Last post on Mar 04, 2013 at 2:05 PM
You are in the Hatchbacks - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hatchbacks Host for directions! discussion.
What is this discussion about?
Mazda MAZDA3, Future Vehicle
#530 of 832 Re: 2010 mazda3 [aviboy97]
Jun 08, 2009 (3:07 pm)
I think it's an absolute joke to say that the Mazda3 is not on par with the competition.
According to the EPA site (fueleconomy.gov), here are the combined ratings (that is a combination of highway and city driving) for several recent vehicles with automatic transmissions:
31 - 2009 Honda Fit
29 - 2010 Toyota Corolla ; 2009 Honda Civic (non-hybrid)
27 - 2009 Ford Focus ; 2010 Mazda3 i
25 - 2010 Mazda3 s ; 2002 MazdaProtege
The difference between the top rank (35 mpg) and the lowest (25 mpg) is about 20%. Mazda has not significantly boosted the fuel economy of its Mazda3 s since 2002 (when the model was known as the Protege). The Mazda2 promises a welcome change on this front.
#531 of 832 Re: 2010 mazda3 [aviboy97]
Jun 08, 2009 (5:43 pm)
The Focus a little over a year old? Hardly. It's an ancient design as cars go, about ten years old without a full redesign (here in the US, anyway--other lands get a more modern Focus). The Mazda3 is the newest compact design out there--until the Forte debuts, anyway. BTW, check out the power and fuel economy numbers of that car, then tell us that the Mazda3 is "light years" ahead.
#532 of 832 Re: 2010 mazda3 [unicorn62]
Jun 08, 2009 (5:59 pm)
Not necessarily, unicorn62.
The Mazda 3s is NOT an economy car. It is a compact, but it is meant to for buyers who want style, equipment, and some power in an attractive style and want only decent fuel economy........kinda like a poor man's 3-series. The Lancer (the current generation), Jetta and Rabbit/Golf are also similar.
Given the performances of these cars, their fuel economy is very reasonable. Mind you, they are NOT economy cars.
One Mazda 3i is perhaps an economy car. Its fuel economy figures are only 1 or 2 mpg lower than the Civic/Corolla competition, but it has at least 8 hp more! I think a loss of 1 or 2 mpg for 8 hp is worth it!
Mazda could probably modify the gearing to get an extra 1 or 2 mpg (like the Focus), but then the character of the car would no longer be sporty enough to qualify as zoom-zoom!
The question is whether or not the major priority for buyers of compact cars is fuel economy. Looking at the success of the Mazda 3, it appears like there is a considerable market for compact-but-not-economy cars.
Jun 08, 2009 (6:10 pm)
BTW, check out the power and fuel economy numbers of that car, then tell us that the Mazda3 is "light years" ahead.
Cars are not judged by fuel economy and power numbers alone!
What compact non-luxury car has steering-controlled headlights, a near-luxury car interior, dual-zone air-con, and a (class-leading) sporty-but-comfortable-and-refined ride all in one package? The fact that the Mazda 3 has all these, for an affordable price, is a major reason why it is "light-years" ahead of its competition!
#534 of 832 Re: 2010 mazda3 [autonomous]
Jun 08, 2009 (6:23 pm)
Have you considered the displacement/power output in your list? The Fit, Corolla and Civic are 1.5 L or 1.8 L with 140 hp or less. The Focus and Mazda 3i have 2.0 L engines with 148 hp......the Mazda 3s has 167 hp!
Given the power output of the Mazda 3, its fuel economy is competitive with the competition (Focus, Lancer, Golf/Rabbit, Jetta). The Mazda 3i has the same fuel economy as the Focus!
BTW, comparing the fuel economy of the Mazda 3s (167 hp) and the Protege (130 hp), it's very clear that Mazda has made a lot of progress since 2002!......how does a 37 hp gain for the same fuel economy sound?
Mind you, the real competition of the Mazda 3s are the Jetta, Golf/Rabbit, Lancer and perhaps the Impreza.
The Mazda 3i has competitive fuel economy with the Focus, Civic and Corolla. The Fit is not a Mazda 3 competitor.
Jun 08, 2009 (8:19 pm)
Blackadder, I had a small suv the nissan rogue(08) that got 33.5mpg doing 60mph and 32.0 doing 65mph the rogue is alot heaver and has the 2.5l engine and has 170hp with 175torque, now you tell me why the mazda3 shouldn't get better mpg's. By the way i am not a he i am a she BACKY!!!
#536 of 832 Re: 2010 mazda3 [unicorn62]
Jun 08, 2009 (10:58 pm)
Backy (a.k.a. unicorn62), the FWD Rogue is rated 22/27 city/hwy by the EPA. The Mazda 3s is rated 22/29 for the automatic. The Rogue weighs 3281 lb; the Mazda 3s weighs 3064 lb. I would say the Mazda 3s fuel economy compares well with the Rogue! (BTW, a 200 lb wieght difference is not "a lot heavier".....that's about the weight of an average 6-ft man!)
When you take the Mazda 3s for what it is, a compact-but-not-economy car, its fuel economy is very competitive. Look at similar cars:
VW Rabbit 2.5 L (170 hp): 21/29 mpg
Mitsubishi Lancer 2.4 L (168 hp): 21/28 mpg
Subaru Impreza 2.5 L (170 hp): 20/27 mpg.
In fact, compared to its competition, the Mazda 3s has class-leading fuel economy! Remember: a compact car is not necessarily an economy car!
Jun 08, 2009 (11:03 pm)
Well, Shippo, you know we're talking about gasoline, non-hybrid cars here...... LOL!
Jun 08, 2009 (11:18 pm)
I think it's weird though that Ford can get 34 mpg on a mid-sized sedan with an engine of comparable power to the Mazda3s, yet the Mazda3s gets 5 mpg less, yet is a lighter car.
I suspect a lot of it has to do with the gearing. The Mazda 3s probably has shorter gear ratios in order to make the car sportier or more responsive, whereas the Fusion probably has taller gear ratios that enhance fuel economy at the cost of responsiveness.
I haven't driven either the 2010 Mazda 3s or the 2010 Fusion, but I would bet that the Mazda 3s feels/is faster or at least more responsive.
When you compare the Mazda 3s' fuel economy to other compacts with around 170 hp that are meant to be sporty (eg, Rabbit, Lancer GTS, Impreza), its fuel economy is, in fact, class-leading.
#539 of 832 Re: 2010 mazda3 [unicorn62]
Jun 09, 2009 (5:44 am)
I had a small suv the nissan rogue(08) that got 33.5mpg doing 60mph and 32.0 doing 65mph the rogue is alot heaver and has the 2.5l engine and has 170hp with 175torque, now you tell me why the mazda3 shouldn't get better mpg's
Have you driven the Mazda3 in exactly the same way and if so what mpg did you get?
If you are comparing your actual mpg to an EPA rating, that is not a valid comparison as the EPA highway test does not consist of cruising at a steady 60 or 65 mph. Most (all?) cars exceed the EPA highway number when driven in that way.