|
This coreypechon situation is pretty hilarious, even morseo that he didn't see this coming since he has an AP. He also has some insane luck  now Mazda's gonna have to cover his stupidity.quote:Update on my story: I convinced Mazda to replace it for me but now after talking to the tech I think I could possibly have another problem. The tech mentioned that he drove it into the bay twice on 3 cylinders. Which was fine and dandy I suppose but he said after the partial tear down he never put oil back in it and rolled it back into the spot where it was parked. When the people from warranty solutions came out for the inspection he tried to move it again with NO oil -___- he said he made it about 10 feet before it completely seized. I have 2 concerns. First, the radiator dumped all its coolant and water into the engine which means there's probably coolant in the turbo. Second when he ran it without oil, was that starving my turbo of oil?? I realize he wasn't boosting in the 20 feet to the bay but could that cause a problem? I'm thinking not but I wanted your guy's opinion. I didn't bring it up in front of him, I was planning on bringing it up with the service manager if necessary. I'm more worried about coolant sitting in the turbo for the last 2 weeks. Any input would be appreciated.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
MetaJew posted:Power does build nicely, I've just heard claims that you should avoid pulls in the higher gears. The argument was something along the lines of building full boost at low RPMs because the engine is under a heavier load due to gearing, the AFR goes lean, and you get knock. This might be more of a concern on the STIs since their factory tune is garbage. I don't have any data logging equipment at this time, though so I have no idea what the KR looks like. I do know that in lower RPMs, the HPFP has to work harder to keep up with fuel demand. People with mods were seeing a dip in fuel pressure at WOT between 2 and 3k if I recall correctly. It would really surprise me if that dip were also present in stock form.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
In my opinion there are 3 mods people should want / need on a stock MS3: a better rear motor mount, better springs and certainly better internals for the fuel pump. WIth just these three things the car is significantly better and should have very little worry about mishaps. I don't really see the point in modding anything else before these things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
I cant seem to get into the Mazdaspeedforums. The place just seems somewhat childish in nature to me. Is there another mazdaspeed forum more catered towards those who dont tend to approve of Purple HIDz and sig mod lists?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 21:16
|
|
|
Black Is Black posted:In my opinion there are 3 mods people should want / need on a stock MS3: a better rear motor mount, better springs and certainly better internals for the fuel pump. WIth just these three things the car is significantly better and should have very little worry about mishaps. I don't really see the point in modding anything else before these things. So is the HPFP worth doing even when all I have power-wise is the CAI and I have no real intentions right now of doing anything else to it? Do I need a tune after I do that? Also, I managed to get a P0126 today - insufficient coolant temperature. Google says thermostat, and most other people complaining are at similar (near-100k) mileage on regular 3's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2011 21:20
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:So is the HPFP worth doing even when all I have power-wise is the CAI and I have no real intentions right now of doing anything else to it? Do I need a tune after I do that? Everything I read when I was scouring forums while car shopping said that the stock fuel pump is good for an intake, turbo inlet pipe, and downpipe, and that for anything more you should be looking at a new pump or pump internals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
The more you'll read about the HPFP, the more you'll think you don't really need it. There is a number of people who will say they have X number of mods and their fuel trims are fine. Ultimately, you'll hit a point where the HPFP is the bottleneck of your car. If you only have an SRI do you need it? No. You probably want to get it done before something like a downpipe. I'm a pretty cautious guy as the car is my daily driver, so I got my HPFP early and have no regrets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 17:26
|
|
|
Yeah, then I will probably pass on it for now. Sounds like I can con my dad into helping me finally install those struts if I help him with the easier shocks on his C6. On an unrelated note, any news on when the CX-5 will show up at dealers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Yeah, then I will probably pass on it for now. Sounds like I can con my dad into helping me finally install those struts if I help him with the easier shocks on his C6. I heard Feb/March.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
Accidentally filled my tank with 87 octane. I know drat well that I hit premium, but it switched over when I turned my back. It happened once before but I caught it before a full gallon made it in. So, options? 1. Forget about it 2. Drive gently for this tank 3. Drive gently for half a tank then fill with 93 4. Grab some octane booster 5. Combination of the above? Thinking I'll be fine with option 2, just have to keep my foot under control. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
SynMoo posted:Accidentally filled my tank with 87 octane. I know drat well that I hit premium, but it switched over when I turned my back. It happened once before but I caught it before a full gallon made it in. My dad did that once, the dealer said to drive calmly and add the proper fuel at 1/3 a tank. Dad tried to siphon it out with a garden hose instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
