Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Mazda3 Real World MPG

191012141548

Comments

  • heel2toeheel2toe Posts: 149
    The 3s AT only had a 4 speed transmission through MY 2005. I don't own one of these, but forum postings seem to validate that it was reving a lot on the highway, and that probably contributed to uninspiring MPG numbers.

    The 2006 3s AT comes with a 5 speed, which seem to make the situation better.
  • z71billz71bill Posts: 2,000
    My last tank -12.6 gallons 235 miles = 18.65 MPG -

    Mostly city - 90% of the time AC was on -

    just to compare -

    Filled up my Tahoe (5.3L V8) today - 23.9 gallons 429 miles = 17.95 MPG mix of city & highway - AC on most of the time.

    So my 4 banger Mazda3 is getting almost 3/4 of a mile per gallon more then my full size SUV!
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,406
    "Really? What are the fuel efficiency numbers for the Accord? According to Consumer Reports the 2.0L Mazda3 has respectable overall fuel economy; unfortunately CR does not provide statistics for the 2.3L Mazda3. "

    Reading my full post would have made it clear that I was referring the the 2.3 vs the Accord. :shades: :)

    Yes the 2.0 is more efficient (that is why I would like to see it in the hatch). While the 2.3 does OK getting mid 30's on the highway, CR got the auotmatic Accord at 38 mpg on the highway (manual should do better still) and the manual 3i at 42 mpg on the highway.
  • autonomousautonomous Posts: 1,769
    Yes the 2.0 is more efficient (that is why I would like to see it in the hatch). While the 2.3 does OK getting mid 30's on the highway, CR got the auotmatic Accord at 38 mpg on the highway (manual should do better still) and the manual 3i at 42 mpg on the highway.

    Interesting. Is there a particular reason why you post the highway numbers and not the overall MPG? Consumer Reports shows only the overall MPG on its website; that's where we find the Accord 4 cyl. EX gets 24 mpg compared to the Mazda3i 2.0L at 27 mpg.

    There are two reasons I can think of that the Mazda3 2.3 litre is used in the hatch: a) the hatch is a heavier vehicle (between 150# and 200# I recollect) and b) the hatch is considered a step up from the sedan. This may be a carryover from the previous generation Protege sedan and hatch; the hatch, i.e. the Protege5, was the most expensive of the bunch.

    I agree with you that Mazda should reconsider its offerings in light of the escalating fuel costs. A lighter vehicle with a more fuel efficient engine sounds like a winning formula to me.
  • waygrabowwaygrabow Posts: 209
    "I agree with you that Mazda should reconsider its offerings in light of the escalating fuel costs. A lighter vehicle with a more fuel efficient engine sounds like a winning formula to me."
    I just refueled my Mazda3s yesterday, 434.1 miles and 12.0 gallons, for 36+ mpg. Seems like a fuel efficient engine to me. With 160 HP I do wonder if this car couldn't use a 6-speed transmission and slightly lower (numerically) gearing to reduce rpms and further improve gas mileage. But that would probably increase the price. It has great handling for an economy car. Now that my car's A/C is finally functioning, it has everything I wanted. Although I have been thinking about AWD.....
  • nifty56nifty56 Posts: 279
    autonomous, what was the problem with your A/C? what was done to it to now finally function. was it weak?
    thanks
  • sandman46sandman46 Posts: 1,798
    The wife says hers is weak also. What was your fix?

    The Sandman :confuse:
  • papito289papito289 Posts: 1
    I am consistently getting about 18-20 mpg with my 2006 2.0AT in 50-50 city/highway (230-270 miles per tank). I am quite disappointed with these numbers, although once I got almost 32 mpg on a long highway trip averaging 75mph. I always make sure that my tires are at 32 psi. Any ideas on how to improve gas milage? Is it worth contacting Mazda about this?

    Thanks
  • duff333duff333 Posts: 41
    Filled up for the second time and got 429/11.5 = 37.3 MPG. Probably 75/25 highway/city. I drove a little more spirited this time as the odometer hit 619 miles (1000 k)about 2/3 into this tankful. My "highway" is interspersed with some stop and go on Baltimore's beltway but overall I have spent more time cruising at 60-65 than normal.
  • autonomousautonomous Posts: 1,769
    autonomous, what was the problem with your A/C? what was done to it to now finally function. was it weak?

    Absolutely nothing wrong with my A/C, nifty56. :)
    I think you wanted to address your question to waygrabow.
  • waygrabowwaygrabow Posts: 209
    Congratulations on the excellent mileage. My impression is that the manual trans. gives much better mpg than the automatic, but it may just be that people who experience a lot of stop-and-go driving prefer the auto. I know I would for those conditions.
  • z71billz71bill Posts: 2,000
    I have read the posts from waygrabow for a long time - his MPG is fantastic - I know at one point I thought maybe he had gotten a car with an odometer that registered kilometers (rather than miles)!

    If I convert the miles on my last tank (235) from miles to kilometers I get 378. It took 12.4 gallons to fill up so I am getting 30.5 KPG.

    Just does not seem fair - his car gets more miles per gallon than mine gets kilometers per gallon.

    BTW - I know kilometers per liter is more common (than KPG) so lets not get to technical.
  • cticti Posts: 134
    I have a 2005 Mazda 3 with the 4-speed automatic. The EPA rating is 24/29. I get 25-26 MPG in my typical commute driving - 6 miles to work with several (spirited) accelerations on the urban highway from 25-65 or 0-65 if I am stopped by the stoplight.

    On long, mostly highway trips at 70-75 I get 29-30.

    I can't really complain that I get EPA ratings, but a 4-cylinder engine in a compact getting less than 30 MPG is just wrong.
  • peteb2peteb2 Posts: 2
    2006 3i Touring 5-speed:

    tank 1: 27 mpg (mostly short city trips plus some spirited backroads driving)

    tank 2: 34 mpg (75% interstate, 25% short city trips)

    tank 3: 39 mpg (90% interstate, 10% backroads)

    tank 4: 32 mpg (100% interstate, including a 20-minute crawl due to an accident shutting down the highway)

    I'm fairly certain that tank 3 was not a complete fillup, but the pump kept shutting off. I noticed that the gas gauge didn't read way above full like it usually does, and tank 4 seemed to use the 1st quarter-tank unusually fast. Assuming that tank 3 was actually a gallon short of full, that would still give it 36 mpg, with tank 4 at 35 mpg.

    Also, tanks 3 and 4 were with 4 people in the car, plus the trunk was packed to the gills with luggage.

    All around, I'm pretty happy with the mileage!
  • lrivera72lrivera72 Posts: 1
    Hi all, I have a '06 3i Touring w/MT. So far the gas mileage has been good but also puzzling. When I drive in the city (I live in Fort Lauderdale, FL) I shift almost exactly as the manufacturer would recommend for ordinary driving and I actually pull off 27 mpg (Note, I shut the engine off during long idling). This is only one mpg off the EPA estimate so I am very please with my city mileage. This is especially good for me since I commute only 8 miles to and from work. And no, it is not a blessing because it takes a half hour to and from :)

    However, when I drive on the highway I am used to getting at least 5 mpg better than in city from all the previous cars that I have owned. In pure highway driving I average 28-30 mpg. Now, I do drive pretty fast on the highway. I average probably 75-100, and run away from toll booths as fast as I can as if being chased by the cops ;) I get better mileage if I kept speed in check, but my old '96 Mazda 626 ES V6 AT would get the same mileage w/similar driving on the highway. My current '04 Mazda Miata MT gets about 33 mpg when driving highway in the same fashion. I can get 40 mpg on the highway when I drive rationally ( < 70 mph average).

    My question to you guys is, those with the 2.3l engine, does gas mileage suffer as much as mine (2.0l engine) with higher engine speeds on the highway?
  • mazdaboy2mazdaboy2 Posts: 12
    Here's the MPG data from my first 3 (almost) months with the car:

    March 2006 (729 mi): 31.7 mpg
    April 2006 (1399 mi): 35.2 mpg
    May 2006 (1475 mi) : 36.3 mpg

    The miles have all been pretty consistent: about 80% hiway, on cruise 63 mph where possible, and the rest short trips and stop-n-go congestion. The increase toward the end is probably mostly due to warmer weather - my last 2 cars had the same pattern. I admit I have been driving conservatively to maximize mpg, to see what it would do. I have not used A/C yet (but it's time to start). It seems possible that it could get 40 mpg in a pure hiway trip on cruise 63. I'm happy, since this is only maybe 1 or 2 mpg less than my 98 Protege.
  • bruce6bruce6 Posts: 29
    I've been averaging about 24 -- up to 28 or so when I do a lot of highway driving, down to 20 when I'm doing all city driving (in San Francisco). One thing I've noticed that isn't helping: The engine is so much quieter than my last car, a 2001 VW Golf 2.0 liter, that I sometimes belatedly realize I'm in a lower gear than I thought I was -- and could have upshifted and saved myself some gas. So I suspect as I recalibrate my ears, my mileage will improve at least a bit. But it's such a kick to drive a car with some oomph (the VW with the 2.0 liter in the Golf is not exactly a kick-[non-permissible content removed] engine), I don't mind the mediocre mileage.
  • sandman46sandman46 Posts: 1,798
    Our mileage isn't spectacular but I still get a smile on my face when the wife lets me drive her 3. I've never had a car that shifted so smoothly and is kick [non-permissible content removed] fun to drive! She plans on keeping the car now, so I've got my sights set on a Civic LX, which we'll buy within the next 2 weeks. Just not bowled over by the 3i and the 2.0 engine.

    The Sandman :)
  • duff333duff333 Posts: 41
    3RD fillup with a good dose of highway driving netted 35.3 MPG. A little lower than last tank at 37.3 but still above the sticker. I do agree with SANDMAN46 that the 2.0 is a bit weak, especially off the line, (and compared to my previous a ride '98 Buick Regal GS)but I really do enjoy driving the car. I just have to remember that I can't blast through a merge situation like I did with the GS.
  • bradford1bradford1 Posts: 7
    I am far from unhappy with the performance of my Mazda 3 2.0 MT. Its 0-60 and quarter-mile times are almost identical to my 1987 Alfa Romeo Milano V6, which when I bought it new in Europe, was considered to be among the fastest small sports sedans in the world. The Mazda 3 does not have the 132 mph top end of the Alfa, however.
Sign In or Register to comment.