fuel consumption

Angela Bufton · Post by **Angela Bufton** » Thu May 09, 2002 11:20 am

Hello again. I wanted to ask if MX5's are supposed to be economical or not. My
1990 1.6 auto seems to go through the gas quite a bit. I'm running it on 91 at
the moment (Does this have anything to do with it) or is it just the way you
drive it. I hope someone can shed some light on the matter

Mathew · Post by **Mathew** » Thu May 09, 2002 12:20 pm

How many K's are you getting out of a tank?. My old 1990' manual used to get as much as 500k's (I think-my memory isn't to good) on a tank of 91, wheras I am lucky to get 350ks out of a tank of 98 in my supercharged 1991. have you had a decent check-up done on it. When I first got my 1990 it wasn't running too well so I to a local car tunig specialist who hooked it up to his fancy computerised gadget and $300 dollars later I had a huge printout of everything checked and a car that ran faultlessly. I think autos have a worse fuel economy than a manual car, but it shouldn't be worse by much.

Biff [Paradise 2] · Post by **Biff [Paradise 2]** » Thu May 09, 2002 1:23 pm

Hi all,
I get about 450k's out of a tank, 1990, manual.

Graeme Naisbitt · Post by **Graeme Naisbitt** » Thu May 09, 2002 2:43 pm

I get so much fun out of a tank, I've never actually checked the milage

Graeme
D4NGER

From badcat@xtra.co.nz Fri Apr 27 16:06:14 2007
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 14:52:32 +1200
Subject: Is this a lister?
From: "ken.newell" <badcat@xtra.co.nz>
To: mx5 list <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <KlMOz.A.sFB.1jXMGB@L733>

I sawe a niiiice mx5 on the western motorway in AK this afternoon.
Silver with gunmetal grey from the waistline down - is this a lister?

Nice ride.

ken

From photos@parkside.co.nz Fri Apr 27 16:06:12 2007
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.2509
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 16:46:14 +1200
Subject: At last
From: Sean <photos@parkside.co.nz>
To: MX5 Club <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <a-2t2C.A.tFB.1jXMGB@L733>

At last I finally own my own MX5 as of about 3 hours ago!! after driving so
many of them for work to take photos from I now have one that I don't have
to give back
--
Sean Craig
Photographer
NZ Classic Car Magazine

vickyd · Post by **vickyd** » Thu May 09, 2002 4:49 pm

very good question. I took mine to wellington recently, drove reasonably,
followed the speed limits and counted the kms. Remember fuel just went
up 4c a litre too.

tank of unleaded 91 = $38.00 lasted 390kms approx.

Quoting Angela Bufton <LUCKEE@xtra.co.nz>:

[...]

shaznandy lockyer · Post by **shaznandy lockyer** » Thu May 09, 2002 4:59 pm

Angela,
Your MX-5 has no roof.therefore poor aerodynamic properties...even with the top up the drag co-efficient is a high 38.(46(?)with the top down)...modern sedans have drag co-efficiency figures below 30!Yes autos use more gas and the smaller(less torque)the engine the more the transmission affects fuel economy!
If you get better than 400k's per tank I'd say your doing allright.
My '90 5spd gives 350-500k's depending on higway/city...cruise/thrash...
Andy Lockyer
Angela Bufton <LUCKEE@xtra.co.nz> wrote: Hello again. I wanted to ask if MX5's are supposed to be economical or not. My 1990 1.6 auto seems to go through the gas quite a bit. I'm running it on 91 at the moment (Does this have anything to do with it) or is it just the way you drive it. I hope someone can shed some light on the matter

Post by **simple** » Thu May 09, 2002 5:51 pm

Angela Bufton wrote:

I wanted to ask if MX5's are supposed to be economical or not.

I just did a 6000km/7week holiday, keeping petrol receipts & mileage
readings all the way. The driving was more long distances than stop & go,
but I was carrying a boot-full of camping gear as well. I don't drive in
particularly economical fashion.

The mileage was almost exactly (within 1%) 10km per litre. The tank is
nominally 45l, so I would expect typically 450km if I ran it dry.

The engine is stock 1.6l (1989, Japanese import) - has done about
160,000km now.

Karl.

