MX-5's CAN do "economical"
Discussion
I had a 120 mile round trip today from my parents house up to see my brother in Alderley Edge and back. This journey is up the A51 mostly, whose speed limits vary between 30 and 60mph. With my mother in the passenger seat and the roof up, no harsh acceleration or cornering is permitted.
As a result, on brim-to-brim calculations, the '5 did 40.3mpg! My previous best was 36.6, and I'm running at an average of 31 over 5,000 miles.
Sorry for the geeky post but I thought 40mpg was pretty damned good
.
As a result, on brim-to-brim calculations, the '5 did 40.3mpg! My previous best was 36.6, and I'm running at an average of 31 over 5,000 miles.
Sorry for the geeky post but I thought 40mpg was pretty damned good
.That's impressive, the best I've managed was 34mpg on a long motorway cruise staying below 70mph. Suspect you could get better than 40mpg on a motorway if you were VERY disciplined. Did try staying at 55mph once when I realised I was going to be very very very early for an appointment, wasn't pleasant being overtaken by HGVs in a '5!
I've never understood this thing about them being bad on fuel.
I nearly always calculate my MPG and over the course of last year averages almost bang on 30mpg in my MK1, all types of driving and LOTS of wide open throttle!
I dont think thats bad at all really? A car designed in the 80's with a basic-ish petrol engine, that is likely to be driven quite hard for a significantly higher proportion of time than most 'normal' cars.
In my family we've had a number of considerably more modern petrol engined cars and and none of them have been significantly better than that?
I think rather than the actual economy, what plays on peoples minds is having to visit petrol stations more often, every 250 miles .
This is due to the car having a small tank in relation to its economy (plenty of other cars have a tank that 'only' takes 40 litres or so, but they tend to be little 1.1 litre Superminis that do 45mpg so have a 300+ mile range anyway, whereas other larger or sportier cars where <30-mpg is acceptable would tend to have a 60+ litre tank, again giving you a 300+ mile range.)
I nearly always calculate my MPG and over the course of last year averages almost bang on 30mpg in my MK1, all types of driving and LOTS of wide open throttle!
I dont think thats bad at all really? A car designed in the 80's with a basic-ish petrol engine, that is likely to be driven quite hard for a significantly higher proportion of time than most 'normal' cars.
In my family we've had a number of considerably more modern petrol engined cars and and none of them have been significantly better than that?
I think rather than the actual economy, what plays on peoples minds is having to visit petrol stations more often, every 250 miles .
This is due to the car having a small tank in relation to its economy (plenty of other cars have a tank that 'only' takes 40 litres or so, but they tend to be little 1.1 litre Superminis that do 45mpg so have a 300+ mile range anyway, whereas other larger or sportier cars where <30-mpg is acceptable would tend to have a 60+ litre tank, again giving you a 300+ mile range.)
My mk1 1.8 is currently doing 27mpg average (tank-tank calculated using the "road trip" iphone app) this gets me about 370-420km to a tank.
considering the lack of power and weight. economical they are not
- my MPS with 3 times the power was better on fuel than this, and i thought that was bad too!
note: this is not a complaint.. if i wanted fuel economy id buy a smoker!
considering the lack of power and weight. economical they are not
- my MPS with 3 times the power was better on fuel than this, and i thought that was bad too!note: this is not a complaint.. if i wanted fuel economy id buy a smoker!
Edited by NeoVR on Thursday 18th February 11:07
Mine seems to have dropped back to 25mpg lately (30 usually, more on long trips), wonder if a brake is sticking again 
when I had one seize a while back it was the first early warning sign well before I started noticing wheels getting hot etc.
Got it down to 15mpg on track, thought that was doing well for a standard 1.6
when I had one seize a while back it was the first early warning sign well before I started noticing wheels getting hot etc.Got it down to 15mpg on track, thought that was doing well for a standard 1.6
Praise the lord its not just me having to refill after 250 miles. Is it just me or does driving like a fairy make next to sod all difference to your range ? if i mince about everywhere I might get an extra 20 miles from a tank - Not an issue to me as i just get more incouraged to keep my foot down !!!! its almost like my 5 wants to have its head kicked in on every journey
Must admit, I was a bit disappointed with the economy of my Mk1 1.8. I get 26-27 mpg during mixed (but enthusiastic) driving which, for a light weight, not very quick car is not great. By comparison, my previous Alfa 145 (dull chassis but fantastic engine) gave me 30-31 and my Elise regularly returned 34-35. Still better than my Cerb though at 15-16 
I never understood the slightly dire claims a lot of people came up with. My old mk1 RS Ltd returned mid 30s over a reasonably spirited commute. I didn't cane it for the sake of doing so (steaming up to red traffic lights and the like) but I never held back if I got a clear run at a fun piece of road and it seemed to be well up on some claims.
It was all quite low speed stuff, so maybe the shorter gearing and lighter flywheel on the RS actually improved its economy? To be fair it was quite lightly traffic'd with very little stop-start and nothing (officially) above NSL so it probably was close to ideal conditions, but it shows 34/35mpg it can be done without driving like a nun.
It was all quite low speed stuff, so maybe the shorter gearing and lighter flywheel on the RS actually improved its economy? To be fair it was quite lightly traffic'd with very little stop-start and nothing (officially) above NSL so it probably was close to ideal conditions, but it shows 34/35mpg it can be done without driving like a nun.
Chris71 said:
I never understood the slightly dire claims a lot of people came up with. My old mk1 RS Ltd returned mid 30s over a reasonably spirited commute. I didn't cane it for the sake of doing so (steaming up to red traffic lights and the like) but I never held back if I got a clear run at a fun piece of road and it seemed to be well up on some claims.
It was all quite low speed stuff, so maybe the shorter gearing and lighter flywheel on the RS actually improved its economy? To be fair it was quite lightly traffic'd with very little stop-start and nothing (officially) above NSL so it probably was close to ideal conditions, but it shows 34/35mpg it can be done without driving like a nun.
Not my experience with my RS I'm afraid, lucky to get 25, but I do drive it like I stole it. Honestly have no idea how much it'd return with just a little mechanical sympathy. However, I think on a steady run I could get mid to high 30s.It was all quite low speed stuff, so maybe the shorter gearing and lighter flywheel on the RS actually improved its economy? To be fair it was quite lightly traffic'd with very little stop-start and nothing (officially) above NSL so it probably was close to ideal conditions, but it shows 34/35mpg it can be done without driving like a nun.
In theory an RS may be slightly better equipped than some due to it's lighter weight etc, but not by much.
Not great for me either. I get 22-23 commuting to work and back which is in traffic about 3 miles either way and various other short trips. On a straight motorway run to scotland I got 40 though. Mostly 30ish whilst up there. It seems to me no matter what car you have if you drive short trips in town etc you get really S**t mpg. I can only guess that the people who get 30 all the time must drive pretty girly or just have big 50mph commutes.
Gassing Station | Mazda MX5/Roadster/Miata | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff