Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hatchbacks Mazda3 Mazda3 2.3 vs. '07 VW Rabbit
389 messages, Last post on Apr 17, 2009 at 12:40 PM
You are in the Mazda3 Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: backy (Oct 17, 2008 1:37 pm) While your BMW is a 6 cyl, isn't it just a 2.5? If so the HP and displacement is not much different from many 4 cylinders today (or VW's 5 cyl). In particular, here we are talking about the 2.5L 170 HP VW 5cyl and a car that weighs about 3100 pounds in the case of the Rabbit. The Mazda3 2.3 uses the same 2.3 engine that last year's Mazda6 used, though weight is a couple hundred pounds less than the 6 was.
|
|
|
Replying to: jeffyscott (Oct 18, 2008 6:53 am) The number for the mid-sized car I mentioned, a 2009 Sonata, were EPA, since I don't have my own real-world numbers on that car. They are 22 city, 32 highway--better than the much smaller Mazda3 and Rabbit even though the Sonata is heavier and more powerful. Other mid-sized cars, e.g. the Malibu and Accord, also get better EPA FE than these two small cars. Anyway, that's not the topic here, but I thought I'd mention some other data in support of the earlier post that these two small cars should get better fuel economy. |
|
|
Replying to: backy (Oct 17, 2008 1:37 pm) A lot depends on the power / torque curve and transmission gearing. Mazda and Volkswagen engines tend to be torquey and have great low end power. That kills city fuel economy. I know Mazda's are geared very high, even in top gear, which hinders highway FE. I'm not sure about VW's. Why do you think Honda 4 bangers do so well in FE tests? They have no torque, and the their power band is near the top of the RPM range (that's VTEC for you). They are also have a low top gear. They are built to excel in EPA tests, however, when you get on them, like in performance tests, they usually get beat in the FE category because they are driven to get all the power they can out of them just to keep up with the others in those tests. I've never seen the 2.8L I6 power / torque curve from the BMW, but I'm almost certain that there is not much low end power. Their gearing is also low in top gear.
|
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Oct 18, 2008 8:28 pm) EPA like to shift manual transmission at certain mph's regardless of gearing. So if you are smart enough, then you will shift as early as possible w/o lugging the engine. That way, you do get better mpg w/ fat-torque engines. Because, under the same output level, engines w/ low-end bias setting involve less total travel friction b/t the piston ring & the cylinder sidewall. Engines are most efficient when there is about 0.5 liter per cylinder. Balance shafts also waste fuel. So don't get the 4-cyl Mazda w/ more than 2.0 if you want "the best fuel economy", which was exactly what CR said about the 2.0 Mazda3! |
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Oct 18, 2008 8:28 pm) FYI the numbers for the 2000 328 are 193 hp and 206 lb.-ft. at 3500 rpm. That seems like pretty decent low end power to me, by the numbers and from driving experience. That compares to 156 hp and 150 lb.-ft. at 4500 rpm for the 2.3L engine in the Mazda3, and 150 hp (170 for 2008+) and 170 lb.-ft. at 3750 (177  4250 for 2008+) rpm for the Rabbit. So I'd say the Rabbit has excellent torque for its size, but the Mazda3 is OK but not great there. Not great enough to excuse the relatively low fuel economy, IMO. Also, I think you meant the Mazda3 is geared very low and the 328 geared high, not the converse, right? I am assuming you were trying to say that the rpms of the Mazda3 are relatively high at higher speeds and those of the 328 are relatively low. Actually, the top-end gearing on the 328 is pretty low, and the engine spins at higher revs than, for example, my 2.0L Elantra, and any other car with an engine of similar size that I have driven.
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Oct 19, 2008 7:58 am) "Not great enough to excuse the relatively low fuel economy, IMO." Maybe so, but, that seems to be the truth. Is there more to it? Probably. Lack of technology could be it too. The new 2.5L seems to be much much better with owners reporting 30+ on the highway with ease.
|
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Oct 20, 2008 7:41 am) When driven reasonably, yes, I agree. But I know, and you also know if you've followed forums like the "real world fuel economy" discussions here at Edmunds.com, that it is possible and even common to not reach the EPA estimates. For example, I routinely exceed the EPA estimates on any car I drive, but my wife has the proverbial lead foot and doesn't hit the EPA numbers. Which Mazda3 is the 2.5L engine available with?
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Oct 20, 2008 8:12 am) 2010 Mazda3 will have the new and improved 2.0L with the rumored start-stop system and more power. It will also have the 170hp 2.5L. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: creakid1 (Apr 20, 2008 12:50 pm) Dunno about comparing the ride, but for a midsize car, the previous generation Accord has a tidy turning radius, at 36.9 ft, versus the compact Rabbit with 35.8 ft. Considering the class of car, I don't think the Accord's radius is "huge," unless you consider the compact Vee-Dub's radius as "huge" also.  Yeah, I know its an old post, but I read it and couldn't help myself. 
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Oct 20, 2008 8:47 am)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hatchbacks Mazda3 Mazda3 2.3 vs. '07 VW Rabbit
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Mazda MAZDA3
2009 Volkswagen Rabbit
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
