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

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well you mentioned a baby seat, I found out that any 2 door car is not sutible for installing a baby seat in. to hard to get the thing in and out of it, unless you have one of the half doors like the old saturn coupes had and that Mazda stole the idea on the RX-8

[Beelzebubba]

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?

Rotaries are fuel pigs.

No disrespect intended for the rotary but they've never gotten good gas mileage.

Some racing organizations rate the rotary engines displacement quite a bit larger than Mazda does. A 1.3 rates as a 3.9 in some 2.6 in others.

And the EPA figures are crap anyway. I've beaten it pretty consistantly and I'm hardly a "hypermiler" I get 22-23 in city and rush hour freeway traffic and a solid 30 on the open freeway. The adjusted EPA figure is 19 city/26 highway.

My Ex's old Lumina 3.1 did better than that on the freeway. We were well over 30. City mileage was a little lower though.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Beelzebubba

Some racing organizations rate the rotary engines displacement quite a bit larger than Mazda does. A 1.3 rates as a 3.9 in some 2.6 in others.

I think those engines have more rotors, or what ever they equivelent of a cylinder bank is. each has a displacement of 1.3L, the 2.6 has 2 of them and the 3.9 has 3. Consider it like I4 vs V8 vs . . . uh umm. . . T12?

[Cubanaso]

...unless you have one of the half doors like the old saturn coupes had and that Mazda stole the idea on the RX-8

Actually, they stole the idea from french doors. So everyone copied from the french door inventor.



But, I hear you and even with the rear opening doors it aint fun. With that said once they go in they dont come out often for todlers. It all depends on how well enginered the opening is made.

Rotaries are fuel pigs.

AMEN to that! Their combustion chamber is just not as good as a cylinder in a standard engin.

[Beelzebubba]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I think those engines have more rotors, or what ever they equivelent of a cylinder bank is. each has a displacement of 1.3L, the 2.6 has 2 of them and the 3.9 has 3. Consider it like I4 vs V8 vs . . . uh umm. . . T12?

I think they are counting the...ummm.... 'faces' of the rotor. whatever is analogous to the piston crown on a rotor. Like the rotary only has one "combustion chamber" but there are 3 different sides of the rotor that go squish with the air/fuel mixture.

There was a big write up on rotary displacement in one of the mags but it is way too early in the morning to start thinking that kind of mathmatic equations

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by Cubanaso

Actually, they stole the idea from french doors. So everyone copied from the french door inventor.

But, I hear you and even with the rear opening doors it aint fun. With that said once they go in they dont come out often for todlers. It all depends on how well enginered the opening is made.



AMEN to that! Their combustion chamber is just not as good as a cylinder in a standard engin.



automotivemileposts.com/autobrevity/suicidedoors.html

Actually I was correct, the IDEA was using s a small suicide type door on a coupe to make the rear seat more acessible... Saturn was the first to use that idea, and Mazda copied it.. Previous suicide doors were all full sized doors, except those on extended cab pickups. and If i recall GM was the first to use them on Pickups also.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Skyman 08

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

Highway mileage is all about gearing and drag (aerodynamic, tire rolling resistance, and drivetrain loss are the main sources of drag).

I'd assume the Sky has far less drag; it should have less frontal area AND lower drag coefficient. I can't even begin to guess at rolling resistance, which while it is a significant portion of fuel economy, is lacking in hard data -- nor do I know sizes, loads, and pressures of tires in either car. Drivetrain loss may be about even, except that the Sky seems to have a more modern transmission.

Still, all those advantages that the Sky has can't make up for that slight difference in gears.

This is why I keep posting my worry about the Camaro's 6 speed, wondering if the ratios will be too close and it will be at like 2500 or 3000 rpm at 70mph. There was a post with gear ratios and rear end ratios listed, but I can't find it anymore... anyway, four close-ratio gears are enough for the speed demons to get up to their speed, then the last two should be way far apart for economical drivers.

[Beelzebubba]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I think those engines have more rotors, or what ever they equivelent of a cylinder bank is. each has a displacement of 1.3L, the 2.6 has 2 of them and the 3.9 has 3. Consider it like I4 vs V8 vs . . . uh umm. . . T12?

Official rules from the Castrol Syntec Top Shop Challenge...
∙ Peak horsepower and torque per liter of displacement. Turbo/superchargers are given a multiplier of two (a 3.0L turbo motor makes 600 hp, 600 hp 3.0-liter x 2 multiplier = 100 hp per liter) Naturally aspirated motors receive no multiplier. Exception: Rotary motors (13B, 20B etc... will have their displacement doubled as well)...

So a '1.3' liter two rotor 13B would be counted as a 2.6

[Cubanaso]

^pretty much

Actually I was correct, the IDEA was using s a small suicide type door on a coupe to make the rear seat more acessible... Saturn was the first to use that idea, and Mazda copied it.. Previous suicide doors were all full sized doors, except those on extended cab pickups. and If i recall GM was the first to use them on Pickups also.

Semantics my friend...

LOL!!