Why isn't the fuel economy better?

[Dpforlife]

During the break-in period I had the best milage probably because I became accustom to shifting early and crushing in high gears. Maybe I need to go back to that. If anyone has any tips on to get 40mpg driving mostly city and some highway I'm all ears!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[phobos512]

Originally Posted by regal

Because the car is heavy and has short gears.

Think back to when the S2k was first released at 2800 lbs, it was heavily criticized for being overweight. I never thought I would live to see the day that a 2750 lb car is considered light, that is GT weight in my book.

There are a million examples but the original GTI weighed 1800 lbs and out handled our twins even handicapped by FWD. The Lotus Elise in England weighs about that.

Its time Ralph Nader and his Corvair crash standards be re-evaluated, cars weigh too much today and its just wastes gas and kills performance. Might save a handful of idiot drivers lives a year. I never felt unsafe in my little rusted out GTI.

But I don't think we will ever see lightweight cars again, the twins will probably be the last attempt at good balance and medium weight. The future is heavy DIT (gas and desiel), and really heavy electric crap.

I really don't think that using the Elise is a good basis for comparison. It has no rear sets, no interior carpeting, and it's smaller in length, width and height than a current gen Miata, which also weighs ~500 lbs more.

[Specialized86]

My 86 at 86 mph gets 30.0 mpg. Pretty good cruising mpg if you ask me. Took a trip from Big Sky Montana to Salt Lake City Utah all Highway averaged 33 mpg around 65 to 74 mph.

P.s. no I wasn't speeding the speed limit was 80.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by Specialized86

My 86 at 86 mph

P.s. no I wasn't speeding the speed limit was 80.

I don't think you understand what the phrase "Speed Limit" means...

inb4 "but nobody gets pulled over doing +5"

[regal]

Originally Posted by phobos512

I really don't think that using the Elise is a good basis for comparison. It has no rear sets, no interior carpeting, and it's smaller in length, width and height than a current gen Miata, which also weighs ~500 lbs more.

Its not a comparison, this was a question. The reason for the poor gas milage is the twins are a heavy car underpowered by a four cylinder.


The first GTI at 1800 lbs had some ammeneties, it had maneuverability like the twins could never dread of and good gas milage.


I think people consider the twins a light weight four banger that should get good mpg. It doesn't because its not light weight, has a poor torque/lb ratio requiring short gears do to the undersized engine. This is all a recipe for the same gas milage as a 6 cylinder camry.


If we truly want performance and mg cars are going to need to be built lighter, there is too much government mandated safety crap weighing them down.




Want a great Toyota sports car that gets good mpg? Find a 2ZZ MR-S.

[Colominicano]

Commence Project Weight Reduction!

Problem solved. You're welcome.

[Target70]

Originally Posted by regal

Its not a comparison, this was a question. The reason for the poor gas milage is the twins are a heavy car underpowered by a four cylinder.


The first GTI at 1800 lbs had some ammeneties, it had maneuverability like the twins could never dread of and good gas milage.


I think people consider the twins a light weight four banger that should get good mpg. It doesn't because its not light weight, has a poor torque/lb ratio requiring short gears do to the undersized engine. This is all a recipe for the same gas milage as a 6 cylinder camry.


If we truly want performance and mg cars are going to need to be built lighter, there is too much government mandated safety crap weighing them down.

Hate it but I agree. One of the down sides I had going from my 93 240sx to the FRS was an increase of about 200lbs and a decrease of .4 liters. I get about the same mpg from a 30 year newer car? I though technology was advancing?

as far as gas mileage goes, here are my records from when I bought the car:

stock tires 44psi - DD commute 6miles 100% small town/city

Gas MPG
12/23/13 27.5 (road trip heavy rain)
12/24/13 31.2 (returning from trip)
1/9/14 25.3 (DD)
1/28/14 24.9 (DD)
2/17/14 23.5 (DD +snow fun)
2/17/14 - (disabled DRL + changed tranny/diff oil with Motul)
3/9/14 26.5 (DD)
3/31/14 26.1 (DD)
4/20/14 25.8 (DD)

I didn't change my driving style but after the oil change and DRL delete I picked up ~1-2 mpg. I don't think this is weather related either as it stayed about the same. Though now that it has warmed up some I have been spinning my wheels more often.