So you put in one gallon of 87, and then presumably another ~10 gallons of 93? That amounts to roughly 92.4 octane, which is still higher than the 91-octane piss my MS3 lives on every drat day. Edit: Oh, I reread, you did that before, now you have a real 87 tank. Hmm. How much did you actually fill it up? Do you have a 93-octane tune?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Yeah, put in 12.177 gals of 87. Factory tune. No mods. ('10 Speed3) Didn't dawn on me until I saw how cheap that fill was. Looked down and saw 87 selected. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
If possible, I'd throw in some 100 octane race fuel if you can get it nearby once you've driven it a few miles. If you have around 10 gallons left @ 87, then add 3 of 100 octane you'd be right around 90.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 00:14
|
|
|
I don't have any 100+ nearby. I've got an 80 mile highway drive tonight. I'll keep it out of boost on the way home then either top it off with 93 tomorrow or throw in some octane booster. I figure everything will be fine if I keep the load down. Thankfully it's fairly cool out, also.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
I have heard of people doing similar things. I don't recall anything being listed in the owners manual, but most people say they simply 'stay out of it' for the tank. The onboard computer simply retards the timing to compensate for the difference in octane. My vote is with others, run down for a bit, add octane boost, then run the tank down low and fill it proper with premium.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
The engine's computer will adjust the timing to compensate. You won't get as good power and gas mileage, but the car will be drivable. The advice about high-octane race fuel is a good one, you could also dump in a can of octane booster for the one tank.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
Yeah, the engine will automagically compensate down to deal with it, so you won't do any damage outside of your pride when a old accord kills you off the line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 07:35
|
|
|
Keep in mind that when octane booster says it raises octane by x points, they mean .1, not 1. So raising a tank of 87 by nine points gets you 87.9.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 09:05
|
|
|
Small update. I got lazy and ended up not doing anything about it other than driving gingerly. I've put about 120 miles into this tank, 80 of that highway and I've got another 80 highway I'm doing in a few hours. I've been very careful to not spool the turbo all week. I'll probably poo poo my pants the first time I romp on it after getting a good tank of fuel in there again. Not surprisingly my fuel economy has improved with frugal driving despite running fuel that might cause the ECU to pull some timing. I'm guessing that it hasn't really made any adjustments at all since I haven't put enough of a load on the engine that it might knock with lower octane fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
SynMoo: I've never run out of gas in my car before..until last summer. The gas light always comes on around the 240 mark, which means I have around 3 gallons or so left - another 60 miles. I was at 275 and my car died, so I coasted to the side. My dad brought me a gallon or two of our mower gas (87) and my car ran ok. Granted, not the same as a full tank and I promptly drove to the nearest station and filled with 93. But it did have about 1.5 gallons of it. If I recall correctly, the mileage on that tank was normal despite being 'watered-down' 93.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
Sublime Process posted:If I recall correctly, the mileage on that tank was normal despite being 'watered-down' 93. Well right now I'm talking about a complete 87 tank. 15.9 gallon tank, I put in 12.18 gallons of 87 which presumably would have 3.72 gallons of 93 left in it. This works out to the tank being roughly 88.46 oct. I don't really expect the 87 tank to affect the mileage much because I'm not spooling the turbo at all. What I'm trying to say is, if I were to drive exactly the same frugal way with a tank of 87 and a tank of 93 without spooling, I don't think there would be a significant difference. Now, if I were driving aggressively instead of frugally, I'd expect to see a more dramatic difference. My next tank will probably be about 12 gallons of 93, giving me roughly 91.89 oct. Fully expect this next tank to be normal mileage wise since I'll be back to romping on it occasionally. Not trying to over think, just having fun being a nerd about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Really babying the throttle and staying out of boost is so disheartening when you know it's there. Once you get that gas out and stomp on it for the first time you'll go through a tank really fast just loving around because it's so fun I never let the engine go over 2k RPM while my tensioner was broken and the whole time it was pretty
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
I test drove a 335d one time and felt so conflicted. It has 425 ft/lb of torque but is rated at 36mpg on the highway. Of course, the two are mutually exclusive, so while you're cruising at highway speed getting decent fuel efficiency, you know at the back of your mind all you have to do is stomp on the go pedal for a wave of acceleration. I personally can't resist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
Add a gallon of toluene :-) Great stuff for boosting octane . Google toluene octane boost calculator for the full dose of nerdiness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2012 15:25
|
|
|
