Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mazda3 Real World MPG

1568101132

Comments

  • madvey333madvey333 Posts: 4
    06 Mazda 3 i touring
    5,000 miles now and averaging 30 mpg on roughly a 50/50 split

    On anther note and posted in the wrong forum. After driving, espically after longer distances, when I stop and the car is idle, there is a low key buzz that will go away when I start moving again. I think i read in another post that this may be the power steering, Can anyone explain?

    Other than the buzz have had no problems and my mpg has gone up slightly as i break the car in
  • path4path4 Posts: 24
    Does your 4R really get 18/23 ? If it does, I say, keep it. People mentioned Matrix. As a matrix owner, I can tell you it gets about 20mpg for city driving, and I don't drive fast. My pilot can get as low as 11mpg. Real life mpg is a big myth, especially for local driving. One should be glad to achieve the local EPA mpg on highway. My pilot always does that, but my matrix sometimes does not. Anyway, I have my eyes set on the MS3.
  • duff333duff333 Posts: 41
    Good morning all. Just purchased a 3i Touring with the 5-speed. In rather conservation driving during the brakin period and about 65/35 highway driving I got 33.75 mpg on 324 miles at 9.6 gals. Not bad! The 2.0 offers a great balance between performance and mileage. Hoping to come close to these numbers in the future - - we'll see!

    Mark
  • jerchrijerchri Posts: 6
    I do notice a buzz similar to what you describe while idling as well. It gets a bit louder as I turn the wheel, so it makes sense that it's the power steering. For me it's present the second I start the car.
  • chiefjojochiefjojo Posts: 39
    Does your 4R really get 18/23 ? If it does, I say, keep it. Yes. 18 with 100% city driving and 23 with 100% highway driving, but I probably average only 19 or 20 in mixed driving. It's not only the improved mileage I want... also would like to get my payments down on a cheaper, efficient, fun, practical, and hopefully just as reliable car --> that screams HATCHBACK!. I walk to work so I don't really need a large vehicle expense right now, and I have been a fan of the 3 hatch since it came out. The 4R is great for some things like camping, off-roading and I can sleep in the back, but I rarely do those things, and the price of gas has me thinking about downsizing. If there existed a Mz3 Hatch 2.0 manual with SABC I'd buy it today.
  • autonomousautonomous Posts: 1,769
    If there existed a Mz3 Hatch 2.0 manual with SABC I'd buy it today.

    Actually that sounds like the previous generation Mazda Protege5 2.0. Still lots of fun to drive and for far less cash. It is also highly rated for reliability and delivers 25 mpg overall according to Consumer Reports (and according to my calculations).
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,444
    "If there existed a Mz3 Hatch 2.0 manual with SABC I'd buy it today. "

    Add ABS and I would also buy one today. As it stands Mazda is not even on my short list. The 2.3 uses too much gas (the Accord even does better ) and I want a hatch or wagon.
  • autonomousautonomous Posts: 1,769
    The 2.3 uses too much gas (the Accord even does better ) and I want a hatch or wagon.

    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.
  • bradford1bradford1 Posts: 7
    Most recent fillups: April 14, 5.48 gallons, 199 miles, 36.31 mpg, 85 percent highway, 15 city; April 25, 5.67 for 167 miles, 29.45 mpg, 75 percent city, 25 highway; May 3, 4.98 for 166 miles, 33.33 mpg, 70 city/30 highway; May 12, 5.88, 183 miles, 31.12 mpg, 40 city, 60 highway. Overall for first 2285 miles, 66.24 gallons, 33.5 mpg.
  • waygrabowwaygrabow Posts: 211
    When I read about the Mazda3 S not being fuel efficient, I am left wondering what is going on. With over 30,000 miles on my 2004 MT, it is averaging about 35 mpg. The lowest mpg it has recorded in the past year was about 34 mpg. The first tank full of gas gave 30 mpg and efficiency quickly improved from that point. On 100% highway it has achieved 39 mpg. I routinely drive 400+ miles between fillups and, on the highway, think I could go over 500 miles. Before you start thinking I drive like grandma, explain my two speeding tickets last year (that has slowed me down). Yes, I avoid stop and go; I have a commute route on county roads that has few stops and averages 45-60 mph, but my wife also takes the Mazda to the mall. People may not achieve the same results that I do, but the car does not inherently have poor fuel efficiency. By the way, I have a neighbor who has a 2005 Mazda3S MT and averages 34 mpg. He drives alot on the interstate and maintains higher average speeds than I do.
  • 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: 3,444
    "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: 211
    "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: 211
    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.
1568101132
Sign In or Register to comment.