Slashdot Mirror

Nope, won't work. We already have carbon-fiber cars, like the McLaren F1. It gets horrible mileage, probably around 9-15mpg.

Weight really doesn't make much difference in fuel economy like people think it does. That's why SUVs get about the same fuel economy, or better, than small cars. Aerodynamics also don't matter much, again since box-like SUVs get the same fuel economy as cars.

Don't believe me? Check this out: go here to check out Mazda's lineup of vehicles:
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayModelSelector.action

Now, check out their biggest, ugliest, most box-like vehicle, the Tribute. Top fuel economy (with 4cyl engine): 28mpg. Now, check out the Mazdaspeed 3, a very small and aerodynamic-looking car: 25mpg. WTF? Or, check out the regular Mazda3 with what appears to be almost exactly the same 4-cyl engine the Tribute has, 2.5L 167hp, perhaps slightly differently tuned to have more low-end torque on the Tribute. 20/28mpg with the manual trans, 22/29 with auto. That's even worse than the Tribute, which gets 23/28 with manual trans, and 21/28 with auto. So, apples to apples: nearly same engine, manual trans, big truck vs. small car, the big truck gets the same highway mpg and 3mpg better city mpg!!!

Also interesting, the Tribute with V6 gets 19/25, while the Mazdaspeed3 with a turbo 4cyl gets only 18/25. Again, big boxy truck beats small car.

The problem with fuel efficiency in cars comes down to one thing, and one thing only: the engine. Powerful engines equal crap fuel economy.

Wankel just sort of slipped quietly away in the night. Nobody knew how to fix them, and they always needed fixing.

Oh, Wankel engines are alive and well. These days they seem to have most of the early problems sorted.

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/musa2/pdf/specs/specs_MX5.pdf

PDF on the most up to date version of the car I drive. Apparently, the 6 speed gets the same mileage, whether it's AT or MT. The 5 speed manual gets slightly better mileage than the 6 speed.

It's *possible* that the most modern AT's now rival the MT's - but it's also possible that they've rigged the numbers. I just don't know enough to say.

I'm also aware that many newer vehicles have a selector that tells the computer to adjust the engine and transmission for fuel economy, or to adjust everything for power/performance/towing/hauling. Again, it's quite possible that flipping that selector really optimizes things for fuel economy, and it drives as well as I can.

But, I'm still mindful that while I drive, I'm watching traffic conditions as well as road conditions around and ahead of me. The computer can't do that. If I see a bridge half a mile or more ahead of me that is obviously iced over, I want to slow down, and approach that bridge with just the slightest bit of power driving me forward, whether it is rear or front wheel drive. The computer is completely unable to anticipate that I want maximum tration, and minimum power. If the damned thing downshifts and lurches ahead, I'm in serious trouble with rear wheel drive, and I could be in trouble with front wheel drive.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste, I've heard. I certainly don't want a computer wasting me AND my mind!

Or, if it wins, they'll outlaw them from racing at Le Mans... http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=mazdaSpeedMotorsportsRacingHeritageCommon&sectionParameter=heritage05

Of course, it isn't American so I'll no doubt get modded down by y'all.....

Surely, you're kidding.
Mazda is owned by Ford.

Then again, so is Jaguar, Land Rover, and Volvo.

People have long known that ethanol fuels have high octane ratings (the measure of how knock resistant a fuel is).

People have also long known that turbo charging an engine is a great way to extract more power out of a small engine.

People have also known that direct injection allows you to reduce the tendency to knock since it lets you inject fuel into the hot engine at the very last second - reducing the amount of time the air/fuel mixture has to heat up.

And guess what? Mazda produces cars today that has both direct injection and is turbo charged. For example, the MazdaSpeed 3.

It's 2.3 liter engine produces 263hp and 280lb/ft of torque and has an EPA fuel economy rating of 20/28mpg. So yes, while it does provide good power and decent gas mileage, it's nothing earth shattering compared to turbocharged cars without direct injection.

The engine has a very high compression ratio for a turbo charged gasoline engine (9.5:1), especially one that pushes over 15psi of boost into the cylinders. That is direct injection working for you.

For example, the slightly bigger turbo charged 2.5 liter Subaru WRX engine has a compression ratio of 8.4:1 and maximum boost of 11.6psi is rated at 230hp/235lb/ft of torque (though it is admittedly underrated) with similar fuel economy as the Mazdaspeed 3 considering that it is all-wheel-drive (20/26mpg EPA). The more powerful WRX STi has the same 2.5l displacement, 8.2:1 compression ratio and a bigger turbo pushing 14.5 psi is rated at 293hp/290lb/ft of torque but less fuel economy, 18/24mpg.

