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 2010 Mazda3
653 messages, Last post on Nov 12, 2009 at 2:07 PM
You are in the Mazda3 Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: blackadder5639 (Jun 09, 2009 9:06 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: mz6greyghost (Jun 09, 2009 10:21 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Jun 09, 2009 10:53 am) 1. Assuming that the Forte is as sporty and responsive as the Mazda 3s, the Rabbit 2.5, Lancer GTS and Impreza, it'd still be the only car in that class that betters the Mazda 3s' fuel economy! That would still make the Mazda 3s very competitive on the fuel economy front. [And since the Forte isn't out yet, the Mazda 3s still has class-leading fuel economy!  ] 2. We'll have to wait till we see what the Road Tests say and how Kia markets the Forte. If they market it as a sporty compact like the Mazda 3s and its competition are (and if Road Tests prove that to be true), then you're right! [But, in that case, the Forte would be the only one in its class with that fuel economy, so the Mazda 3s would still be competitive on the fuel economy front!] If it turns out to be not so much of a sporty car but more of a compact family car, then its fuel economy gains would have come at the expense of sportiness. In that case, it would be hard to fault the Mazda 3s' fuel economy. Backy, whichever way you look at it, the Mazda 3s (and the Mazda 3i) have competitive or class-leading fuel economy in their respective classes!  I think your problem is that, just because the Mazda 3s is a compact, you expect it to have Corolla-like fuel economy. But the fact remains that 'compact" and "economy" aren't necessarily synonymous. See the Mazda 3s for what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: mz6greyghost (Jun 09, 2009 10:21 am) Q: Do you think most drivers think that fuel economy is important in the choice of vehicle? A: Of course. The real question is: would I settle for a coma-inducing Corolla or Civic just to get 2 more MPG? I agree with your first sentence but not your second one. See next answer. Q: Do you think an auto manufacturer that increases the horsepower while maintaining the same fuel economy on a vehicle is responding to demand for improved fuel economy? A: Yes. Why? They're getting better overall performance for the same amount of $$$ in gas. Case in point: Your Protege example. A car that has almost a 30 percent INCREASE in horsepower is huge, no matter what class the vehicle is in. It also usually means that fuel economy drops, since there's more power, but not in this case. You hit the nail on the head mentioning overall performance. I think an automaker that is providing increased horsepower without improving the fuel economy of the vehicle is not improving the overall performance. By offering bigger engines (going from 2.0L to 2.5 L) without improving the fuel economy (i.e. 25 mpg), Mazda has only completed half the equation. Similarly, in your first answer, you cite the Corolla/Civic as non-performant, but you are only seeing half the picture. The Corolla/Civic (and esp. the Fit) perform better in terms of fuel economy. By my way of thinking, both the power output and the fuel efficiency are necessary for overall performance. And to be a leader in the market, they have to be together in an affordable package. That's the formula I see sophisticated auto manufacturers, like Honda, pursuing. Q. Do you think there is a shift in the marketplace away from larger heavier vehicles towards lighter vehicles that are more fuel efficient? A. Like my father-in-law? He drove a gas-guzzling '95 TBird before trading to a '09 Mazda3. Two more doors, 33% less cylinders, 30 MORE horsepower, and a fuel bill that's a fraction of what it was before with the Ford. He also thinks it's more fun-to-drive than the TBird, and miles ahead of the Corolla that he tried out on a test-drive. Kudos to your father-in-law for taking a step in the right direction! Sorry, but I've also driven the Corolla and Civic, and I'd GLADLY spend a few extra $$$ in gas if I could still have FUN behind the wheel, and I'll still say the same thing when (not if) gas hits $5/gallon. I agree that driving should not be a bore. And gas hit $5/gallon a long time ago (in Europe and other parts of the world). The Europeans have some of the most spirited cars (and drivers) with fuel economy numbers that may surprise many. In fact, some of these vehicles come from Mazda (including Mazda3 diesels and Mazda2). We need to encourage automanufacturers to follow the true formula for overall performance and not give us half the answer. So, to the 30% HP improvement you mention I say let's raise the fuel efficiency by 30%. Improve both the HP and the fuel economy. And, yes, it can be done. p.s. Bring over the Mazda2! |
|
|
Replying to: blackadder5639 (Jun 09, 2009 2:20 pm) I don't expect the Mazda3s to have the fuel economy of a 1.8L, 132 hp car like the Corolla 1.8. I was simply pointing out that, relative to other cars in its class, the Mazda3 is not tops in fuel economy--or power for that matter. Is that a big deal? Only if you wish to make it one. I don't. I see it as a point of discussion, nothing more. Anyway, I don't see why fuel economy gains must come at the expense of sportiness. I mean, is there something that says a great-handling car cannot also have best-in-class fuel economy? Why must the two be mutually-exclusive? Do the Mazda engineers think, "Hmm, we tuned the suspension for sporty handling, thus we must make sure the powertrain doesn't provide best-in-class fuel economy because that would take away from the sportiness of the car." I would hope not.
|
|
Not Bad Eh? 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: autonomous (Jun 09, 2009 2:23 pm) Autonomous, not necessarily. It depends on what the car is meant for. (I think) Fuel economy is not the proirity of the Mazda 3s....it's not meant for those who want the best possible fuel economy. Hence, it is better for it to gain 37 hp over the Protege while maintaining the same economy than to, say, gain 25 hp and perhaps 2 or 3 mpg. And, like I illustrated in my earlier post, if you look at the Mazda 3s' direct competition (Rabbit, Lancer GTS, Impreza), its fuel economy is actually class-leading. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Jun 09, 2009 3:01 pm) Relative to its current, direct competition (Rabbit, Jetta, Lancer GTS, maybe Impreza), its fuel economy is tops with the automatic transmission; power is down a little but it appears that performance is on par. Is that a big deal? Only if you wish to make it one. I don't. I see it as a point of discussion, nothing more. That's the whole point; we're having a discussion. It's not a big deal. I just think that you're failing or refusing to see the Mazda 3s for what it is. It may be in the same weight/size class as the Corolla, but they're meant for completely different types of buyers. For its intended buyer (the one who might consider the Rabbit or Lancer GTS), it's economy is about class-leading and its performance is on par. Anyway, I don't see why fuel economy gains must come at the expense of sportiness. I mean, is there something that says a great-handling car cannot also have best-in-class fuel economy? Handling and vehicle dynamics do not come at the expense of fuel economy. (This is not entirely true, tires that maximise handling will lead to slightly lower fuel economy, maybe 1 mpg......low rolling resistance tires maximise economy at the expense of handling.) But "responsiveness" of the engine and the car overall comes at the expense of fuel economy. All things being equal, a car that is geared for the engine to remain in the "sweet spot" of power/torque will be more "responsive" and hence sportier, and less economical, than one that is geared to keep the engine revving as lowly as possible (thus saving as much fuel as possible while often not being in the sweet spot). Because of the zoom-zoom strategy, the Mazda 3 has sweet spot type gearing. That is why the Mazda 3i is still 1 or 2 mpg down compared to the Focus, and that's partly why it is sportier than the Focus. The Corolla and the Civic, like the Focus, are also geared for maximum economy. The Mazda 3s and its direct competitors all have sweet spot type gearing.
|
|
|
Replying to: blackadder5639 (Jun 09, 2009 8:27 pm) I see the Mazda3s for what it is. You however are failing or refusing to acknowledge that other cars in the same class have leap-frogged the new Mazda3s in some areas, specifically the combination of power with fuel economy. Whether it's important or not is in the eyes of the car buyer. Because of the zoom-zoom strategy, the Mazda 3 has sweet spot type gearing. There is a simple solution to providing both "sweet spot", sport-oriented gearing and gearing for optimal fuel economy. Check out the Jetta and Rabbit, for example. They offer a 6-speed Tiptronic automatic with Normal and Sport modes. You want sport-oriented gearing? Flick the shifter into "S", or flick it into manumatic mode and shift for yourself. You want optimal fuel economy? Use Normal shift mode. Still plenty of responsiveness with the 170 hp engine for most situations, but lets you squeeze out a few more miles per tank. Or for stick shifts, provide a 6-speed box with true overdrive in 6th (and maybe 5th).
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Jun 10, 2009 7:04 am) Good! Looks like I'm making some progress! You however are failing or refusing to acknowledge that other cars in the same class have leap-frogged the new Mazda3s in some areas, specifically the combination of power with fuel economy......There is a simple solution to providing both "sweet spot", sport-oriented gearing and gearing for optimal fuel economy. Check out the Jetta and Rabbit, for example. Let's check the power and fuel economy of the Rabbit and Mazda 3s. Mazda 3s: Manual 21/29, Automatic 22/29 Power/Torque 167/168 (from mazdausa.com) 0 to 60 mph 8.1 s Quarter Mile 16.0  86.3 (from Edmunds) VW Rabbit: Manual 21/30 Automatic 20/29 Power/Torque 170/177 (from vw.com) 0 to 60 mph 8 s (from vw.com) From the figures, the fuel economy is a wash between the Rabbit and the Mazda 3s, and performance (acceleration) is too! Where is the "squeeze out a few more miles per tank" you're talking about? I asked Karl on his blog about his opinions, and he felt the Mazda was slightly sportier while the VW was slightly more luxurious and felt more "substantial". His Mazda 3 comments were in reference to the previous-gen Mazda 3. Based on the facts/figures and the driving impressions (from Edmunds' chief editor, Karl), it is obvious that the Rabbit (and any of its direct competitors) haven't "leap-frogged the new Mazda3s" in any areas! [The Rabbit has considerably more torque, but that hasn't resulted in more performance or torque.....the Mazda 3s has some features the Rabbit lacks, eg, dual-zone A/C and adaptive headlights!] BTW, the Mazda 3s also has a 6-spd manual and an automatic with manual-shift mode just like the Rabbit!...... So, you are the one who is refusing to see that the Mazda 3s is not behind its direct competition in any way!
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hatchbacks Mazda3 2010 Mazda3
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Mazda MAZDA3
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