Keith Cook · Post by **Keith Cook** » Thu May 09, 2002 6:07 pm

I'm a bit of nut abt. records. My '90 averages 8.2 l/100. Highest 9.1 on
totally round town and 7.2 on a leisurely open road run. Good fun per buck I
reckon.

my2cta · Post by **my2cta** » Thu May 09, 2002 9:06 pm

I always keep fuel consumption records. I have a 2000 model M2 - I think
the tank is the same size as the older cars at 48 litres. On long distance
trips I get well over 600 kms to a tank, with a best so far of 6.78 l/100
km. I have the tyre pressures at 30 psi. The worst ever so far on short
trips plus a high speed club run was 8.66 l/100 km, which would give a
range of a bit over 500 kms. I've used 91 octane sometimes and 96 more
recently. Don't think it makes much difference. I guess a new M2 must be
more economical than an older 1600 M1 and autos less economical than
manuals. Also my M2 has the six speed manual gearbox, and a slightly more
long-legged top gear than the five speeds or autos, so should use a bit
less at any given cruising speed. This is almost entirely top down
motoring, so aerodynamics are worse and at speed that would make a
difference. I'd expect a bit better again if I was silly enough to drive a
long distance trip with the top up - 700 kms from a tankful would certainly
be safely attainable in my car on a long haul if I kept to 100 kph with the
top up. Not really worth driving an MX5 like that though

Tim Dutton
MY2CTA

SG & NA Fisk · Post by **SG & NA Fisk** » Thu May 09, 2002 9:38 pm

I get 35 mpg over the week (800Km) out of Zed. - Travel at 120 Kph - Have got
40 mpg at times when limited to 100 KPH trips..
Can't give around town mileage as only do about 20 K a week in town
The car gave about 30 mpg until I put Slick 50 in which I do with all my cars
and inevitably the mpg gets better.
Sorry about the old units - L/km don't mean anything to me.

PS an auto will use more gas and so will round town - stop start or hammering
it. Also over 140 kph starts to push alot of wind around and mileage suffers.
Try putting on the lights up at 160 and see what I mean
Zed - 1990 1600 manual (Red of Course)

Angela Bufton · Post by **Angela Bufton** » Fri May 10, 2002 9:15 am

You all have interesting answers to this subject. The thing that got me
started on fuel consumption was that the other day I had to travel to
Papakura\Takanini from Blockhouse Bay(I was taking my brother to have a look
at a Triumph Dolomite) & I noticed that the fuel it took there & back would
have been at least half a tank which I didn't think was normal considering
that one of my other brothers travelled to Wellington from Auckland in his
Nissan Primera GT 2.0L (auto) on a full tank of gas with some to spare when he
arrived. My guess was that I would have only got to Hamilton on a full tank
before having to fill up again! Strange. Anyway no matter what I still love my
MX5 & that's all that matters!.

Graeme Naisbitt · Post by **Graeme Naisbitt** » Fri May 10, 2002 9:22 am

Yeah, but won't the Primera tank be a lot bigger than the jellybeans?

Graeme
D4NGER

Mark Roberts · Post by **Mark Roberts** » Fri May 10, 2002 9:25 am

Mmmm... what dat? Snake Oil praps...

around town mileage as only do about 20 K a week in town The car gave
about 30 mpg until I put Slick 50 in which I do with all my cars and
inevitably the mpg gets better.

See:

http://skepdic.com/slick50.html

Angela Bufton · Post by **Angela Bufton** » Fri May 10, 2002 9:36 am

Yeah. I didn't think about that. A bigger tank holds more fuel so therefore
lasts longer. I cant really complain it only cost me $35 to fill my MX5 up on
$1.07L

From Michael.Hay@nrma.co.nz Fri Apr 27 16:06:10 2007
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: Antenna
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:37:05 +1200
Thread-Topic: Antenna
Thread-Index: AcH3oaprjcx3LgwMQOyDavoM0rwCgA==
From: "Michael Hay" <Michael.Hay@nrma.co.nz>
To: "MX5List" <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <aBaH0C.A.UGB.1jXMGB@L733>

can anyone tell me the procedure for replacing the antenna? mine is broken off it seems, and i need a replacement. Are these powered units ?, or is my 91 eunos a manual, stay up always type?

cheers
Mike

#fingers crossed for a fine auckland weekend so i can get the hardtop off!#

Trevor Henderson · Post by **Trevor Henderson** » Fri May 10, 2002 9:45 am

the tank size will be different! My MX5 gets around the 37- 40 mpg
Trevor Henderson,
Henderson Design Ltd.

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Fri May 10, 2002 11:27 am

yes, very interesting comparrisons on the fuel mileage.
Couldn't tell you how many miles to the gallon I get, dont really care

but
it is interesting to see the comparrisons.
On a side note, how many of those caught up in this have adjusted the timing
and/or petrol types?
Since adjusting my timing and changing to '96 I believe I've been getting on
average another day's driving out of a tank (that's up to silverstream and
back from Hataitai).

Scott

mx5.nightmode.net

From badcat@xtra.co.nz Fri Apr 27 16:04:28 2007
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 11:37:09 +1200
Subject: Timing suggestions?
From: "ken.newell" <badcat@xtra.co.nz>
To: mx5 list <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <cCTJ1C.A.aGB.1jXMGB@L733>

Hi - last year I installed a used import engine into my red 1990 XL5612
(yes my crank keyway went)
It's a low mileage 1600.
I have a TRUST AIRNX intake - and Jasma header - out to a free flowing 2"
exhaust - no cat.
Any suggestions re the optimum timing?
Looking for midrange without sacrificing too much up top.
I always run 96.

