Most, never offer what I want...esp US companies

[Mr. Wyndham]

23 was estimated...if it doesn't get 24 EPA hwy, I'll [personally] be suprised.

That, and I want to ask...the 22mpg your Mazda gets...is that real-world, or EPA?

If EPA; have you adjusted for the new rating system?
If Real world: what kind of driving do you do?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

23 was estimated...if it doesn't get 24 EPA hwy, I'll [personally] be suprised.

That, and I want to ask...the 22mpg your Mazda gets...is that real-world, or EPA?

If EPA; have you adjusted for the new rating system?
If Real world: what kind of driving do you do?

New system rating for fuel economy on 2005 RX8 is 16/22 for manual and automatics. Old rating is 18/24

[Cubanaso]

Dragon,

I have never gotten less than 18.6mpg city and no more than 23.6mpg highway. With every car I have owned I have beaten the OLD epa #'s so I know I can beat what they list these new cars with.

So i use the epa as a at worst rating if anything. So, the #'s still have some use.

My plan:

Save on gas and monthly over my RX while not completely nutering my sports car soul!!!

[Mr. Wyndham]

So, then an EPA of at least 23mpg would be your best with the RX8, while still being the 'worst' rating for the Camaro, right? Also, as been stated: GM's V8s have a tendancy to deliever much better fuel economy than the EPA gives them credit for...I'd consider that a reasonable fuel economy increase (especially considering the power increase you're getting!).

If the EPA rates the Camaro at the G8's 24mpg hwy, AND it has a stick...you've got an easy choice on your hands given your criteria, right?

[Cubanaso]

^HECK YEAH!!!!! I'd be all over the G8 if it had a 6spd because as you said I'd probably be able to get better than the epa!!!

I don't need the GXP just give me the GT with stick, as for the SS I'd prefer better than that if I'm getting tight back seats.

The own known is if I can save on gas and on the monthly???

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by theholycow

Common misconception. If you think about it, it's not ture. Conservative drivers don't use a lot of airflow/high RPM, so the same intake/exhaust that flow acceptably at high RPM will flow completely freely at low RPM.

You're totally right. I should've been more specific. I meant that drivers who slam it at green lights and don't gradually accelerate will not do better for gas mileage.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

You're totally right. I should've been more specific. I meant that drivers who slam it at green lights and don't gradually accelerate will not do better for gas mileage.

That's okay, I mistyped "true" as "ture".

Drivers who run wide open at high RPM are the only ones who would see fuel economy gains from intake/exhaust that flow more freely. They're the ones who are experiencing inefficiency in the intake/exhaust. Anyone running part-throttle has their bottleneck at the throttle, and anyone running low RPM (even at WOT) isn't trying to move a lot of air anyway.

[Oracle]

So a RWD/AWD with room for 4, manual, that gets fairly decent fuel economy numbers... and used isnt a big issue im assuming because you were considering a used BMW? how about a used cadillac CTS? it comes in manual, is rwd with an AWD option, can be had for decent pricing if picked up used, easily seats 4 with beyond relative comfort, has a better power to weight ratio than the RX-8 (manual RX-8 has 232 hp, giving it a 13lb/hp ratio, wheras the caddy will return you a 12.7lb/hp ratio with the DI v6). and it claims all this and still gets 26 mpg, a 4 jump on the RX-8. the only problem is this is the pricey option, though still cheaper than a comparable BMW. just my 2 cents on your dilema.

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by Cubanaso

Dragon,

I have never gotten less than 18.6mpg city and no more than 23.6mpg highway. With every car I have owned I have beaten the OLD epa #'s so I know I can beat what they list these new cars with.

So i use the epa as a at worst rating if anything. So, the #'s still have some use.

My plan:

Save on gas and monthly over my RX while not completely nutering my sports car soul!!!

My HHR was rated at 28 mpg hwy,
I get close to 32.
my Sky was rated 28 hwy
I get about 27.
both have the same engine 2.4L 170 hp
HHR weighs more
HHR has a 4 speed automatic
Sky weighs less
Sky has 5 speed automatic...
I drive both the same on the highway.
why the difference?
Gearing
HHR 2100 RPM @ 70 mph
Sky 2350 RPM @ 70 mph

[gunslinger]

I guess all I can contribute is that my fathers '06 ~6000 Lbs Crew Cab 2500HD GMC with the Duramax also gets about 22-23 MPG on the Highway at 60-65 MPG and it has tons of room

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Cubanaso

^HECK YEAH!!!!! I'd be all over the G8 if it had a 6spd because as you said I'd probably be able to get better than the epa!!!

I don't need the GXP just give me the GT with stick, as for the SS I'd prefer better than that if I'm getting tight back seats.

The own known is if I can save on gas and on the monthly???

That's not what I was getting at...but point taken.
This is what I was trying to say:

Camaro: 6-speed stick, 24mpg hwy + Chevy V8's natural frugality, and considerably superior handling compared to the G8 GT for LESS $$ than a G8 GT...Would you take it?

I was also going to bring up the CTS as Oracle did...based on your thoughts about the V6, you're okay with it so long as you have roomy back seats...

[Cubanaso]

So a RWD/AWD with room for 4, manual, that gets fairly decent fuel economy numbers... and used isnt a big issue im assuming because you were considering a used BMW? how about a used cadillac CTS? it comes in manual, is rwd with an AWD option, can be had for decent pricing if picked up used, easily seats 4 with beyond relative comfort, has a better power to weight ratio than the RX-8 (manual RX-8 has 232 hp, giving it a 13lb/hp ratio, wheras the caddy will return you a 12.7lb/hp ratio with the DI v6). and it claims all this and still gets 26 mpg, a 4 jump on the RX-8. the only problem is this is the pricey option, though still cheaper than a comparable BMW. just my 2 cents on your dilema.

I thought about that but have not looked into it yet. It's looks being the worst part. It's not ugly but not very goodd looking either.

Dragon....

Yeah, the SS being cheaper would work but going ffrom a tight 32 inches to an even tighter 29 scares me. I know there is more to it than knee space but 29 is one ugly #.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Then quite honestly (and don't take this the wrong way); if you REALLY need that back seat space -- you maybe you shouldn't be looking at the Camaro this closely.

If you don't need it, but want it just in case; you may want to seriously consider overlooking it. The rest of the car is too great a value to let 3 inches in an (assumed) unused back seat put you off.


EDIT: a random thought -- I just found out my Cobalt's rear legroom is 32 inches...and I find it quite roomy back there.....

[Cubanaso]

^no, I hear you. That's where I'm at in my thinking. It's needs vs want, or can my want work with my needs?

Oh, and 32 inches is tight but better than most 2+2.

When they come out I'm going to at least check it out, I owe it that much.