Evo X MPG
It's nowhere near an Evo but it does have a turbo lol
and it's north of 200hp too
Evolving Member
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
From: Pennsylvania
RX8 was way worse..
Be glad your getting in the 20's... both my RX8's never saw 20...best I ever got was 17.70 mpg....usually got 16 most of the time even if I babied it. 20's is hybrid #s in the sports car realm.
What annoys me about the rotary is that it's actually not bad design at all. A proper rotary can make awesome power, but those are unobtainium and Mazda only gives the public a weak anemic motor.
I would love a smooth 500hp 3 rotor, but good luck piecing that build together let alone affording it.
I would love a smooth 500hp 3 rotor, but good luck piecing that build together let alone affording it.
Just a little nit picking here and there.
This, is false:
You are actually better off leaving the car in gear and compression breaking. Modern cars actually cut fuel to the engine completely under those circumstances. An added benefit is that you save your brakes too!
Also, this is a bit off:
The downforce itself is not the culprit here, it is the drag. Most high-efficiency cars have a spoiler or airfoil of some sort in order to create downforce, though they tend to be of a low-drag design. Once you hit highway speeds, the "weight" of your car (including downforce) becomes a less significant factor than the drag, and ironically, the downforce at those speeds actually increases efficiency by preventing the rear of the car from becoming unstable.
This, is false:
Also, this is a bit off:
The downforce itself is not the culprit here, it is the drag. Most high-efficiency cars have a spoiler or airfoil of some sort in order to create downforce, though they tend to be of a low-drag design. Once you hit highway speeds, the "weight" of your car (including downforce) becomes a less significant factor than the drag, and ironically, the downforce at those speeds actually increases efficiency by preventing the rear of the car from becoming unstable.
What annoys me about the rotary is that it's actually not bad design at all. A proper rotary can make awesome power, but those are unobtainium and Mazda only gives the public a weak anemic motor.
I would love a smooth 500hp 3 rotor, but good luck piecing that build together let alone affording it.
I would love a smooth 500hp 3 rotor, but good luck piecing that build together let alone affording it.
The new rotary will be better (supposedly)
Where the rotary design is superior is in HP vs weight. Unfortunately they're classified, and rightly so, like a 2-cycle engine as they have twice the power strokes per crank rev as a normal 4-cycle engine so the weight isn't necessarily and advantage in racing rules. Although you do get to choose where to add your ballast.
And in my experience with rotary engines over the last 35 years - they suck fuel no matter what power level one is using. Never seen one get good fuel consumption figures.
And if you've ever been around one on-track with open pipes - DAYUM! Those things are annoyingly loud and just make an ugly, ugly noise.
