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 72 of 72 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#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 72 of 72 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Hatchbacks Mazda3 Mazda3 Real World MPG