You are here: Forums Hatchbacks Mazda3 Mazda3 Real World MPG

Mazda3 Real World MPG

706 messages,  Last post on Oct 19, 2009 at 9:04 AM

You are in the Mazda3 Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

What is this discussion about? Mazda MAZDA3, Mazda MAZDASPEED MAZDA3, Fuel Efficiency (MPG)

Messages Page 71 of 71 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#697 of 706 - by dudleyr Mar 30, 2009 (1:49 pm)
I will second the efficiency of Accords (especially last generation stick models). I have a 2007 stick shift I4 and have averaged 33.7 mpg over 58,000 miles. I have recorded as high as 39.8 over 10 consecutive tanks and have had tanks as high as 45 mpg (well over 600 miles). This is for slower speed state highways not high speed interstates though. I do use 40 psi and 0w-20 mobil one to help out and employ some minor hypermiling - coast to lights and down steep hills, shut off at long lights.   I was very interested in the Mazda 3, but the SO wanted something larger. I really wish Mazda would put their excellent 2.0 engine in the hatch as an efficient hatch back would have been hard to resist.   By the same token I would have also been very interested in the 6 wagon if it had the 4-cyl. For some reason Mazda thinks that their most efficiently packaged cars (hatches and wagons) need their least efficient engines. In the case of the Mazda 6 V-6 it actually gets worse EPA mpg than our V-6 minivan - could never convince the wife to go that way.   Anyway I would love to see a 2.0 hatch with a six speed MT. Great mileage with lots of flexibility, but I don't think it will happen. They would rather sell SUV's to the people that want cargo room - more profit. Replies to this message: smoothsailin (Mar 31, 2009 5:21 am)
#698 of 706 Re: - [dudleyr] by smoothsailin Mar 31, 2009 (5:21 am)
Replying to: dudleyr (Mar 30, 2009 1:49 pm) Congratulations for the excellent long-term results you've achieved w/your '07 Accord mtx dudleyr!   I agree that it sure would be nice if Mazda would offer their Mazda3 hatchback equipped with the 2.0L engine and 6-speed manual. Also agree that it's not likely to happen though.   Mazda also offers the 3 equipped with a diesel engine in other countries and from what I've read this engine produces significantly more torque than either of the normally aspirated gas engines available in the U.S., yet is capable of producing fuel economy results above 50 mpg. Of course, it's a costly endeavor for an auto manufacturer to design and certify a diesel engine that will meet EPA standards here in the U.S. Also, since the Mazda3 is generally marketed here as a sports-oriented vehicle, a diesel-engine version probably wouldn't be a huge seller here unless fuel prices rise above $5/gallon again.   In any case I've been very satisfied w/my '05 3i mtx and wouldn't hesitate to buy another Mazda sometime in the future.   I'd really like to own an MX-5 after the kids are out of the house!
#699 of 706 2006 Mazda3 s Sport 5-door manual by igozoomzoom Mar 31, 2009 (5:50 pm)
I have a 2006 Mazda3 s Sport 5-door with manual transmission. For the first 42,000 miles I had a horrible commute (50 miles round-trip in grid-locked Atlanta traffic). I never managed more than 26mpg. I visit my best friend who lives 200 miles away at least once per month. Driving at 75-80mph on 90% of the trip, I average 27mpg if I'm lucky. If I set the cruise control at 70-72mph on the same trip, with the A/C off, I have hit 30.2mpg for the trip average.   It's a far cry from the days of my '93 Civic getting 40mpg even during 80mph highway treks, but the Mazda is a lot more fun (and comfortable)!
#700 of 706 2009 3s vs 3i by mazdazed Jun 20, 2009 (8:06 pm)
I have two 2009 Mazda 3's. One "i" and one "s". Both manuals. 75% highway driving 65-70 mph.   3i- With 7,800 miles on the car the "i" is averaging 35-36 mpg with 39 being the highest achieved and 32 being the lowest.   3s- With 4,000 miles on the car it is averaging 31-32 mpg.   Running Motorcraft 5w-20 Synthetic Blend oil in both cars.
#701 of 706 Zoom Zoom by dc_driver Jul 04, 2009 (11:58 am)
I have had my Mazda 3i Touring edition sedan (bought new) since 2006 and am consistently averaging 37-39 mpg in about 80/20 (highway/city) driving going 60-80mph.   It does have the manual transmission but I am not a soft footed driver. If I slowed down and drove softer I am positive I could squeeze at least 2-3 more mpg out of the car.   The car has had zero issues (not one) since owning. I would buy another in a heartbeat (but will probably keep this one till it dies) and my sister in law is looking into buying one now.
#702 of 706 Mazda 3s 2005 by tj6968 Sep 15, 2009 (1:38 pm)
Probably around 26mpg in the city.... Not too bad. Wish it was like quadruple that though.
#703 of 706 Long tripmileage by acd Oct 12, 2009 (1:20 pm)
My 2007 Mazda3i touring 5speed manual averages about 28 mpg in my urban commute/ short trips. It used to do better before 10% ethonal in gasoline. I just took a long, mostly interstate trip averaging around 72 mph. Over the 1600 miles the car averaged between 35 and 36 MPG. (My highest tank ever on a trip was 37 MPG.) So I'm still happy driving this wonderful little car at almost 37,000 miles.
#704 of 706 Re: 5 years of mileage data [smoothsailin] by vanquish421 Oct 15, 2009 (10:03 pm)
