Last post on Jul 27, 2012 at 1:44 AM
You are in the Mazda3
What is this discussion about?
Mazda MAZDA3, Mazda MAZDASPEED MAZDA3, Fuel Efficiency (MPG)
#382 of 961 MPG - EPA - YMMV
Jan 16, 2007 (8:24 am)
I don't want to turn this into an EPA board - some cars do better - some are less - thats just the way it is - Your Mileage May Vary.
I offered the MPG of my other vehicles as a way to compare.
The Tahoe is EPA rated 14/18 - normal daily driving we are at 15 MPG
The Acura is rated 20/29 we are getting at least 21 MPG - sometimes more
The Mazda3 (2004 auto) is rated 24/29 - we get 16-18 MPG.
IMO - doing this type of comparison means more - than just saying - I get XX MPG.
I can go all the way back to the 1980's - every vehicle (except the Mazda3) has been right at or slightly above the EPA CITY number. No magic to the EPA method - but because this has been my experience I sort of expected the Mazda3 to be around 24 MPG. Getting 30% less than EPA city is significant. Will Mazda do anything about it? I doubt it - but I don't think any other car company would do much about it either.
People just need to be aware - if you buy a Mazda3 with an automatic tranny you have a chance of getting an "economy" car that sucks gas like a full size SUV.
#383 of 961 Re: MPG - EPA - YMMV [z71bill]
Jan 16, 2007 (10:25 am)
Amen to that sir. There is something wrong with certain 2.3L/4spd auto vehicles and that is the bottom line. My current tank will probably net 17 mpg from the looks of it thus far. Even if the EPA figures for this car dropped to 22 city (compared to the current 24 for my car) that is still WAY lower than the estimates. You mean to tell me a 500 lb heavier car with a 3.8L V-6 and 4 spd auto nets better overall mileage versus my 3? You bet it does. My Intrigue is rated at 19/30 and gets 19-20 mpg around town and up to 34 mpg on the highway. I might actually start driving that car instead despite the fact that it's a '98 with 98k miles. That way, I can focus on paying off the 3 and selling it for more $$ because of the fewer accumulated miles. I certainly feel bad for whomever purchase this car after me.
#384 of 961 First tank on 07 M3 Hatch 5 speed
Jan 19, 2007 (6:15 am)
26.1 mpg in spirited, mostly rural, driving. Here's hoping for better........
#385 of 961 MazdaSpeed3 MPG ?
Jan 21, 2007 (4:35 am)
What kind of MPG #s are people with the turbocharged MS3 really getting? My wife's 2.4L automatic HHR gets 26-27 ave.
Thinking about the MS3 to replace my 5 speed 2.2L Alero that has been 100% trouble free for 70,000 miles so far...gets 30+ MPG always!! But is no rocket. Want rocket...
#386 of 961 Re: MazdaSpeed3 MPG ? [smogdung]
Jan 22, 2007 (2:17 pm)
Thinking about the MS3 to replace my 5 speed 2.2L Alero that ...gets 30+ MPG
It's pretty certain that you will not be getting 30+ mpg from a Mazdaspeed3; my guess: between 20 and 25.
#387 of 961 4cyl/automatic combo
Jan 23, 2007 (5:15 pm)
ANY compact 4cyl car should never get under 20mpg, unless it's some serious stop-and-go driving. That's the paradox of compact cars: they're not so "compact" (economy-wise) once you add the autotranny. A major car mag tested the Chevy Aveo, a subcompact, with an AT. It got 24mpg, unacceptable for such a tiny car.......the Mazda3 has some class-leading assets: best-in-class handling and a superb interior. But it's STILL a compact car and it should deliver compact car mileage. That means at least 24mpg city, and 33mpg hwy.........smogdung, I suggest you keep your Alero 4cyl stick. (that's the same car I drive). The Mazdaspeed3 will get much worse mileage, plus it will require premium fuel.
#388 of 961 Re: 4cyl/automatic combo [walterquint]
Jan 23, 2007 (6:01 pm)
But walterquint, shouldn't one of these sub 3,000 lb super/turbo 4s with a 5 or 6 speed stick get close to 30 mpg when driven normally & only suck gas when driven hard or in REAL city driving? The Alero is 3K lbs & has smuck tires....
#389 of 961 2007 3s GT automatic
Jan 24, 2007 (9:50 am)
After struggling for yrs. to find a replacement for my 2.4 4cyl 5spd manual Accord EX I chose the 3 for its great blend of sportiness,looks,interior, and efficiency. It scores "A" on the first three and "D" on the MPG. My first tank was right at 20mpg for mixed 50/50 driving and really babying it for break in. Kept highway speed to max of 60 (not my usual. For 147,000 I got 23mpg in 50/50 driving and by no means was I babying it. The 3 is smaller and has nine yrs worth of newer technology potential. The onboard mpg meter shows avg of 17-18 during mild city driving (no rush hr commutes)and increases to 19.5 when I hop on the highway for a 25 mile drive to work. The second tank was the same but I did find that if I shift the auto manually in city driving I can increase the mpg by 1 mpg. Took it the dealer and they pretty much felt like I just hadn't reset the computer properly. After reading that this is a common problem with the 2.3l auto I will try to have them take it back. I believe 8 mpg below the city rating of 25 qualifies as all of the following: a lemon, fraud, and false advertising. With the MPG numbers listed on this forum for the manual transmission equiped Threes, it clearly indicates/implicates that the automatic transmission is the problem and failure by Mazda to address that should lead to a class action lawsuit.
Jan 24, 2007 (1:11 pm)
I have been mulling over a 3 instead of an Accord for various reasons, but I don't want to give up the fuel economy. I don't drive automatics so that is not a problem, but am still a little concerned about the mpg.
I did notice that Consumer Reports still got pretty good mpg with the automatic (not too much worse than Corolla) so I wonder why the issues.
Didn't somebody recently trade from an automatic to a stick 3s? I wonder how that turned out mpg wise? That would certainly be comparing apples to apples - same driver and conditions.
I can say this. If they made the 3 hatch with the 2.0 liter engine I would snap one up in a second. Less expensive, lighter and better balanced, better gas mileage, and still plenty peppy.