Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDan
I average 26-28mpg commuting (whether via highway or enthusiastically backroading it) and get 31 on all-highway trips in my '01 S2000.
RX-8 gets FAR worse real-world mileage vs. an S2000 with reasonable toe settings (for some ridonkulous reason a lot of S2kers insist on running 0.67 degrees total rear toe, killing tires, handling, and mileage all in one fell swoop!).
I just did a BIG trip from Pawtucket RI to ATL on Sunday in my 500+hp LS2 FD RX-7. 1079 miles in 15:30 with three stops (only two for gas), averaging 27mpg(!). Did 435 miles on the first tank (15.9gal fill) and 466 miles on the second (17.3gal fill).
I wonder what the 13B-TT would have gotten?! Or the RX-8's Renesis.
Rotaries are great for burning a TON of fuel while making only modest power. I love 'em, but they aren't exactly a suitable powerplant for a real-world daily-driven car. And I'm still a little butt-hurt over my perfectly-maintained, never-tracked, only once autoXed '90 RX-7 blowing 2 apex seals at its 2nd autoX run with 105k miles on the clock. And not a single rotor-head was remotely surprised...
|
Sure, no arguments here, the S2000 is more efficient for sure than the RX-8. And yes, I think most of us have learned to accept the engine is an expendable item like plugs/coils/wires, lol. The RX-8's renesis generally doesn't "blow apex seals" though, it just loses compression (carbon) and gets weaker quicker than a typical piston engine.
I'm just saying that if
"calling 18/25MPG horrible on a sports car that screams 9000rpm is just wrong," then the RX-8 mpg's aren't "horrible"
I love the S2000 though! Almost bought one, but that rock-hard suspension was kinda nasty to my aging bones