Colominicano: Commence Project Weight Reduction!

The most serious and detailed weight reduction thread I have seen still only get's us down to about 2400lbs, and that includes thousands of $$$ in racing parts. I could get my 240 down to 2400lbs in an hour for free. not saying it isn't beneficial, but we will never turn this thing into a go-cart.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by regal

Its not a comparison, this was a question. The reason for the poor gas milage is the twins are a heavy car underpowered by a four cylinder.


The first GTI at 1800 lbs had some ammeneties, it had maneuverability like the twins could never dread of and good gas milage.

Dude the first GTI got only marginally better mpg than the Toyobaru: 25-30 mpg according to Wiki without a source, less according to the EPA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswa...#North_America
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymod...n_Rabbit.shtml

(remember to look at the 1.8L, the 1.7/1.6L was the regular Rabbit)

Pretty small sacrifice (EPA 21-30 if you forgot) for the amenities (noise dampening, decent radio that pairs up with my phone, A/C that works well, modern engine control and emissions), safety (say what you will about gubment but airbags and crumple zones will save your life when it's out of your hands), and a ~6 second 0-60 compared to ~9 seconds.

Don't get me wrong, if I come across a clean mk1 for the right price I will buy it, but your shitposting needs a dose of reality.

Edit: Found this page with mileage that seems to be what you're remembering 26 city, 37 highway:
http://www.rabbitgtipage.com/stats.html

Damn good and closer to what I would have guessed, was taken aback by my initial findings which is why I posted. Would be interesting to see what a stock one turns on the skidpad with modern rubber, arguably the only method of objectively measuring handling aside from laptimes. GTI looks like it pulls ~0.8G back in the day, FRS ~0.9G if memory serves.

Originally Posted by Target70

Hate it but I agree. One of the down sides I had going from my 93 240sx to the FRS was an increase of about 200lbs and a decrease of .4 liters. I get about the same mpg from a 30 year newer car? I though technology was advancing?

It is, you went from a car that pulls 0-60 in ~8 seconds to one that does it in ~6 seconds without sacrificing mpg and gaining modern conveniences and safety, and adjusting for inflation the $15k msrp in 1993 works out to $24.5k today, what's you're gripe again?

Before you tell me about how you don't care about the 0-60 I'll respond by saying detune the car. If you're cool with a slower weaker engine if it means getting better mpg then you can do that, adjust the valve timing and you should buy back some of that precious mpg you want.

I get it, without all the modern bullshit this car would be "better" but that's not the way the world works. You're free to build a kit car to your liking, this is what the majority wants, you can't have your cake and eat it too, nobody would buy the stripped out airbagless tin can 2,400 lb Toyobaru with 180 hp (because you didn't want D4S) and wind up windows that gets taxed to high heaven because it's a gross polluter. Toyota can't make a profit off of just the three of us (you bet your ass I want that version too).

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by Target70

Hate it but I agree. One of the down sides I had going from my 93 240sx to the FRS was an increase of about 200lbs and a decrease of .4 liters. I get about the same mpg from a 30 year newer car? I though technology was advancing?

The curb weight is only 59 pounds more, assuming you have a manual (2758 vs 2699), and despite having a 400cc smaller engine, the FRS makes 45 more horsepower. It is also much safer. Sounds like advancing tech to me...

[Andrew025]

Originally Posted by Specialized86

My 86 at 86 mph gets 30.0 mpg. Pretty good cruising mpg if you ask me. Took a trip from Big Sky Montana to Salt Lake City Utah all Highway averaged 33 mpg around 65 to 74 mph.

P.s. no I wasn't speeding the speed limit was 80.

Going off the in-dash calculation is pretty worthless.

[Target70]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

It is, you went from a car that pulls 0-60 in ~8 seconds to one that does it in ~6 seconds without sacrificing mpg and gaining modern conveniences and safety, and adjusting for inflation the $15k msrp in 1993 works out to $24.5k today, what's you're gripe again?

