MX-3.com

hi there well this is a question i have been searching for but can't find i would like to add a turbo to a v6 auto mx3 but before everyone jumps on me about the weak a$$ trany i know this is not for added performance but fuel effecency not sure if spelled right i keep hearing alot of the new cars coming down the line are getting small turbo's to improve gas mileage so anyone hear know anything about this and would love her to go standard lol but she is an auto girl sigh .. thanks for any imput on this and other question can u go independent fuel management or is it worth it? ok .. thanks for all the help on this .. be nice please lol ..

frontpage wrote:hi there well this is a question i have been searching for but can't find i would like to add a turbo to a v6 auto mx3 but before everyone jumps on me about the weak a$$ trany i know this is not for added performance but fuel effecency not sure if spelled right i keep hearing alot of the new cars coming down the line are getting small turbo's to improve gas mileage so anyone hear know anything about this and would love her to go standard lol but she is an auto girl sigh .. thanks for any imput on this and other question can u go independent fuel management or is it worth it? ok .. thanks for all the help on this .. be nice please lol ..

No your automatic won't hold up
No you will not get better fuel economy
Yes a fuel management is recommended, but for what you're doing it's not goign to do what you want to do, so no.

You also need to do the math, on how much you're going to spend, plus how much gas you save, and how long it would take for you to break even.

hi there that was sort of what i was expectig but thought it was worth a shot to ask .. lol better to ask someone that knows more than i, than spend the money on a failed venture ... thanks ..

If you want better milleage, regular maintenance is a good thing, putting in a good intake and exhaust, even new o2 sensors. If you want better milleage, swap to a 5-speed manual. For the most part, swapping to the 2.5L should give you better milleage as well.

Nd4SpdSe wrote:If you want better milleage, regular maintenance is a good thing, putting in a good intake and exhaust, even new o2 sensors. If you want better milleage, swap to a 5-speed manual. For the most part, swapping to the 2.5L should give you better milleage as well.

Why would the bigger engine give better mileage?

_-Night-Shade-_ wrote:

Nd4SpdSe wrote:If you want better milleage, regular maintenance is a good thing, putting in a good intake and exhaust, even new o2 sensors. If you want better milleage, swap to a 5-speed manual. For the most part, swapping to the 2.5L should give you better milleage as well.

Why would the bigger engine give better mileage?

it wont.

Yes it will and it does. It doesn't work as hard pulling the car around, especially if you have a heavy foot.

lol oh i know the manual trany will improve the mileage but this is the fiance's mx-3 and doesn't like standard so stuck with that till i get her used to the manual. have a spare manual for my 4 cyl so will get her to drive that lol ...

Nd4SpdSe wrote:Yes it will and it does. It doesn't work as hard pulling the car around, especially if you have a heavy foot.

Yeah but if I'm cruising down the highway at 120km/h both engines would be at approx 4000rpm. You're telling me a 2.5L engine will consume less fuel than a 1.8L at exactly the same rpm? I can't argue that it would be better at accelerating, because it won't be working as hard to pull the same mass, but I don't think that alone will give it better fuel economy.

_-Night-Shade-_ wrote:I can't argue that it would be better at accelerating, because it won't be working as hard to pull the same mass, but I don't think that alone will give it better fuel economy.

That's exactly it tho. It all comes down to how much work the motor had to do to not only pull the weight of the vehicle but pushing against the air. My ZE got me an extra 100 a tank, rather than getting 350-400, i would get 450-500. S

Also it probably helps that your putting in a younger motor (but even mine wasn't exactly healthy) with a intake, exhaust, new o2 sensors and all the good maintenance stuff you (should) do when you do a swap helps too.

People get all caught up in determing their milleage by the revolutions that they really look into longer gearing, but they don't look at the big picture. It's not the revs, but how hard the motor is working. Like my buddy likes to jump from 4th to 6th when getting on the highway but still accelerating. You can feel how much you need to press the throttle, thus how hard the motor is actually working. He started using 5th for a bit and he feels what i mean and noticed a slight improvement in milleage. If you truely want to get a feel for it, get a vacuum gauge.

My new little 93 rs 16 valve sohc is just a blast. Because it only has 90 k km on it everything is still like new, I m surprised at the pep & the fuel economy is amazing, I just filled it for $42.00 drove 125 kms & im still pinned full!

For a reliable, fuel efficient vehicle, the MX-3 RS 4 banger is hard to beat. I d say my RS gets close too 20 MPG more than my GS does & the RS has plenty of passing power, if u get a 94+ its DOHC, 17 hp more i think.

GS is worth a lot more, maybe you could swap for a RS really clean, go standard, you will love it

But Nd4SpdSe, according to that theory you're basically saying that all these cars with huge engines like V8s and SUVs should be even more fuel efficient. And the RS is more fuel efficient than the GS even though it's a weaker motor, what's the explanation for that?

My fresh BP (new engines burn more fuel too) gets similar if not better economy than my B6. The engine is much more torquey (if thats a word) and the pedal is entirely different although its the same cable/length. It doesn't sit in the same position at cruising speeds. Its probably 1/4" higher. Not sure though, I never measured... and its like how if someone pops something random in your mouth like a marble and they ask how big it is you'll guess way too big.... Haha, thats random but thats how it is, eh?

I vote similar sized engines (within a litre) will have similar economy, depending on design.

Night Shade, obviously his theory only applies to a limited range otherwise ocean liners would get 100000mi/gal instead of 6gal/metre. You're just being difficult. It does make sense that if a motor is given an easy job it will use less fuel. Its the nature of the beast. Also you are right, engine size does affect economy, its a balance.

Not trying to be difficult, it's just not making sense to me. I know bigger engines have to do less work to get the same results as smaller engines, but a bigger engine needs more energy to be powered than a smaller engine, does this make sense?

Exactly...there's a limit on going TOO big, and it also depends on how efficient the motor is as well. Your still sticking with a Mazda K-series, so their design difference are pretty much null except for the differences in displacement and associated components, so they should be as efficient as they can be for what they are, but the ease and efficiency comes from the natual torque each motor produces and where in the powerband it does.

Honestly, it's not easy to explain, not without data on fuel consumption vs engine load. I can only tell you from my personal experience, and comparitive milleage from other K8 and ZE Mx3'ers, that seems to be the case, for most people anyway. I know quite a few that can't seem to get those numbers on ZE's, not sure why. Most I would say from improper ECU/VAF setup and/or just poor work and maintenance, but I think a good example would be Wytbishop, he done it all right for what I know and can't get those numbers....