Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
240 miles on 7.3 gals = 32.88 mpg
100% hwy (90% cruising 60-80 mph & 10% stop-n-go), no A/C
first time i saw my fuel economy exceed 30 mpg. made me a happy camper!
The Mazda3 is geared for performance over efficiency - plain and simple. That's not to say it's not a fuel efficient car. It is - especially for the amount of performance it affords. It's exceptional, in fact, for its performance level. Hope that makes sense.
If you're looking for a reliable fuel efficient hatch - something like the base Toyota Matrix (30/36MPG) or the new Honda Fit (33/38MPG) are going to be the way to go. However, they're a snooze to drive compared to the Mazda3.
I've got the 3S-GT Sedan (hey! no more sedan bashing now!! )and love it. There's no other car on the market that performs this well, with these amenities (Leather, Xenon HID's, Automatic Climate Control, Navigation, etc.) at this price point.
I drove the 2.0 3i when test driving and could have lived with either engine. There's a noticeable performance boost going to the 2.3 but it's not like the 2.0 is a slouch. The new Civic seemed like it was draging a bucket 'o lead compared to the 2.0 3i.
First fill up after 396.4 miles. 12.37 gallons.
32.05 MPG
60% Highway/40% City
Not too shabby. Still babying it, of course, while it's in the break-in period.
so as you can see, the fuel economy of the 2.3 is not bad at all. and it's a full on blast to drive especially on winding roads! you can carry some serious speed through corners!
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
Mark
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).
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.
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.
The 2006 3s AT comes with a 5 speed, which seem to make the situation better.
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!
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.
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.
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.....
thanks
The Sandman :confuse:
Thanks
Absolutely nothing wrong with my A/C, nifty56.
I think you wanted to address your question to waygrabow.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
The Sandman
-85-90% City drive.
-Extreme heavy city stop and go NYC traffic.
-Extreme daily traffic jam.
-Always the fastest on the road if possible (Hard Acc + Hard Brake): 40~50 MPH Local (30 Limit) and 85+ MPH highway (40~50 Limit)
-AC always on Max cool, Level 2~3 fan.
-2~4 pessangers.
I don't think I can get nor I expected to get the EPA 26/32 rating since I'm running 80% 600 ft stop & go in the city. And the worst is Mazda has put the "Zoom Zoom" curse on my car, and can't slow down anymore. :P
The dealer filled it up during the final test drive so I ran around town with that, along with some freeway jaunts just because this thing's a kick to drive.
Last Monday was the first day my fiance' was going to be driving the car for her commute...which is why this car was purchased. She had been driving my 02 Chevy Avalanche for her 80 mile/day roundtrip commute...we both tired quickly of sending the oil companies close to $300/month.
So, I filled up the 3 on Sunday in preparation for her commute Monday. It only had 176 miles on the tank and took 6.3 gallons to fill. Being that first half tank was about 50/50 city/hwy, I'm very pleased with a 27.95 mpg return.
Here's the results of her first full week commuting...which is about 20/80 city/hwy.
382.2 miles/12.143 gallons = 31.47 mpg
These are exactly the kind of numbers I was hoping this car would achieve. Actually, they're a little bit better since the car isn't even broken in yet. And we ended up getting the 3s which has the bigger engine.
I do think the new 5 speed auto in the S model is contributing to the good mileage returns on this car. Since we live in Florida, most of the time the A/C is running. And when she's commuting, it's usually at 80 mph. With the 5 speed auto, the car is only taching about 3k rpm's at those speeds.
In a word...SWEET! We both absolutely love this little car. It's a blast to drive, very good mileage even with the auto (and downright quick too I might add), and fit n finish is comparable to cars that cost twice as much. Mazda hit a homer right outta the part on this one
Went to the dealer 5 times, and they said was that I needed to break the car in. They then told me that I need to put 7500 miles on the car to see the advertised mpg.
This is false advertising on the part of Mazda. I would never have bought this vehicle if I knew this was the case.
Anyway, I am going to see what happens after 2500 miles, then if no change, I will trade it in.
By the way, I would like to sue both Mazda & the Dealer.
If you wanted a car with great gas mileage, why on earth did you buy a Mazda man? They can't match Toyota's & Honda's for mileage. This coming from a person who's wife drives a '05 Mazda 3s and who just bought a Civic LX this past Monday. I wanted great mileage, so I passed on the 3i 2.0 liter and got the 1.8 liter in the Civic.
Did you do any research before buying the car at all? The 3 is a fun car to drive but mileage is not it's strong suit. Suggest you chill out for awhile and your mileage will improve a bit to where you think it should be. And you also need to use your brains here also...all EPA figures are just ESTIMATES done under perfect driving conditions...nothing like real life driving!
The Sandman
Went to the dealer 5 times, and they said was that I needed to break the car in. They then told me that I need to put 7500 miles on the car to see the advertised mpg.
This is false advertising on the part of Mazda. I would never have bought this vehicle if I knew this was the case.
Anyway, I am going to see what happens after 2500 miles, then if no change, I will trade it in.
By the way, I would like to sue both Mazda & the Dealer. "
Did you ever hear of the term your mileage may vary? You can't sue them.
And when they talk about city driving, they aren't talking about NYC traffic.
What did you get in your last car?
If the Honda Civic really gets 7 mpg better than the Mazda you should buy it; that would be 42 mpg. We never got near that with our Civic EX, more like 27 mpg, but that was an automatic trans.