MX-3.com

Hey guys. I bought a '95 MX-3 with the 1.6 4-cylinder engine. It's an auto (I know, it's not a good tranny but it does the job for now). The fuel consumption seems awfully high for such a tiny engine. I'm getting about 14-15 l/100 km in town and 10 L. hwy. Is this normal? I replaced the spark plugs (new NGKs), plug wires and O2 sensor. I also put in a new Fram air filter. I changed the oil too. This hasn't made any difference on the consumption. The engine is running fine. It's at 150 000 kms now. There is no black smoke or anything and it pulls pretty well; it's not making any weird sounds either. I'm thinking of replacing the distributor cap. Any other suggestions? Is this fuel consumption normal?

i was having poor mpg on my 4 cyl automatic, turned out to be a dragging emergency brake.
definitely have the basics checked before you just start replacing stuff.

I don't know the conversion.

Since I bought my car in January, I've averaged just over 33 mpg. It went up considerably when I changed the spark plugs and wires. Mine is a manual though.

I make a lot of effort to save on gas...you probably wouldn't consider doing the things I do. I go the speed limit, or lower. Even on the interstate, where the speed limit is 70, I keep it under 55. I try to only use the A/C when I'm not accelerating. When I accelerate, I turn off the compressor. The air still comes out cold for a while. Even in Florida, this is sufficient. I accelerate slowly, usually keeping it under 4,000 rpm. Sometimes lower. I coast if I think there will be congestion ahead. I've coasted over 1/2 a mile with the engine off before coming to a red light, and STILL had to use my brakes when I got there. I consider the brake pedal a waste of gas.

To coast in a manual, put it in neutral, turn the key back, wait a second, then turn it forward. Don't start the engine. You still have steering and brakes. If you need to brake hard, then you shouldn't have been coasting. I coast with no traffic in front of me. No reason to brake, no reason for a sudden lane change. You can still change lanes without power steering.

My best tank was 396 miles on 10.5 gallons. That's about 37.5 mpg, and pretty damn good for a 14 year old car closing in on 180,000 miles.

15 litres = 3.96258079 US gallons

100 kilometers = 62.1371192 miles

Wait... isn't that about 15-16 miles per gallon?

Wow, danger will robinson! Something isn't right!

sticking calipers, dragging e-brake, maybe some filthy injectors? You can remove them and have them professionally cleaned at witchhunterperformance
if you got a replacement brand o2 sensor (not OEM replacement) it's very possible that will be faulty as well.
While I am not sure of the symptoms first-hand, I would suggest replacing the catalytic converter as well. They sell emissions-compliant, high flow catalytic converters at good prices.

Distributor cap AND rotor wouldn't hurt your car or your pocket book, either.
Also, if your car is like my car, it hates cold weather. I bet when it warms up, your car will be a lot happier.

I have a '93 RS manual and I get 400-450 km/tank. Best ever was 550 and that was straight highway for 6 hours I could clean injectors yet, I doubt its ever been done... 140k on the engine... seems pretty similar. I'm not wowed either.

I have a bpt and average 8.84l/100km in town boosting as much as I can. You should be getting about the same as I am (bpt is the same or slightly better on gas than my old 1.6).

Okay so today I put in $40.00 reg fuel and some octane booster (10 bucks, crappy tire, doulbes as injector cleaner). I'll run this tank as close to dry as I can with a mix of city and highway(mainly) and see if anything changes, then try again, then again with different brand . So far its 160 at the 3/4 line.

I wrote down my mileage at the quarter tank points, then threw the paper away. I do remember having 56 miles at the full mark, and I believe 220 miles at 1/2 tank. Around 300 miles at the 1/4 mark, and the light came on and refilled at 396, right about on the empty mark. So if you track by the quarter tank, it'll just be useful for reference on your own car...the real measure is just miles per gallon (or liters per km, or km per liter, whatever is used)

I'm telling you...the biggest improvement in consumption will be from simply slowing down, anticipating stops, and driving smoothly. You don't have to go so far as "hypermiling" as you may end up staring lustfully at a semi in front of you as you approach, settling in behind it in it's wake, knowing that you are getting awesome gas mileage.
Not that I uh...stare lustfully at Dodge Sprinters. Were those things made for drafting or what?!

Sortin wrote:I don't know the conversion.

I coast if I think there will be congestion ahead. I've coasted over 1/2 a mile with the engine off before coming to a red light, and STILL had to use my brakes when I got there. I consider the brake pedal a waste of gas.

To coast in a manual, put it in neutral, turn the key back, wait a second, then turn it forward. Don't start the engine. You still have steering and brakes. If you need to brake hard, then you shouldn't have been coasting. I coast with no traffic in front of me. No reason to brake, no reason for a sudden lane change. You can still change lanes without power steering.
.

This is BAD advise! I know someone who used to "slip into nutral" to save gas. Did this going down a hill, and when a turn came up he couldnt accelerate out of it and banged up his car. There could be times, usually in traffic, when you may need to speed up to avoid a crash or a hit. What if someone comes up behind you at speed when they are not paying attention? You need to speed up, and wont have time to react to having the car in nutral.

psunitro wrote:
This is BAD advise! I know someone who used to "slip into nutral" to save gas. Did this going down a hill, and when a turn came up he couldnt accelerate out of it and banged up his car. There could be times, usually in traffic, when you may need to speed up to avoid a crash or a hit. What if someone comes up behind you at speed when they are not paying attention? You need to speed up, and wont have time to react to having the car in nutral.

If you're going down a hill in neutral and get owned on a curve, you know what that tells you? YOU'RE GOING TO FAST, not you didn't have the opportunity to SPEED Up.

And if you find that the extended Suburban/Excursion/Escalade with the redneck and/or soccer mom behind it barrelling down the highway at 95-105MPH behind you, coming up to you in speed, here's what you do:

strategically set your car in the fast lane, right next to that old grampy going slow in the middle lane, who's next to the semi in the right lane.

Match speed with grampy.

Redneck and/or soccer mom has now been taught how to both protect the environment, help the economy and learn the meaning of both patience and humility at the same time that you're helping them save money!
Waving of finger out of the sunroof is optional!

There is nothing wrong with coasting in neutral. If you're a driver that can't operate with the function, the best advice is don't use it.
However, if you're an experienced driver who can operate with neutral just as well as in gear, then yes, this is a technique that is ever-increasingly important in this time. Can't use it? don't use it.

I began using the coasting rule myself. Jumped from a city average of 28 to 34-35.

psunitro wrote: This is BAD advise! I know someone who used to "slip into nutral" to save gas. Did this going down a hill, and when a turn came up he couldnt accelerate out of it and banged up his car. There could be times, usually in traffic, when you may need to speed up to avoid a crash or a hit. What if someone comes up behind you at speed when they are not paying attention? You need to speed up, and wont have time to react to having the car in nutral.

First of all, I was talking about coasting with the engine off, on a straight road, usually coming up to congestion. Not on a sharp turn. Not in the left lane of the interstate. Not in traffic.

You still have plenty enough steering to change lanes or swerve if necessary. You still have enough braking power to avoid rear-ending someone, as long as you maintain a SAFE distance. If you don't, then you're being careless and are deserving of your fate.

You don't ever have to accelerate out of a turn. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. How about, his engine was off, he didn't have power steering assist, and went off the road? Sounds more logical. Of course, liberal use of the brakes would have prevented that as well, but I'm sure he didn't want to slow down.

If I have my car in neutral coasting along at 30mph in traffic...please, give an example of how I might need to accelerate to avoid getting hit. Seeing as how I do this every day, and I've never had to accelerate in a hurry, I'd be curious what you come up with.

Either way, right now it's too hot to turn the engine off. If I'm coasting, I put the A/C on. If I'm accelerating, I turn off the compressor. There is a point when comfort takes precedence over economy, and that point is around 85 degrees.

My last tank, 93 RS SOHC manual, mainly highway but also fun in town...

7.4699335175916934339284380369015 Litres per 100 km (comp calculator is funny)
31.49MPG


Ouch?

Yeah. It should be better. My stock GS has gotten 33 MPG FWY, and my ZE got 31. The ZE is more aerodynamic.

fowljesse wrote:Yeah. It should be better. My stock GS has gotten 33 MPG FWY, and my ZE got 31. The ZE is more aerodynamic.

I wonder what the 4 cyl DOHC gets? what do you mean by aerodynamic? It is an engine.

haha, I thought the same thing about ze being aerodynamic...

he means the car that has the ZE installed itself is more aerodynamic, as he's done mods to the body to reduce drag. Haha, it's too bad he wasn't calling the engine aerodynamic. I needed a good laugh