or do to it it`s still a station wagon.
Zoom Zoom Zoom in your station wagon .YMMV (pun intended) :chuckle
for starters your periods are all ****ed up.. :locoQuote:
Originally Posted by pfbmgd
i don't drive a sports car.. it's an econobox with great handling, acceleration and is easy on the eyes.. it is definitely much zippier than the civic, at the cost of fuel consumption.. it gets me from A to B and it's fun to drive..
and now i'm not cool b/c i drive a practical (for me) hatch.. awww.. your opinion matters so much to me..
if you're going to be doing majority (as you stated 80%) HWY driving, at a constant speed 100+ then you might just come 'close' 7-8L to what the civic is getting you..
EDIT: btw, what are the specs for the civic in L/100km for the model (AT/MT) you're driving? i am pretty sure that the 3 is about 1L/100km more just by specs (if not more)
this guy is getting decent mileage and seems like it's your type of driving..
you were close, he drives a balls-less civic :chuckleQuote:
Originally Posted by majic
he's going from a 1.7L to a 2.3L....transmissions geared completely different.... OF COURSE IT WILL USE MORE GAS
+1, and not to mention some Gross weight gain.But I'm curious how the 2.3 versions of the 3 would do under his type of driving;( 80% highway, 100km a day)....I think he might be pleasantly suprised how well it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by MajesticBlueNTO
_3
.
just got my record on the way to mtl
did 550 km to 1 tank
that is the best i have ever done by far, man, my city driving screws me bad!!
how fast were u driving on the highway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Broli
Bigger engine does not always mean more gas .A bigger engine should get good mileage as it is working less .This applies mostly to HWY driving .To get good gas mileage you use torque not horsepower .A bigger motor should have more torque and work less .Quote:
Originally Posted by MajesticBlueNTO
the laws of physics don't cease to exist in a bigger engine of same cylinder count. nor do they cease to exist when comparing a 4 cylinder to a 6 or an 8 cylinder, or higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by pfbmgd
the 2.3L 4 cylinder has a bigger combustion chamber (bore and stroke) than the 1.7L 4 cylinder. that combustion chamber has to be filled with a certain air/fuel ratio. the bigger the combustion chamber, the more air, thus more fuel.
a bigger engine may be working less (depending on many factors such as gearing, weight, friction, aerodynamics, frontal area, the list goes on and on) but the fact remains that it needs to use gas to keep it going. why do you think modern 6 and 8 cylinders (especially the V8s) come with cylinder deactivation while cruising....because less combustion volume = less gas.
I think Broli likes keeping it just under the limiter most of the time:chuckleQuote:
Originally Posted by faibs
_3
.
one of my best tanks this season 579km with 44.5L of gas. Thats 7.68L/100km; the first third of the tank was city driving too.
So far most of my tanks have been around 8.1-8.5l/100km with anywhere from 40-80%highway.
Im going to switch to synthetic within the next change or two and see if that makes a significant difference to my gas mileage. If the synthetic will save me 0.5L/100km ill be happy because in the 5000km that i usually do between oil changes thats 25L of gas and at the current price $1.05 thats $26.25 and even up to the recommended 8k if the synthetic stays that much cleaner.. which is enough savings for me to justify switching to synthetic along with the added benifits of less wear and tear on the engine parts esp with cold winter morning starts.
+1. all i do is city and this baby is thirsty. I'm lucky if I get 400 a tank.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEric
Before my intake and header i was getting 400+ so yea forget that idea!Quote:
Originally Posted by HYPER GEAR
Quote:
Originally Posted by majic
are you referring to me?? lol
I don't think you're a physicist. :) Of course, I shouldn't talk... I didn't do so well in my university physics courses either. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by MajesticBlueNTO
That said... your comments aren't all that valid when you throw in a few other factors.
Think of it this way...
You've got a 3000 lb object that you need to get moving down the road. In order to do that, you've also gotta get some pistons moving up and down, wheels turning and a bunch of other stuff happening. This all takes energy, and all that energy is being created by consuming gasoline.
Gasoline has a certain amount of energy in it. The more of that energy that is used to move the car, and the less that's used to do all the other stuff, or just wasted by not even fully burning the gas, the better your fuel economy will be.
Now think of your different sized engines. It's not so much the size that matters but, rather, the efficiency of the engine to burn that gas without wasting energy. If you have a smaller engine, it may well be more inefficient than a bigger one of the same number of cylinders. That means the small one uses more gas.
How does it do this?
Well... the throttle body is a wonderful thing, and is responsible for the biggest flaw in your explanation.
Even though the bigger engine has more room for the air/fuel mixture, having the throttle plate nearly closed restricts the amount of air that's allowed into the cylinder. If you restrict the amount of air, then you obviously need less fuel to make the proper mixture. If you can use less fuel while still creating the energy you need to move the car, then you'll save gas even though the engine is bigger.
The bonus here, is that because it's bigger AND more efficient, you have the option of burning more fuel if you choose to and making even more power. Add in forced induction, and things get lots more fun.
The only real argument for a bigger engine using more fuel than a smaller one is in weight differences between the two. Both the overall weight, and the weight of the components that need to move in it to make it work. If the technologies used in both are the same, then a smaller engine should be more efficient based on the fact that there is less weight to move, and less work to do to keep the engine turning. That's why a V8 with cylinder deactivation is still going to be less efficient than a similar 4 cylinder. Those other 4 cylinders in the V8 still have to be moved up and down and that takes up energy that could otherwise be used to move the car.
Damn you, work, for waking me up early on a Saturday morning! Hope someone got something out of all this...
i would say averaged at 120Quote:
Originally Posted by faibs
some stints upto 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flagrum_3
hahaha
only by necessity . . .
:P
25% city, 75% highway 783kms. right after an oil change.
this is as useful as broli's posts.. :locoQuote:
Originally Posted by KenYork
yup
just like ur last post is very useful
:AH
douchebag.. i was ILLUSTRATING how spewing off some random ****ing numbers is a waste everyone's time.. we can all infer from his statement that 783km is most likely when the light came on but it seems quite high.. so that's probably when he filled up.. and that would be a difference of potentially 80-100km .. so many variables.. yah i am the asshat.. thanks for coming out.. maybe you want to post more PORN on tm3.. :flaming :flaming :flamingQuote:
Originally Posted by Broli
lol, it was a joke retard,
maybe u need to take some happy pills in the morning
:loco:loco
You two should get a room yea?
majic vs. Broli - 4 o'clock behind the portables in the soccer field.