Unless there is a lot of potential still to be found by combining these 2 technologies, I see it as more of an evolution rather than a revolution. Perhaps a 1.0 liter engine would be able to muster 120+ hp/torque but I find it hard to believe that it could achieve mileage ratings significantly higher than a hybrid. And you still can't turn the engine off when idling or coasting down hill.

So how about a direct-injection, turbo-charged, atkinson cycle hybrid and combine the best of all technologies?

This is a great idea. Now if only they made toys for adults like that...

How is that a "non-medically related technological innovation" ???

Now, what about affordable roadsters? My Miata certainly has a "direct and perceptible impact on my everyday live" :-)

I drive a brand new 2004 Mazda RX-8. It's got a 1.3 liter naturally aspirated rotary engine that generates 238hp @ 8500rpm.

The sticker said it will do between 18 and 24mpg. I've been getting closer to 13. My best was 16 on a roadtrip. It's a fun 13mpg, don't get me wrong, it's just nowhere near the "18-24" that's on the sticker.

Here's the strange part. I can baby the car and shift at 3000-4000rpm and I'll get the same mileage as when I beat the piss out of it and shift at 9000rpm.

The moral of this particular story is...this one likes it rough, so drive it like you stole it.

Most car manufacturers have proprietary radio mounts so even if you manage not to get the radio you are stuck jimmy rigging in a new one with some wal-mart mounting kit (example).

I was half-kidding about the oil filter. While it's a bitch to remove, everything else on the car is fantasticly designed, right down to the battery (the glass mat Panasonics that came stock with Miatas were originally based on batteries designed for jet fighters, and with proper care can last more than 5 years!! ).

Oh, and they should have stuck with the real oil guages found in pre-'95 models -- though it's a fairly easy mod.

Slightly more on-topic, here are the diagnostic codes for the Miata. As you may have guessed, I'm a fan of the little roadster. But they really should have offered supercharging as an option from the get-go. At least now they're making up for it.

I think it all depends on the car you buy. From the cars I've had, Nissan Sentras (2002 and 2004 models) and the Suzuki Esteem (1997), they have a decent amount of engine compartment space, even with the extras (PS & AC). Compared to the 1985 Sentra that I had a while back, I think I actually have more room to work. (Not quite related - Thankfully Nissan went to using a timing chain over the timing belt on the newer Sentras. I actually had the belt go and snap a valve that dinged up the piston and the wall pretty bad.)

I would guess that your RX-8 will probably take just about every inch of space, but that's to be expected with a performance car. BTW, nice car choice. Specs from the Mazda site are pretty nice. The RX product line has produced some sharp cars. Had a friend with one of the RX-7's from the mid 80's that was fun to ride in.

Honda's seem to be pretty tight in the compartment , but they've been that way for a while. My father and I did a road side repair for a water pump on an 1981 Prelude that practically had us thinking about removing body panels to get access. Not everything on the Honda is bad, but the side room (timing belt, water pump, AC, various belts) is definitely limited.

I haven't read anything from Hasbro yet, but this looks like it could be an Alternators Bumblebee. It is yellow, and it does have the little horns. Volkswagen won't license their New Beetle for a new Bumblebee because some kind of anti-weapon stance, so I would think the second choice for a little yellow retro would be the new Mini. Mazda is doing some silmilar marketing with Hasbro and their RX-8

The RX-8 Transformer

"His physical prowess and confident attitude ensure his place at the forefront in the battle against evil and second rate automobiles"

What do the autobots think second-rate automobiles are?

It doesn't make 238 HP, Mazda even says so

Really? Because, like, their website still says it has 238hp.

And you're 'less than 160 lb-ft of torque' quote is like saying $9.99 is less than $10. While true, there isn't a noticable difference. The RX-8 has 159 lb-ft of torque.

But anyone who's ever driven, or even done research on, a rotary motor already knows that torque isn't where this engine shines. Rev it up to 9000RPM and let the horsepower take you down the front straight.

The Mazda RX-8. It's a wankel, not the same as the engine in the article.

Actually there are quite a few. Off the top of my head, try going here and here. These sites deliberately keep you out if you're using anything other than IE. I assume you've heard of these cars?

Of course you may. Very Interesting... Gives IE a lot of Mozilla features that IE alone didn't have.

Just uses the renderer, like Galeon and Phoenix do with the Gecko renderer of Mozilla.

But since I'm now running Mozilla, It should be much better than Mozilla for me to switch back (and it would need to run on Linux too). But it sure does look like a good secondary browser. for, for example mazdausa.com that responds "browser not supported" even though it would probably work just fine if the server thought it was one of the 'supported' ones (I had a 'user-agent'-switch once in Mozilla for that, but lost it after a apt-get dist-upgrade...).

The Mazda USA site is another one. Hammer away, skew their stats. Be a hero.

--