Replying to: smoothsailin (Mar 27, 2009 10:22 am) I will agree with you that the difference in real world fuel economy between the 2.0 liter engine and the 2.5 liter is significant, but saying the difference in performance is relatively minor is absolutely FALSE. The numbers for power on the 2.0 liter are VERY overrated by Mazda. Corksport did a dyno pull on both engines and the 2.0 liter only put down a measly 118 HP and 110 lbft of torque, while the 2.5 liter put down 158 HP and 161 lbft of torque. I would call 40 horses and 51 lbft of torque a very significant difference in performance.   Don't get me wrong, the 2.0 liter certainly gets the job done, and has better power and low end torque for good pick up (especially in city driving) than the competition (civic, corolla, etc.). And the gas mileage is incredible, very underrated by Mazda. My girlfriend has an iSport and is getting 34 MPG city and 43 MPG highway! Real world results for the 2.5 liter engine, however, are pretty accurate to the ratings, though reviews have claimed that driving it hard hardly decreases the fuel consumption.   Just some things to think about. The 2.5 liter DEFINITELY has much more power, about 50% more. But it's up to your priorities, efficiency or performance, that ultimately determines the decision when purchasing. I'll probably go with the 2.0 liter iTouring model and spend the few grand I save over several years on gas and get a sound system and dvd/nav touch screen in the dash.   And there's my 2 cents. Replies to this message: smoothsailin (Oct 16, 2009 2:20 pm) autonomous (Oct 19, 2009 9:04 am)
#705 of 706 Re: 5 years of mileage data [vanquish421] by smoothsailin Oct 16, 2009 (2:20 pm)
Replying to: vanquish421 (Oct 15, 2009 10:03 pm) If you read my post again vanquish421 you'll see I was comparing the 2.0 L and 2.3 L engines-not the 2.0 vs. 2.5 L . The 2.5 L was not available when I purchased my '05 3i.   I'm unfamiliar with corksport and have no idea if their figures are reliable, but since drivetrain power losses s/b similar between two Mazda 3 models I find the differences in crankshaft vs. "at the wheel" results for the two engines out of sync based on the figures you quoted. The 2.5 L is rated by Mazda at 167 hp and 168 lb/ft at the crank and Mazda's published specifications for the 2.0 L and 2.3 L engines models are as follows:   2.0 L: 148 bhp & 135 lbf•ft 2.3 L: 156 bhp & 150 lbf•ft 2.3 L MZR DISI Turbo: Mazdaspeed3: 263 bhp & 280 lbf•ft   So the 2.3 L is rated for just 8 hp and 15 ft/lb more than the 2.0 L. My lawn mower puts out more than that!   The 2.5 L of course does better with 19 hp and 33 lb/ft over the 2.0 L. A 19 hp advantage still is hardly earth-shattering, but I can understand how an additional 33 lb/ft could be enough to be appreciated in a small car like the 3. Of course, the 2010 modes ARE also heavier than first generation models too and from what I've read differences in real-world performance between '04-'09 2.3 L models and 2010 3s models w/the new 2.5 L engines are negligible.   The figures you cited from corksport indicate the 2.0 L engine lost 30 hp and 25 lb/ft to driveline losses from engine to the front wheels, but the 2.5 L only lost 9 hp and 6 lb/ft? If so then either the 2.0 L may have been a poorly running example or the 2.5 L could have been a ringer since driveline losses between the two should have been similar (imo). From what I've read a 10%-12% loss from cranshaft to the wheels is fairly common.   148 hp x 10% = ~ 15 hp...which would result in 133 hp at the wheel for the 2.0 L 167 hp x 10% = 17 hp...which would leave 150 hp at the wheel for the 2.5 L   So the corksport figures don't make sense. If anything, the 2.5 L should have lost more power from crankshaft to wheel vs. the 2.0 L...not less.   In any case, when browsing the Mazda 3 forums I've read where real-world results have shown a stock 2.0 L mtx can produce n e.t within a 1/2 second of a stock 2.3 L mtx in the quarter. Of course differences in driver experience could easily make more difference than that.   If bragging rights or racing for pinks is important to you a ½ second difference in the quarter or from 0-60 may be significant. But during my day-to-day commutes I could care less about a ½ second difference for rarely do I need maximum performance from my 3i's 2.0 L anyhow. However, when I have the 2.0 L has been more than powerful enough for my needs. I'd also like pit my 3i mtx against someone with an equally stock 3s w/the 2.3 L atx . If more than a car length separated us by the end of the quarter mile I'd be very surprised.   In any case, if I wanted high performance in a 3 I'd bypass a 3s motivated by a normally aspirated 2.3 or 2.5 L engines and choose a Speed 3 anyhow.   It all comes down to what's more important to you. For me, I'd rather pay 25% less at the pump for 99.9% of my driving in lieu of paying at the pump all the time just to have a hair more performance available for the other .1% when I may want to floor the pedal. Replies to this message: autonomous (Oct 19, 2009 9:04 am)
#706 of 706 Re: 5 years of mileage data [smoothsailin] by autonomous Oct 19, 2009 (9:04 am)
Replying to: smoothsailin (Oct 16, 2009 2:20 pm) It all comes down to what's more important to you. For me, I'd rather pay 25% less at the pump for 99.9% of my driving in lieu of paying at the pump all the time just to have a hair more performance available for the other .1% when I may want to floor the pedal.   Well argued. You are not alone!

Messages Page 71 of 71 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Hatchbacks Mazda3 Mazda3 Real World MPG