Todd Breakey wrote:
Kevin Hoff wrote:
I voted '93 because of the lower miles and hardtop. The improved gas mileage is sort of nice too. My '95 got in the low 20's while most people report high 20's city and mid 30's hwy on the 1.6 cars.
--Kevin H.
I have had my 92 for a while now and have never seen 30 mpg even on long road trips like my wife and I took in the spring. I think that mid to hig 20's is acceptable. Plus, most people don't buy Miata for the gas mileage. They buy them because they are fun cars to drive. As a matter of fact, they get miserable mileage for what they are. A 1.6L light weight 2 seat roadster with minimal safety gear should get MUCH better mileage than it does.
I'd have to agree with Todd. None of my stock 1.6L's ever got more than about 32mpg on the highway. And that was only if I kept it down to a dull roar. I've only owned NB 1.8L's and both of them got/get ~25mpg city and no more than 30mpg highway.
On the other hand, my old turbo 1.8L would occasionally hit mid to high 30's on the highway at a reasonable cruising speed but that thing wasn't exactly stock. The turbo seemed to help the part-throttle efficiency but that would obviously go straight to pot once I leaned into the throttle. I'd average around 23mpg in the city and dip into the high-teens if I was driving like a hooligan.
I think the big problem is the relatively short 5th (or 6th if equipped) gear and associated final drive. I see a lot more highway rpm's in a Miata than most other 4-cylinder cars I've owned. It also doesn't help that they have the aerodynamic profile of an average city bus.
As far as your choice, if you really are going to supercharge it at some point, I'd go for the 1.8L. It already has all the part you'll wind up replacing on the 1.6L anyway.
Jim