Protip: If you don't pay enough attention to your speed and are looking in the mirror while standing on the gas in sixth gear at what ended up being like 45MPH, you look like you're driving a diesel 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Final post on this octane saga. Made drat SURE I was putting in 93. 87 Octane Tank - 75% Highway / Driving like a sissy (little to no boost) Stats: 13.322 Gallons 305.1 Miles 22.9 MPG Average Speed: 46 MPH. Previous tank of 93 Octane - 50% Highway / Normal driving style (mildly aggressive) Stats 12.177 Gallons 277.6 Miles 22.8 MPG Average Speed : 35 MPH. In conclusion, driving like a sissy, with more miles on the highway, I got the same mileage on 87 oct as I did running fewer highway miles and a significantly more aggressive style with 93 oct. I'd predict much better mileage if I adopt the sissy style with the 93 oct tank. My best ever 26.9 MPG on 93 oct and for the life of this car I've never had an entire tank be highway. I haven't gone on a long enough trip in it since we use MY GIRLFRIEND's Civic on the long trips. 13.1 gals of 93 put me squarely in the 92oct tank territory. I didn't have a chance to open it up during lunch time but you can bet the drive home is going to be fun. SynMoo's Fuelly
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
I've done quite a few long trips where I burn through an entire tank in one shot (when I drive Phoenix to LA, it takes a whole tank just to get from shithole west Phoenix to shithole east Riverside) and yet I never seem to crack much more than 24-25MPG. Of course I'm doing that drive at 80MPH, so...yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
My best tank was 26.9mpg and that had some city driving in it. One day I'll do a full tank in a shot. One day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
I just drove from Indiana to Massachusetts last weekend and my best tank was 27.7, with my trip meter telling me I was getting 31.2 mpg. I think that my actual MPG would have been 1 or 2 higher if the fuel wasn't 10% ethanol everywhere that I filled up. Before this trip I did mostly only city driving so my best tank was only 21mpg.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
This MPG talk is making me depressed because I'm only getting 24mpg in the city driving conservatively in my new Skyactiv Mazda3 hatchback.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
Brain Issues posted:I just drove from Indiana to Massachusetts last weekend and my best tank was 27.7, with my trip meter telling me I was getting 31.2 mpg. Ugh, I hate it so much. It's impossible to get anything other than E10 around here. I remember when they switched over seeing an instant drop in economy. Freaking corn subsidies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
Tacier posted:This MPG talk is making me depressed because I'm only getting 24mpg in the city driving conservatively in my new Skyactiv Mazda3 hatchback. The gently caress? Isn't it supposed to get 40mpg? That isn't even close to the EPA rating. opengl128 posted:Ugh, I hate it so much. It's impossible to get anything other than E10 around here. I remember when they switched over seeing an instant drop in economy. Freaking corn subsidies. Yeah, it's some bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
Brain Issues posted:The gently caress? Isn't it supposed to get 40mpg? That isn't even close to the EPA rating. It's rated 28mpg in the city. I'm crossing my fingers that it will improve with additional engine break-in time since I haven't even hit 1000 miles yet. Fortunately I love everything else about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
Ah, I forget that not all of the country has been on E10 forever like AZ has. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a pump that wasn't E10 at least half of the year, and they've been E10 year-round for ages now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Tacier posted:It's rated 28mpg in the city. I'm crossing my fingers that it will improve with additional engine break-in time since I haven't even hit 1000 miles yet. Fortunately I love everything else about it. IOwnCalculus posted:Ah, I forget that not all of the country has been on E10 forever like AZ has. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a pump that wasn't E10 at least half of the year, and they've been E10 year-round for ages now. I almost never saw E10 in Indiana which is hilarious because we grow a metric poo poo-ton of corn, now I just moved to Mass, all I've seen is E10, AND gas is more expensive here. So much for corn subsidies making gas cheaper? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Tacier posted:It's rated 28mpg in the city. I'm crossing my fingers that it will improve with additional engine break-in time since I haven't even hit 1000 miles yet. Fortunately I love everything else about it. Ive got the 2.5 and I average about 25 with my mixed commute. And I drive too fast (car is fun, I only mildly apologize). I was averaging down near 21 the first few tanks so I expect it to get better. Also try 89 octane. Even though the manual says it isn't needed, the California 89 seems to like my car a lot more. Dumb side question I'm sure I could find an answer for in 10 seconds if so many of the Mazda forums didn't hurt my brain... I shouldn't have any problem swapping my stock 17in wheels for the 10-12 Mazdaspeed 3 18's should I? Just wanted to check before I started shoppin'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 01:53
|
|
|
Brain Issues posted:I almost never saw E10 in Indiana which is hilarious because we grow a metric poo poo-ton of corn, now I just moved to Mass, all I've seen is E10, AND gas is more expensive here. So much for corn subsidies making gas cheaper? Running out on your fellow Indiana AIers aye?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Dumb side question I'm sure I could find an answer for in 10 seconds if so many of the Mazda forums didn't hurt my brain... I shouldn't have any problem swapping my stock 17in wheels for the 10-12 Mazdaspeed 3 18's should I? Just wanted to check before I started shoppin'. They'll fit fine and the TPMS sensors will work if they're still in the wheels. They're a bit heavier, keep that in mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:59 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:Running out on your fellow Indiana AIers aye? Yeah, I just finished up school and my girlfriend lives here. Also I just got a job at Audi today!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 18:30
|
|