Comment appreciated.

Fletcher Blades · Post by **Fletcher Blades** » Fri May 10, 2002 3:01 pm

You have to be careful with anecdotal mileage estimates...

Say you left and the tank was nearly full, and when you returned and it was
nearly down to half... you might think that you used half a tank, when in fact
you may have only used a quarter...

Even my modified car that gets fairly sucky mileage (300-350k a 37-40 litre
fill) can still get to Hamilton and back on one tank...

If you are getting less than this, even in an auto, I'd say theres a problem.
Probably just a tune-up could fix it.

Fletch.

From badcat@xtra.co.nz Fri Apr 27 16:04:31 2007
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/9.0.1.3108
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 16:07:29 +1200
Subject: Re: Timing suggestions?
From: "ken.newell" <badcat@xtra.co.nz>
To: mx5 list <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
In-Reply-To: <001201c1f7b8$daca03c0$a09436d2@981397141>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <0d5POD.A.eGB.1jXMGB@L733>

Hi glenn.
when's a good time to drop in?
I work my own hours - so name a time you're not so busy.

Ken
Remember a white 13b b2000 ute?

On 10/5/02 12:22 PM, "rotarypower" <rotarypower@value.net.nz> wrote:

[...]

shaznandy lockyer · Post by **shaznandy lockyer** » Fri May 10, 2002 4:09 pm

Every time I fill up it takes $43.00 give or take $1...My Primera(!) takes $57etc. every time and returns 750k's per tank...or 40 mpg territory...My jelly bean revs at 3200rpm at 100km's...Primera 2700rpm at 100kms...

Keith and Rae Lawry · Post by **Keith and Rae Lawry** » Fri May 10, 2002 8:38 pm

Hi all, I have been lurking on this list for a while with every intention of
getting off my bum and joining the club, have even downloaded the entry
form, but WILL get round to it soon.
Anyway, I bought a fresh import '92 BRG last year and during March/April
this year did a 5,000km trip round the South Island, about 95% with the hood
down.
When I got the car I was told to use "Super" which I did.
I don't normally worry too much about fuel consumption but decided to keep
an accurate record on the trip just for interest sake.
When I filled up in Haast I accidently put 91 in by mistake (even that was
$1-33/L!) and as the performance didn't seem any different decided to do the
rest of the trip with 91.
End result was 2,770km on 96 and 2,156km on 91. Fuel consumption was
identical for both ... 7.6L/100km which I think is about 37mpg. For the
whole trip there was myself and wife in the car, with a full (ie chocka)
boot. Tyre pressures were 30psi all round.
Hope this may be of interest.

Keith Lawry

SG & NA Fisk · Post by **SG & NA Fisk** » Fri May 10, 2002 10:09 pm

I know - This list is pretty down on it - read the article thanks for the
link - They are entitled to their opinion of course - but its mostly that -
opinion. Very wary of testimonials as people tend to justify their
purchase. I don't like wasting money but my own experience is
1. Jap import Turbo freed up
2. Fuel economy increased
3. Top speed increased
4. Idle increased and has to be turned down.

Therefore I keep using it - 4 cars over 6 years to date. One 1965 with over
200,00 MILES and running sweet as - 175 PSI compression each cylinder
(factory specs!)
Steve

Bill Rehm · Post by **Bill Rehm** » Sat May 11, 2002 6:11 am

Boy, either I have even a heavier foot than I thought or my car ('91 BRG)
needs something as I average between 7.8 to 8.5 kms/litre. Can anyone
offer recommendations as to how I might get my car checked out to see if
something (other than my heavy foot) is the problem?

Geoff Watkins · Post by **Geoff Watkins** » Sat May 11, 2002 8:51 am

Hi Keith
Zoom Zoom Zoom
Bye the way Did you used to work for Tip Top Icecream Carbine Rd??

Kind Regards
Geoff
MX5 98

Post by **zorruno** » Sat May 11, 2002 6:13 pm

Hi Keith - you shouldn't need 96 unless you have played with the timing or
engine mods. If you get no noticeable knock on 91 that is fine. There
should be no performance improvement running 96.

On MKIIs, there may be a performance advantage as the engine has a knock
sensor and adjusts timing up to the point of knock

zorruno

[...]

Keith and Rae Lawry · Post by **Keith and Rae Lawry** » Sun May 12, 2002 5:02 am

Thanks for that info. Performance does feel the same, and there is no knock.
The engine is standard to my knowledge.
Cheers,
Keith

Charles & Morven Lynch · Post by **Charles & Morven Lynch** » Sun May 12, 2002 3:33 pm

John,
The Octane level of Gull petrol is higher than the other brands. It
actually is 91 where as the others are lower.
Cheers
Chic
T0PDWN
--
Charles & Morven Lynch, chicnmo@lynchz.com on 12/05/2002

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:45:29 +1200, John&Sene Johansson wrote:
[...]