[Miata] Upgrades (was Replacing Rear Window)

[Sam Sharp]

Oh, I don't try to not use it, it's just that in everyday driving you often
CAN'T use it, so it doesn't cost anything.  You aren't using boost at
highway speeds, so it doesn't cost anything there, either.  In fact, with
the superior fuel and timing controls, the mileage is often better than
stock, so that compensates for the times you use boost.  See Keith and
Larry's posts.  The time in boost is pretty small unless you're on a track,
so cost of operation just isn't much of a factor.  And the benefits far
outweigh any small cost increase that might happen on a spirited drive.  A
turbo Miata is FUN!  The cost of the turbo is well justified for me.  Any of
us who are THAT concerned about fuel mileage are driving the wrong car and
should get a 50 MPG Geo Metro for our daily driver.  Park the 30 MPG Miata
until you can save up for a tank of gas.  NOT!

Let's do a little math.  My daily commute is 4,160 miles a year.  Any other
miles I drive are optional and I should expect to pay for what I do.  If
I get 27 MPG in my stock Miata at $4.00 for Regular this will cost me $616.
Or, I can really flog my turbo car and get 25 MPG (it almost NEVER drops
this low) on $4.20 Premium.  This will cost me $699, an $83 increase.  This
is a pretty small price to pay for the privilege of driving a very fast
Miata every day for a year.  Or, drive it like I usually do, get the same
mileage and spend $647, $31 cost for Premium.  Or trust yourself to NEVER go
into boost, run Regular (not smart) and reduce the extra cost to zero.  Or
drive your Metro (do they really get 50 MPG?) and spend $332, saving $294.
Is there anybody here who can't afford $1.13 a day to drive a Miata instead
of a Metro?  You probably spend more than that on coffee.

My head hurts.  I'm going to bed!

Sam



On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 10:24 PM, John Freas <john.freas at gmail.com> wrote:

> Previously on Upgrades,  Sam Sharp <miataturbo at gmail.com> said...
>
>
>> John, don't be so fast to equate turbos with low fuel mileage.  My turbo
>> Miatas get roughly the same or better mileage than my NA ones.  Sure, you
>> can drive them hard and reduce the mileage, but you know that going in and
>> you can keep your foot out of it if you want to.
>>
>
> I think I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say (maybe I'm still not :).
>
> My point with leaning away from the turbo was that any time you take
> advantage of the extra horsepower you are going to burn more fuel.  That's
> contrary to Mark's intent as I understood it.  Sure, by lifting your foot
> you can get the same economy as a normally aspirated car; the same
> horsepower will consume about the same fuel, and cruising on the highway
> doesn't use any more horsepower with a turbo than without.  That said, when
> you employ those extra horses that you just shelled out $5.295K for, you're
> going to pay for it in fuel.
>
> If I had the cash to spend on both ends I'd be pushing air too, but if you
> are already trying to maximize fuel economy it just seemed like a waste to
> spend no less than $3K for something that you end up trying not to use.
>
>     -John
> ------------------------------
> John Freas <%20john7690 at comcast.net>
> 1992 *YELLOW* "Sting<http://john.freas.home.comcast.net/pix/sting/sting.html>
> "
> 1995 Black R Package "Spike<http://www.geocities.com/clash_girl/Spike_Scrapbook.html>
> "
> Elizabethtown, Indiana
> - Standard Disclaimer <http://john.freas.home.comcast.net/disclaimer.html> Applies
> -
> Team LS1,2, SP, the Gap...
> I love my Miata girl<http://www.geocities.com/clash_girl/Spike_Scrapbook.html> and
> my Miata Baby
> "I have no idea what those dimple things on the windshield frame are for."
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.realbig.com/pipermail/miata/attachments/20080704/e9166d7e/attachment.html