How (and why) to Ramble on your goat sideways
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,893
Total Cats: 399
best I've done is a few miles over 300 on one tank all highway, with the 1.6, pre turbo, basically stock '92. Not sure what that equates to, guessing using a gallon or so less than the 1.6 tank capacity? It was on E for a good 40 miles before I got off I95.
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
I desperately wanted 40mpg, I don't think its going to happen.
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Oh yeah, I tracked-it on Saturday before attaining these figures.
16.1:1 is the target. I have no idea what I'm doing at this point, this pis fairly uncharted territory for use MT tuners.
16.1:1 is the target. I have no idea what I'm doing at this point, this pis fairly uncharted territory for use MT tuners.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
You might need to remove two of the pistons to achieve that.
I'd say you're doing pretty well. In the city, my '90 routinely gives me 19-20 MPG, which is ironic as this is considerably worse than the turbo '92. It probably doesn't help that, with no turbo on an aging 1.6, I have to treat the throttle as though it was an on/off switch. The terrain around here is quite hilly, and the lack of power on this engine really shows.
I'd say you're doing pretty well. In the city, my '90 routinely gives me 19-20 MPG, which is ironic as this is considerably worse than the turbo '92. It probably doesn't help that, with no turbo on an aging 1.6, I have to treat the throttle as though it was an on/off switch. The terrain around here is quite hilly, and the lack of power on this engine really shows.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,592
That just ain't right.
I owned a '91 Metro LSi convertable for about a year. It was a fun car to drive in city traffic (it's smaller than a Miata) but it was the second most horribly gutless abomination that I have ever owned. Acceleration was absolutely glacial, and the Metro only weighs 1,750 lbs. I can't even begin to imagine how bad that engine would be in a Miata lugging around an additional 400 lbs of excess bulk.
Let me put this into perspective: The G10 engine is rated for 55 hp and 58 ft lbs. That's only 5hp more than a 70's vintage VW Beetle. Hell, the turbocharged version (Yes, Suzuki actually built a turbo variant of this engine) makes 70 HP. 70!
I mean, maybe if you really built up the engine, ran it on E85, and boosted the **** out of it, you MIGHT be able to get up into the powerband of a bone-stock NB with low compression and fouled plugs.
I remember making a joke on M.net a while back. Some guy was asking about installing carburetors on his Miata. I sarcastically said that while he was at it, he should also cut a hole in the firewall so he could run the mechanical distributor from a 323.
Here is a hole in the firewall:
Here is a distributor sticking through a hole in the firewall:
Both of these images are from the build thread of the Miata in the Craigslist ad.
(?!?!?!?!)
On the other hand, I just looked up the original specs for a 1990 Miata, and I see that it's rated for 22 mpg city, 28 mpg highway. I don't feel nearly as awful about 20 / 30 in mine now.
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
I really need to Pbox or dyno my heap. I don't think I ever saw better than 25 MPG in mixed driving. Granted, turning 4300 RPM on the highway is probably not helping with that.
It's still about 10 MPG better than I get with the 3-series, so it's got that going for it...
It's still about 10 MPG better than I get with the 3-series, so it's got that going for it...