Before you tell me about how you don't care about the 0-60 I'll respond by saying detune the car. If you're cool with a slower weaker engine if it means getting better mpg then you can do that, adjust the valve timing and you should buy back some of that precious mpg you want.

I get it, without all the modern bullshit this car would be "better" but that's not the way the world works. You're free to build a kit car to your liking, this is what the majority wants, you can't have your cake and eat it too, nobody would buy the stripped out airbagless tin can 2,400 lb Toyobaru with 180 hp (because you didn't want D4S) and wind up windows that gets taxed to high heaven because it's a gross polluter. Toyota can't make a profit off of just the three of us (you bet your ass I want that version too).

I bought it used 10 years ago for $2500 :P , All these new standards have been set year after year, yet I get comparable performance(observed mpg) from not only a 30 year old car but one with almost 300,000 miles on it. It is not really a gripe, just an observation. My dad's old grand marque got a better advertised mileage by 2~3 mpg than the same car 10 model years newer (<-- from memory)

If adjusting the valve timing could get better gas mileage, then if it is so advanced it should adjust the valve timing when under low load conditions.

I have looked up kit cars, I wanted to get the FFR GTM, but even it is 2500 lbs. I would disagree with it being only what the majority wants, and more what the regulations allow. I don't see what's wrong with offering options anymore. I understand the manufacturing costs increase with variety, but hell we have had 3 or 4 different "models" in however long, how about instead of light up badges, they just offer a limited run of manual everything? (Oh and it wouldn't be 180hp, they would have put a larger engine in it make up the difference, so not only would the h/p be the same or more, the t/q would be higher too) <-- what I wish for anyway

chrisl: The curb weight is only 59 pounds more, assuming you have a manual (2758 vs 2699), and despite having a 400cc smaller engine, the FRS makes 45 more horsepower. It is also much safer. Sounds like advancing tech to me..

you really can't go by the production stats. I am not sure what source you used, but there is a ~100?lbs difference based on hatch vs coupe (coupe lighter), and I don't know what options that takes into account. All I can say is that I had the hatch, and I stopped at a truck stop weight station(many years ago) and I weighed in at about 2,8?? with me and a friend in the car. full interior, + spare (I hadn't stripped it out yet ) True it was a ~20 year old car, manual everything, and probably had some under panels/brackets/egr removed. But it was still in the 2,500 range.

[Target70]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

It is, you went from a car that pulls 0-60 in ~8 seconds to one that does it in ~6 seconds without sacrificing mpg and gaining modern conveniences and safety, and adjusting for inflation the $15k msrp in 1993 works out to $24.5k today, what's you're gripe again?

Before you tell me about how you don't care about the 0-60 I'll respond by saying detune the car. If you're cool with a slower weaker engine if it means getting better mpg then you can do that, adjust the valve timing and you should buy back some of that precious mpg you want.

I get it, without all the modern bullshit this car would be "better" but that's not the way the world works. You're free to build a kit car to your liking, this is what the majority wants, you can't have your cake and eat it too, nobody would buy the stripped out airbagless tin can 2,400 lb Toyobaru with 180 hp (because you didn't want D4S) and wind up windows that gets taxed to high heaven because it's a gross polluter. Toyota can't make a profit off of just the three of us (you bet your ass I want that version too).

I bought it used 10 years ago for $2500 :P , All these new standards have been set year after year, yet I get comparable performance(observed mpg) from not only a 30 year old car but one with almost 300,000 miles on it. It is not really a gripe, just an observation. My dad's old grand marque got a better advertised mileage by 2~3 mpg than the same car 10 model years newer (<-- from memory)

If adjusting the valve timing could get better gas mileage, then if it is so advanced it should adjust the valve timing when under low load conditions.

I have looked up kit cars, I wanted to get the FFR GTM, but even it is 2500 lbs. I would disagree with it being only what the majority wants, and more what the regulations allow. I don't see what's wrong with offering options anymore. I understand the manufacturing costs increase with variety, but hell we have had 3 or 4 different "models" in however long, how about instead of light up badges, they just offer a limited run of manual everything? (Oh and it wouldn't be 180hp, they would have put a larger engine in it make up the difference, so not only would the h/p be the same or more, the t/q would be higher too) <-- what I wish for anyway

chrisl: The curb weight is only 59 pounds more, assuming you have a manual (2758 vs 2699), and despite having a 400cc smaller engine, the FRS makes 45 more horsepower. It is also much safer. Sounds like advancing tech to me..

you really can't go by the production stats. I am not sure what source you used, but there is a ~100?lbs difference based on hatch vs coupe (coupe lighter) and I don't know if those numbers take into account the different options.(LS could have leather, power windows/doors/locks/sunroof/mirrors, LSD, 4wheel steering, ABS, 5 lug spindles etc...) All I can say is that I had the base hatch, and I stopped at a truck stop weigh station(many years ago) and I weighed in at about 2,8?? with me and a friend in the car. full interior, + spare (I hadn't stripped it out yet ) True it was a ~20 year old car, manual everything, and probably had some under panels/brackets/egr removed. But it was still in the 2,500 range.

I agreed above because I believe if it weighed less, with a larger engine and lower rpm's with a taller 6th gear for hwy cruising we could get better mpg. I know this car even stripped out will never be really light.. It's no 3000gt/dodge stealth(<-- r/t tt - truck stop weighed us at about 4000lbs with me and same friend) but I want to believe that with newer materials It would weigh less not more.

[regal]

Ad on TV for the new JEEP proclaiming 31 mpg highway, sound familiar (FRS manual is 31 mpg hwy.)


Plus we have to put premium in a not so fast car.

[DC2R]

Originally Posted by Target70

I bought it used 10 years ago for $2500 :P , All these new standards have been set year after year, yet I get comparable performance(observed mpg) from not only a 30 year old car but one with almost 300,000 miles on it. It is not really a gripe, just an observation. My dad's old grand marque got a better advertised mileage by 2~3 mpg than the same car 10 model years newer (<-- from memory)

If adjusting the valve timing could get better gas mileage, then if it is so advanced it should adjust the valve timing when under low load conditions.

I have looked up kit cars, I wanted to get the FFR GTM, but even it is 2500 lbs. I would disagree with it being only what the majority wants, and more what the regulations allow. I don't see what's wrong with offering options anymore. I understand the manufacturing costs increase with variety, but hell we have had 3 or 4 different "models" in however long, how about instead of light up badges, they just offer a limited run of manual everything? (Oh and it wouldn't be 180hp, they would have put a larger engine in it make up the difference, so not only would the h/p be the same or more, the t/q would be higher too) <-- what I wish for anyway

chrisl: The curb weight is only 59 pounds more, assuming you have a manual (2758 vs 2699), and despite having a 400cc smaller engine, the FRS makes 45 more horsepower. It is also much safer. Sounds like advancing tech to me..

you really can't go by the production stats. I am not sure what source you used, but there is a ~100?lbs difference based on hatch vs coupe (coupe lighter) and I don't know if those numbers take into account the different options.(LS could have leather, power windows/doors/locks/sunroof/mirrors, LSD, 4wheel steering, ABS, 5 lug spindles etc...) All I can say is that I had the base hatch, and I stopped at a truck stop weigh station(many years ago) and I weighed in at about 2,8?? with me and a friend in the car. full interior, + spare (I hadn't stripped it out yet ) True it was a ~20 year old car, manual everything, and probably had some under panels/brackets/egr removed. But it was still in the 2,500 range.

I agreed above because I believe if it weighed less, with a larger engine and lower rpm's with a taller 6th gear for hwy cruising we could get better mpg. I know this car even stripped out will never be really light.. It's no 3000gt/dodge stealth(<-- r/t tt - truck stop weighed us at about 4000lbs with me and same friend) but I want to believe that with newer materials It would weigh less not more.

Been wondering: can you just pull up to a weigh station in a two door? You pay for weighing?

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk