Mazda3 Real World MPG

shipo · January 2010

Yeah, both of my BMWs were capable of mileage nearly as good as my two liter Mazda3, in spite of the fact that they had roughly 50% more power and weighed quite a bit more as well. The thing is, BMW needs to build their cars to get good mileage at speeds well over 100 MPH, and as such, my bet is that the EPA tests are run at speeds below where BMWs get their best mileage. Case in point, my 530i was able to return 24 miles per gallon at 120 when I had it on the Autobahn, I seriously doubt my Mazda3 would get that kind of fuel economy at 100.

Best regards,
Shipo

whobodym · February 2010

I succeeded on the very first fillup with my new 2010 MZ3 GS 5dr at getting a good reading of the furthest I would ever want to go on a tank, but still completely depend upon (a desire which has led to 1 or 2 fiascos on previous new cars for me). The range computer was down to 3 miles. The gas gauge bar graph had zero squares lit up, and had for a few miles. The auto shutoff on the gas pump tripped at 14-point-something gallons but I was then slowly able to nurse in (slow and steady, not click-click-click) 16.1 total gallons. The car ran perfectly all the way to this point. No need for more experimenting, it holds its advertised capacity.

shipo · February 2010

By trickle feeding your tank you've effectively overfilled it to the point where the emissions system will be unable to do its job properly. FWIW, had you run your tank dry and then filled up to the point where the pump clicked itself off, you would have gotten the advertised capacity, said another way, the trip computer will show a Distance To Empty of 0 when there are roughly two gallons left in the tank. That said, it is a bad idea to actually use those last two gallons as they are necessary to cool the in-tank fuel pump. Long story short, 14 gallons per tank is about all you should be able to use without harming the car in one way or another.

smoothsailin · February 2010

24 mpg at 120? Was that result obtained at 120 mph or 120 kph? I could believe 24 mpg @ 120 kph, but would have a hard time believing 24 mpg @ 120 mph.

Note that I also own a BMW convertible
'99 323ic w/170 hp 2.5L I-6, 5-speed manual, w/~190k miles.

As much as I enjoy driving my Bimmer my 3i (2.0L 148 hp I-4, 5-speed manual) spanks it soundly in the mpg department. While my 323 does pretty well for what it is and I generally average ~30 mpg with it when driving conservatively, the highest average for a tank I've had so far was in the 31-32 mpg range. On the other hand when commuting between home and work in my 3i I'm averaging in the 39-40 mpg range during the winter months and 40+ when outside temperatures are mild-to-hot.

shipo · February 2010

Yes, 24 mpg at 120 mph (my 530i was a U.S. spec European Delivery car).

Both of my 5-Speed BMWs (a 1999 328i and a 2002 530i) were able to consistently return 33-35 mpg on the highway, and per many-many reports (as well as the EPA rankings of the day), the 323i was unable to achieve the fuel economy of the larger engined 328i and 530i. Why? Primarily due to the much taller gearing of the cars with the larger engines.

Best regards,
Shipo

roadburner · February 2010

My 1995 318ti returns 31 mpg at 80 mph, but fifth gear is direct which means it's turning 4000 rpm at that speed.

autonomous · February 2010

Interesting but I must agree with shipo that this is not good experiment in determining fuel economy. Depleting a gas tank and overfilling one are both not wise; it's like choking and then stuffing your face. Also, one fillup does not a fuel economy rating make. The simpler way is record the amount of fuel you have used and the distance you have travelled in a year and then do the math. The average will be a more realistic measure of your driving style and the car's fuel economy performance.

whobodym · February 2010

thanks for the comments, and I tend to agree. cooling of the fuel pump makes sense -- note I didn't go past Range = 0, so I did have your claimed 2 gal reserve. Plus it was pre-dawn January Pacific NW. I imagine the pump thermal specifications are laid out based on a Phoenix summertime case, or at least they better be. My intuition on emissions control of an overfull tank is that the major issue is potential expansion. That then would be a worry foremost when the temperature in the underground tank at the gas station is much lower than the temperature the gasoline then reaches in the car. The riskiest thing is a very short trip from gas-up to parking inside in a warm garage. I always drive a minimum of several miles after gas-up, and all my usual parking places are outside, cooler, and not a fire or fume risk. So I think I'm not going to get near any worst case.
Side anecdote: I was sole owner and driver of 97 Integra for 177,000 miles, and probably drove 30-40 miles with yellow gas warning light on, one hundred or more occasions. Doing this would cause an added appx +1 sec of cold-start cranking time, but no other discernible effects. The car was sold last week never having had any fuel pump problems, ever. Any reason to think that Mazda's pump engineering is less robust than Honda's?

whobodym · February 2010

and about MPG, that's another subject. my only point was trying to get a solid confirmed value of the tank capacity in gallons. my experience with Honda products (several) was that they did NOT quite really have their claimed usable tank capacities.

shipo · February 2010

Side anecdote: I was sole owner and driver of 97 Integra for 177,000 miles, and probably drove 30-40 miles with yellow gas warning light on, one hundred or more occasions. Doing this would cause an added appx +1 sec of cold-start cranking time, but no other discernible effects. The car was sold last week never having had any fuel pump problems, ever. Any reason to think that Mazda's pump engineering is less robust than Honda's?

Apples to oranges. The low fuel warning light comes on with roughly four gallons before a dry tank, and that gives you plenty of time to fuel up prior to dipping into the last two gallons that are used as coolant for the pump. FWIW, high pressure fuel pumps for fuel injection systems work hard and can even overheat in the arctic if they aren't properly cooled.

Best regards,
Shipo

autonomous · February 2010

In the latest issue of Consumer Reports the Mazda3 s ranks 6th in the hatchback list. The VW Golf TDI is top dog. CR's recommendation is in part due to the Golf TDI's reliability, handling and excellent fuel economy (with a CR rating of 38 mpg combined city-highway). Compare this to the Mazda3 hatchback with a 25 mpg fuel economy rating by CR. These ratings are highly valued as CR is an independent and authoritative source.

blueguydotcom · February 2010

Having owned both Mazdas and VW/Audis in the recent past (current Audi owner), this is the #1 reason I didn't get a VW/Audi. I dug the TDI. It's a nice, comfy, powerful, efficient, really upscale feeling car. But it's a VW/Audi product and in my experience owning a few (including right now), I couldn't bring myself to go there again.

My Mazda3 may get lousy gas mileage (22 MPG - 90% freeway driving) and have a bunch of design flaws (the trunk release mechanism for one) but I am confident it will turn on and run. Can't say my wife feels the same about her Audi.

autonomous · February 2010

VW/Audi product and in my experience owning a few (including right now), I couldn't bring myself to go there again.

In the past, Consumer Reports heard the same concerns from its membership and so marked it with a record of poor reliability. But the latest news is that VW has heard the din of complaints and corrected the situation.

What VW/AUdi product and model year do you /your wife drive?

There is, of course, another aspect to the story and that is dealership service. My understanding is that VW is not known for stellar service but perhaps I am spreading unwarranted rumours. How do you find their service record compared to that of Mazda?

blueguydotcom · February 2010

2006 Audi and it's still goes in for issues - though we're about to transition to a local mechanic others suggest we use. Regardless it just left warranty 6 months ago and until then it supposedly had 4 years/50k in "free" maintenance bumper to bumper. The reality - only oil changes and one transmission service was covered. Every other problem was declared normal wear and tear (interior parts breaking, trim coming off, light bulbs going out). This mirrored my experiences with VW when I had an included maintenance program before (different dealers).

My experiences with Mazda were always pleasant but they didn't have a "included maintenance" program like our Audi (and previous VWs and our BMWs/Mini). I only had one warranty issue with my last Mazda. No issues on my new one.

I really love the feel of Audi/VW cars but their dealer service and lack of warranty support is so disturbing when compared to BMW/Mini that it's tough to accept going back to being treated like a fool for asking that peeling, ripping, breaking parts aren't covered by a warranty.

blueguydotcom · March 2010

Still getting horrendous 22 MPG average with mostly freeway driving. This car gets worse mileage than anything we've EVER owned (several BMWs, a Protege, Cooper S, Jetta, A3).

roadburner · March 2010

Still getting horrendous 22 MPG average with mostly freeway driving.

Wow. My 2007 MS3 averages about the same- and gets @26 mpg at a steady 80 mph. Do you think there's a problem with the car?

autonomous · March 2010

Do you think there's a problem with the car?

Ditto.

22 mpg for primarily highway driving is significantly lower than what has been advertised by Mazda and what has been found by independent tests both by the government and by Consumer Reports.

I would check for obvious problems (signs of excessive or strange tire wear, suspicious engine sounds, etc.). At your next service, I would raise the issue and see what they find. Expect to hear that mileage is affected by driving style including aggressive driving and short stops.

:confuse:

goose · March 2010

I bought a 2010 5 door GT with 24 miles and currently have 1600 miles. I'm getting 30 MPG driving 70 MPH with the last two tank fills. I'm loving the car. I to thought of buying the Golf TDI but I just didn't trust the whole VW record as reported by CR. Plus absolutely no price discount for TDI's. Also the latest TDI has lots of smog control equipment and I had no desire to be a test subject. Oh and about the tires I make sure that the tires are not more than 32 psi cold temperature. Initially the dealer had set my tires to 33 psi and with day time heating the tires would get noisy. A drop to 32 psi made a difference in road noise.

smoothsailin · March 2010

2005 Mazda 3i (2.0 L w/5-speed manual) purchased 3/1/05

Totally stock and no repairs or issues what-so-ever to-date. I even still have the original Toyos and brake pads on the car, but am planning to replace the Toyos in May by ~ 75k miles.

72,121.2 miles/1,858.45 gallons = 38.81 mpg (average)

Note: since the second year of ownership It's been relatively normal for me to average 40+ mpg in spring, summer and fall months, and in the 38-39 mpg range in mid-December through early March.

$4,620.78 spent for gas to-date (all regular grade & mostly Shell).

$.0641/mile (average cost for fuel per mile)

Just goes to show it's not necessary to pay thousands of additional $$ to purchase a diesel or hybrid for relatively economical vehicle operating costs.

I'm still so glad I chose my 3i's 2.0 L mtx over a similarly equipped 3s with the 2.3 L. Imo the gap between the two cars in real-world mpg results may be significantly greater than differences in the cars' EPA ratings would seem to suggest.

dudleyr · March 2010

That is a very efficient combo - 2.0 with mtx. Wish they offered it in the hatch. Kinda silly that you can only get the hatch with the 2.3.

smoothsailin · March 2010

A friend in the Mazda 3 Forum recently posted that Mazda now offers the hatch equipped with the 2.0 L as a base model...in Canada. He has one of the early model ('04) hatches equipped with the 2.3 L and 4-speed automatic. His gas mileage is very poor in winter (commonly falling in the mid-teens) but he's able to manage 30 mpg on the highway as long as cruising speeds are fairly conservative and outside temperatures are mild-to-hot.

I might have purchased a hatch instead of my sedan if Mazda had offered them with the 2.0 L and mtx. I've still been very satisifed with my sedan though since I also have owned mini-vans for my wife to drive which can carry larger items as needed. The 3i serves primarily as my commuter vehicle.

blueguydotcom · March 2010

Everything sounds normal. It's uncanny as I'm on the freeway within a minute of leaving my house and almost every drive is freeway. No AC. Tire pressure is fine. Everything appears normal. Steady cruise at 70 it's registering low to mid-20s on the automated computer. At each fill up I do the math and stare at the numbers like it's a trick. How can my wife, who does way more stop and go, is all about wind sprints in her A3 get 25-26 MPGs but I can't crack 23 doing mostly freeway 10+ miles each direction to work?

Frustrating.

No currently planned trips to the dealer as the first oil change isn't for some time.

smoothsailin · March 2010

I can understand your frustration. Sadly, yours is a familiar story similar to quite a few others I've read over the past 5+ years with regard to poor fuel economy with Mazda's 2.3 and 2.5 L engines. Which researching differences in the 3i and 3s before making my choice complaints of relatively poor fuel economy with the larger engine ended up convincing me to forgo some of the extra "flash" of the 3s in exchange for evidence of more economical operating expenses with the 3i. I've never regretted making that choice.

I'm also sorry to say I wouldn't get my hopes up for a "quick fix" from the dealer. Time-and-time again I've read where owners have been told by dealers that "it's normal" or "it must be due to how and where you drive".

Unless you car throws a trouble code/check engine light I would not get my hopes up that the dealer will do anything to improve your situation.

Good luck with it in any case...

roadburner · March 2010

I guess that the six speed box in my MS3 salvages the mileage to some extent. Regardless, there is no way I'd sacrifice the car's 287 bhp(iI have the Mazdaspeed Cold air Intake) in exchange for better fuel economy.

shipo · March 2010

"Regardless, there is no way I'd sacrifice the car's 287 bhp(iI have the Mazdaspeed Cold air Intake) in exchange for better fuel economy."

I've found that I've needed to be careful with comments like that; so many folks absolutely believe the urban myth that a CAI improves fuel economy. :P

Best regards,
Shipo

roadburner · March 2010

I've found that I've needed to be careful with comments like that; so many folks absolutely believe the urban myth that a CAI improves fuel economy.

I know; I've heard "experts" on a couple of the Mazda boards claim that adding a CAI "leans out" the engine and thus improves fuel economy. Maybe their cars run open loop 100% of the time... :P

shipo · March 2010

There's a guy that claims an improvement from 28 mpg to 34 mpg on a 2008 Mazda3 s Automatic over on the Mazda board that I frequent. I challenged him and he got nasty so I created a new thread over there called "CAIs and Fuel Economy; what's the real truth?" The thread garnered so much activity that it got "Stickied" to the top of the General Tech group.

I don't remember if it's still against the Rules of the Road to post links to other forums here in TownHall, so I sent you a PM with the links.

Best regards,
Shipo

roadburner · March 2010

There's a guy that claims an improvement from 28 mpg to 34 mpg on a 2008 Mazda3 s Automatic over on the Mazda board that I frequent.

The TH Jeep Liberty forum had a guy who made similar claims from simply using a K&N drop-in filter. I also called him on it and -big surprise- he called me an idiot. Things got really hysterical when a couple of gullible members bought K&Ns and then reported no change in their truck's fuel economy. He went so ballistic that he got banned and ALL of his posts on TH were deleted. :P :P :P

igozoomzoom · March 2010

When Mazda introduced the 2008.5 "refresh", the Canadian market got a base GX 5-door with the 2.0L engine. It was pretty basic in standard form (15" steel wheels, manual windows/locks, no rear spoiler) but they offered an option package that included power windows/locks, 15" alloys, and most basic convenience items. A/C was also optional.

The Canadian version of the 2010 Mazda3 also includes a 5-door GX model with the 2.0L engine. Power windows/locks are standard, but items like cruise control, steering wheel audio controls, side sill extensions, TCS/DSC, or even alloy wheels are not available. A/C remains optional on the GX, but it's standard on the two higher trim levels- GS and GT (along with the 2.5L engine).

I wish Mazda would offer a 2.0L Mazda3 5-door to the U.S. without sacrificing the sporty look (rear spoiler, side sill extensions, 17" alloy wheels). The fuel economy of the 2010 MZ3 i 4-door with the 5-speed automatic averages about 4mpg better than the 2.5L with 5AT and the performance is still decent (0-60 in 9.4sec). The 2.0L/5-speed manual combination has always been sprightly (0-60 in 8.6sec in the 2010) and returns over 30mpg average.

My 2006 MZ3 s 5-door (2.3L/5-speed manual) averages 24-25mpg overall and 90% of my driving is highway. I tend to drive around 75mph on the highway, which doesn't help. But I've also set the cruise at 65mph for a 200-mile trip and the trip computer showed 27.2mpg average.

I love my MZ3, don't get me wrong. But the Accord I had before it (2.4L 160hp and 5-speed manual) would cruise at 75-80mph on the interstate all day and never drop below 31-32mpg! And it was almost as quick, despite being a larger, heavier car....

smoothsailin · March 2010

I feel the difference in real-world fuel economy results obtainable by Mazda's 2.0 L vs. 2.3 L engines is greater than 4 mpg.

Four years ago due to a death in the family I made a relatively rare highway trip in my 3i from my home in Chesterfield VA to carry my Mom to Spartanburg SC in mid-February. As I recall I drove with the cruise control set at 70 mph for most the trip which was was almost all driven on I-95 and I-85. When I filled up in Spartanburg the result was 379.3 miles on 9.629 gallons for 39.39 mpg.

Note that the difference in our results is far greater than 4 mpg even though my average crusing speed was 70 mph, or 5 mph faster than the 65 mph you claim was driven for 200 miles in your 3s.

39.4 mpg - 27.2 mpg = 12.2 mpg difference

12.2/39.4 = a 31% improvement.

When I keep average cruising speeds in my 3i mtx around 65 mph in light winds results in the 41-42 mpg range are no problem, even more when I don't engage the cruise control. The cruise tends to tweak the throttle up and down almost constantly based on observations of throttle position sensor readings on my ScanGauge. I get better results when I forgo the cruise control and drive w/fairly steady pressure on the throttle.

smoothsailin · March 2010

On second thought, an increase of 12.2 mpg above a 27.2 average represents a 45% improvement (12.2/27.2 = .4485).

smallcar1 · March 2010

I rented both the 2010 3I and 3S. For very similar trips I filled up at the same pump at the same station (for both cars) and got 37 with the I and 33 with the S. These trips were almost identical 85% highway with no traffic and 15% city late at night with no traffic but lights and stop signs in Brooklyn.

I also picked up and dropped off the S in Manhattan. The S's trip computer, which I reset when I got the car, showed that I go 26.8 MPG in the 107 miles I drove the car. Subtracting the 72 miles where I measured the 33MPG means that I got 19 MPG during the other 35 miles which included driving on the streets of Manhattan and Brooklyn and going to some highway going from brooklyn to Manhattan.

blueguydotcom · March 2010

Wow, that's horrendous. Mazda has a great chassis with the 3 (and I say that coming from BMWs and a Mini) but man they're really far behind when it comes to gearing and engine design. I can't understand how they still make a 2.5 liter that a) doesn't have 200 HP (like the ancient 2.4 liter engine in the TSX) and b) gets sub 30 MPG on the freeway cruising. Odd.

smoothsailin · March 2010

Although Mazda's 2.0L and 2.3L engines apparently share a lot of parts, the larger engine is equipped with internal balance shafts. Cylinder bore dimensions for both engines are identical (the 2.3L has a longer stroke).
I've always wondered if the addition of balance shafts may increase internal friction and inertia considerably compared to the 2.0L which lacks this feature.

I filled up yesterday and the result was 551.1 miles / 12.882 gallons for 42.78 mpg.

Still glad I chose the 2.0 L and I wish Mazda would offer the same powertrain in the Mazda 5, 3i and 3s series with a six-speed manual.

smallcar1 · March 2010

On the part of the trip that was open highway I got 33 MPG with the S, with the I it was 37 MPG. It was not a bad tradeoff if one is more interested in the significant power increase of the 2.5.

smoothsailin · March 2010

Agreed. However, if my primary reason for choosing an s over the i was performance, I'd probably pay the extra $$ for a MazdaSpeed 3. Based on what owners have reported, it seems to me that driven conservatively a Speed 3 may be almost as fuel-efficient as a normally-aspirated 3s with the 2.3 L or 2.5 L engines, yet performance-wise the Speed3 is in another league. Of course, if you must have an automatic transmission a MazdaSpeed 3 won't be an option.

I'll also submit my opinion that the ~4 mpg difference you cited for highway mileage results between 3i and 3s models may in fact be greater in mixed-driving conditions. Based on what I've read those who own a 3i don't seem to suffer as great a drop in mpg as do most 3s owners in city driving conditions.

In any case, how the cars are driven has the greatest effect on fuel economy. I've read reports from 3i owners who say they don't top 20 mpg for city driving in winter conditions. Contrastingly, over 5+ years I've never calculated a tank average under 32 mpg in my car and these days it's very rare for me to have one come in under 37 mpg. However, I know full well this would not be the case if I drove the car more aggressively and if I didn't conciously avoid taking short trips in it as much as possible.

shipo · March 2010

With just over 25,000 miles on my 2009 Mazda3 i Touring 5-Speed, I've rarely recorded a tank under 30 mpg, and when I did it was because I was really beating on it. Errr, that is except for the tank that was consumed when I was teaching my 16 year-old son to drive a stick. Start-lug-lug-GO! Start-lug-lug-stall. Stall. BURN-OUT!

Best regards,
Shipo

roadburner · March 2010

However, if my primary reason for choosing an s over the i was performance, I'd probably pay the extra $$ for a MazdaSpeed 3. Based on what owners have reported, it seems to me that driven conservatively a Speed 3 may be almost as fuel-efficient as a normally-aspirated 3s with the 2.3 L or 2.5 L engines, yet performance-wise the Speed3 is in another league.

Lately I've been trying to drive my MS3 is a somewhat more sedate manner(it's not easy, let me tell you :P ). In mostly suburban driving the car is getting 25-26 mpg. Not bad, especially in light of the available performance.

smoothsailin · March 2010

Interesting you should bring up teaching your son how to drive in your 3i shipo. A few days ago my wife asked if I'll be ready to turn over my 3i to our daughter when she gets her license in a few years (she's 13 now).

Can't say I'll be looking foreward to turning my "baby-ed" 3i over to her when (or if) the time comes. I can still remember the "joys" of teaching my wife how to drive a stick in my Toyota Celica not long after we got married! The feel and sound of my Celica's engine chugging in 5th gear after she turned off the highway and into her parents' driveway are with me still.

Obviously I agree that getting a 3i mtx's fuel economy to drop below 30 mpg is possible, but isn't likely to happen unless you're driving the car fairly hard or have been making a lot of short trips.

The training of novice drivers would also constitute "reasonable cause" as well.

shipo · March 2010

He-he, we've got a 13 year old daughter as well, so her turn at the controls of the 3i are likely gone to come around as well.

smallcar1 · March 2010

I don't drive a stick and in NYC traffic I would still want an auto even if I could drive a stcik. My concerns are good enough pickup, a good ride and good visibility. The Mazda3 seems by far to be the nicest compact but the 2010 does seem to ride a bit harder than the 1st generation, I think which gives me second thoughts about whether I should get it. To me with the AT the 3I seemed a little underpowered for passing and was barely adequate for merging but was not totally gutless with an AT like the Elantra. The 3S had plenty of power in all situations. If there was a big differece in MPG I think I woud go with the 3I. Also, in the 2010s the brakes were noticeably better in the S model. My driving is mixed in that I only drive on weekends and am sometimes in traffic on the streets or highways but come home later at night with no traffic.

roadburner · March 2010

My son has decided he wants my 1975 2002A for "his" car. That works for me. Cheap and easy to maintain, inexpensive to insure, and heavy-duty bumpers to protect the sheetmetal...

andres3 · March 2010

What issues exactly have you had with Audi. My 2006 A3 has been "nearly" perfect, and although Audi has a lot of exclusions in their warranty, I've developed a great relationship with Miramar Audi, and they've kept me covered (if hesitatingly).

Could it be because you bought the car used and it was abused early in its life? I'm always distrusting of used cars for that reason of the previous owner probably raping it and under-maintaining it at the same time.

shipo · March 2010

After living in most of the metropolitan areas in the U.S. with the "worst" traffic congestion (and working in a few others in Europe and Asia), I really don't understand comments like "I don't drive a stick because of traffic." Once you learn to drive a manual transmission the whole process becomes so second nature that it seems as if the darn thing shifts itself anyway; the only real difference is that it always shifts exactly when you want it to.

As far as the Mazda3 is concerned, I've rented a few Automatic Mazda3 s models, and there is no question that my 2.0 liter 5-Speed is noticeably quicker. Geez, better power and better economy, what's not to like?

blueguydotcom · March 2010

Car was in perfect shape when purchased (1 year old and perfectly maintained by an OCD couple). These people had meticulous records and their house and garage were insanely neat. Like they weren't human. I've never felt better buying a used car from someone. And considering the loss they took I still feel we practically stole the car.

We've had windows fail, trim fall off, trim bubble and today my wife got home and told more lights had gone out (the car eats them - interior and exterior). Prior to October of 09 we mostly had trim issues with her Audi. Now mechanically, we're getting hit with bigger bills.

As for Miramar: they're like a luxury car dealership from another era - just slimy. They rarely fixed anything under warranty, always wanted to charge for the most niggling things and were awful to deal with every time we made an appointment. It's hard to imagine a dealership/manufacturer being much worse. After 7 years of dealing with Cunningham BMW (everything is just fixed and they're so awesome to deal with) and even the clowns at Brecht Mini going to Miramar is like visiting a third world country. When I was looking for a car we drove a Golf TDI at Miramar and while I liked the car my wife insisted we couldn't buy from them as you just leave their dealership "dirty." With Miramar off the list, finding another Golf TDI was tough and I felt uncomfortable going for yet another VW product.

In the end there's not really a good VW dealer in SD and only one Audi dealer; I got the Mazda3 (Hine of course) as my experience owning them has been pretty simple: they seem bulletproof compared to German cars. The car's solid. interior good enough. Chassis is great. Engine/tranny not so good - really archaic actually.

blueguydotcom · March 2010

You're killing me. I had to get an automatic this time (leg issues) and I so miss the control of a manual (even in bumper to bumper). I really think it's the automatic that's playing hell with my mileage. No more coasting, no more shifting smoothly to a higher gear for better economy, no more power for corners...just the automatic eating away at a good chassis.

BTW, last fill-up: 21 mpg. 95% freeway this time. Checking the tire air pressure tomorrow.

smoothsailin · March 2010

Although turning over an older vehicle to a teenage driver may make financial sense, an older vehicle's lack of safety equipment including air bags (front, side and side curtain), ABS, ESC (electronic stability control), etc. could make the difference between driving one of them home after an accident or having to make arrangements at a funeral home.

My kids won't get a brand-new car when they start driving, but I will insist that they end up with a late-model vehicle that has good frontal and side crash ratings and at a minimum is equipped w/front and side airbags, ABS and ESC. Since my '05 3i lacks ABS, side air bags and ESC I doubt if I'll choose to turn it over to my daughter when the time comes even though it will be less than 10 years old by that time.

Saving a few $$ by turning over a vehicle that lacks most of the safety features required as standard equipment today to one of my kids would not be worth the risk to me.

I remember some of the things I did in my teens and early twenties while driving my '67 VW Beetle. I count myself lucky to have managed to survive all of them!

smoothsailin · March 2010

While I agree that driving a manual becomes second nature once you gain experience, I'll also admit that on the (thankfully) rare occasions when I get caught up in heavy stop-and-go traffic I quickly tire of having to deal with the clutch. Not so much due to the extra effort involved, but because of my dislike of having no choice but to slip the clutch so much. I've yet to find it necessary to replace the clutch in any of my cars and would prefer to keep it that way.

If I had to do most of my driving within a large metropolitan area I'd probably end up a hybrid, fully electric car or a conventional vehicle equipped with an automatic even though I realize driving one w/a manual would be more fuel efficient.

Thankfully, I live in a rural area and commute to an office located in the suburbs of another county. While I wish the commute was less (~27.5 miles one way), in general it's usually a fairly painless experience otherwise.

roadburner · March 2010

Although turning over an older vehicle to a teenage driver may make financial sense, an older vehicle's lack of safety equipment including air bags (front, side and side curtain), ABS, ESC (electronic stability control), etc. could make the difference between driving one of them home after an accident or having to make arrangements at a funeral home.

I prefer to concentrate on the safety of the driver rather than the car. My son will be attending the BMW Performance Center Two-Day Teen School as well as the Street Survival one day course. And, since I am a BMW CCA instructor for Street Survival as well as their other driving schools, my son will receive additional seat time under instruction. Even though my son is eight months away from receiving his learners permit, he is already being taught important concepts such as the friction circle, weight transfer, trailing throttle oversteer, threshold braking, situational awareness, and the principle of ocular driving. In my opinion, the biggest safety factor is the person behind the wheel.

My kids won't get a brand-new car when they start driving, but I will insist that they end up with a late-model vehicle that has good frontal and side crash ratings and at a minimum is equipped w/front and side airbags, ABS and ESC. Since my '05 3i lacks ABS, side air bags and ESC I doubt if I'll choose to turn it over to my daughter when the time comes even though it will be less than 10 years old by that time.

Wow, I guess I should ditch my 1995 Club Sport as well; it only has front airbags and ABS. And my 1999 Wrangler doesn't even have ABS! I'm driving my loved ones around in a couple of virtual death traps! I shudder at the thought...

Saving a few $$ by turning over a vehicle that lacks most of the safety features required as standard equipment today to one of my kids would not be worth the risk to me.

I'll tell you what, I'll give you my name and phone number to my local Social Services office. When I give my son the keys to the '02 you can call them and report me.
Deal?

:P

blueguydotcom · March 2010

Road, I tell all my coworkers to enroll their kids in street survival and look for programs that teach their kids how to handle extreme circumstances in a controlled environment. They act like I'm telling them to teach their kids how to speed. Argh. They don't seem to get that a teen can safely learn more about a car on a track in a day or two than she can learn doing several months of straight forward road driving.

If my kids gets an 8 year old car he should thank his stars.

Mazda3 Real World MPG

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles