Fuel consumption for 1.6 and 1.8

Mikkels · Post by **Mikkels** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:07 pm

Hi List

Can you tell me what fuel consumption you are getting around
town for your 1.6s and 1.8s. My 1.8 in the 1990 gets 8 - 9
km/L (23 mpg) city running (work trips of 6 km each way
mostly). Seems a bit high to me.

Don
1.8 in 1990

Wayne Sinclair · Post by **Wayne Sinclair** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 9:15 pm

1996 - 1.8 - stock standard - punting it along - Blenheim to
Invercargill - over a 12hr period - 36mph - probably would get better if I
was to drive less aggressive.
Wayne

Chic Lynch · Post by **Chic Lynch** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 9:24 pm

I wouldn't call 36mph, driving agressively...

PS I get 380kms to a tank so 8.4kms/litre (in a 1.6)

Cheers

Chic

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:15:28 +1200, Wayne Sinclair wrote:

1996 - 1.8 - stock standard - punting it along - Blenheim to
Invercargill - over a 12hr period - 36mph - probably would get better if I
was to drive less aggressive.
Wayne

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:15 pm

Around town in my 1992 1.6 (and it's auto!) it is usually around 9 - 10
km/l. On the Autumn Colours run earlier this year, 2422km in 4 days and I
got 12.5km/l. When pushing it along around the Marlborough Sounds roads,
very windy with it locked in 2nd, I can get it down to 10km/l on a 200km
trip. Usually on these roads here it returns around 11.5km/l. These roads
are very windy so the fuel consumption is higher than when on a trip to
Christchurch for example. It would be quite easy to better these results but
these cars beg to be driven with a heavy right foot and you wouldn't want to
disappoint the car, would you?
I keep a log of travel and fuel useage so can get a quite accurate record of
what it uses. These reults are over almost 2 years and 45,000km. The car has
now done an indicated 179000km.
I am running Bridgestone Potenza GIII tyres, standard size. These lasted
35000km as a matter of interest.

Grant in Blenheim.

Bill Rehm · Post by **Bill Rehm** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:03 am

Excellent feedback Grant, the type I for one, appreciate.

PS: you are "spot on" regarding the right foot and the car's needs

Regards
Bill

MX5PWR · Post by **MX5PWR** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:07 am

Hi Don, I use my 1998 1.8 6 speed as my daily drive car so it does a
combination of city and open road running. I have been keeping a record over
the last 4205km and have been averaging 11.87km per ltre (33.51mpg) with the
best being 35.65mpg. Will be intereseted to see how that compares.

Nigel

Mikkels · Post by **Mikkels** » Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:43 pm

Thanks for the feedback guys. Looks like I'm still running
a lttle rich by comparison of fuel consumption figures. The
survey suggests that the 1.8 may in fact be more economical
than the 1.6. Is that the gearing and better AFM etc?
Leaves me wondering where I'll end up with the 1.6 aFM and
ECU and the 1.8 engine.

Don
[...]

SLYDIT · Post by **SLYDIT** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:50 am

Don.
I think you need to invest in an "Emanage" unit to get
control of that engine. Youve put so much money into
the conversion and rebuilds that itwould be a shame to
toast another engine. The emanage is a piggy back
computor thats about half the cost of a LINK unit, and
alows fine tuning of fuel and timing. it would be
perfect for sorting out your engine management
problems. Search E manage on Miata.net.

Mikkels · Post by **Mikkels** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:05 pm

I'm rapidly coming to that conclusion Glen. I'm putting it
over the Dyno again on Tuesday at Torque performance to see
where I'm at but it doesn't look good at the moment.

I was planning on a turbo at some stage so maybe just need
to bite the bullet and get things sorted. I will check out
E manage. Sounds interesting.

Don

[...]

EricW · Post by **EricW** » Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:03 pm

Just to add to the chorus, Ann drives our 94/1800 to work, 64 km there and
back, most days and uses 8 litres /100 km, so 12.5 km /litre. That's as near
as damn it 36 MPG

She drives somewhat conservatively, which actually may not be the best way
to get economy, momentum up hills is a good thing.

So I think if you are getting about those figures you are doing alright. It
would not surprise me that an 1800 was more economical than a 1600, to do
with how far you have to push your foot to get a result, we have a 2 litre
BMW520 in our fleet, which is far less economical than my 2.8 ltr

Who is online