Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Mazda3 Real World MPG

1…1415161820

Comments

  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    edited February 2012
    If the Skyactive w/6 speed manual only turns around 2k rpm in 6th at 65 mph, then the final drive ratio is considerably higher than what the other cars get. Although I'm still very satisfied w/my 3i after nearly 7 years, I just may have to swing by my Mazda deale for a test drive of a 3 with the Skyactive package myself! Actually, I wonder if the Skyactive's new 6-speed manual could prove to be a basic bolt-in swap for my 3i, for I'd REALLY like to see what mpg improvement could result from significantly taller gearing.

    I just read where the recent purchaser (Tuesday) of a Skyactive-powered 5 door posted on the Mazda3 forum that after ~ 130 miles the computer in the car was reporting 31.1 mpg (and rising) based on a mix of city & hwy driving.

    Of course it's way too early to draw conclusions from this, but just for comparision the lowest tank average (of 216 tanks) I have calculated for my 3i since purchase was 32.55 mpg after the 1st fillup based on 303.0 miles & 9.308 gal. Of course, I had no way of knowing for sure if the dealership fully topped off the tank in my car before delivery. Including the miles driven during my initial test drive, my car was only showing ~ 25.5 miles on the odometer when I took delivery.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Just from the jist of your comments I would assume you drive very conservatively with an eye toward MPG enhancement. The report you read from a Skyactiv owner may be from someone that drives a whole lot different than you. So, like you said, it is way too little data to draw any kind of a conclusion from. From what I've been reading it seems that these new smaller 40mpg cars have to babied pretty good to get the estimated MPG numbers. I assume wind might affect these cars a fair amount more than a heavier car but that is just a guess.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    edited February 2012
    You're right in assuming that (most of the time) I tend to drive conservatively. Another factor in my favor is that have a fairly long (~ 27 mile one-way) commute to work. I also plan my driving to avoid short trips as much as possible since I've come to realize how much they can negatively affect mpg-particularly in cold weather.

    I also failed to mention that for first few tanks of gas after purchasing my car I didn't drive as conservatively as normally do now since I was using the lower gears more and varying engine rpm often during the break-in period.

    One of the best investments I've made was the purchase of a Scangauge II several years ago. Observing the various measurements this device is capable of displaying taught me a lot about how to drive more efficiently. It still amazes me just how much difference a slight and nearly imperceptable lifting of pressure on the throttle at steady-state cruising speeds can make in the instantaneous mpg calculation.

    In case you'd be interested in seeing the results I've had w/my 3i, all of my car's mpg calculations per tank since purchase may be viewed at

    www.brianbauer.org

    See results for 2005 Mazda 3...2.0L...manual transmission for Chesterfield VA.
  • jdigjdig Member Posts: 5
    edited February 2012
    We've had our 3 for just over a month now. It's the i with Skyactiv motor (GT model with 6 speed auto trans). We are getting about 32 mpg in mostly city driving (based on the computer). Based on manually calculating by miles between fillups - I am calculating about 30 mpg. Not sure which is more accurate but I think it's safe to say I must be getting in that ballpark. I am very pleased with those numbers. It's not getting Prius mileage - but it's so much quicker and responsive than Prius (or Insight for that matter). So while it doesn't get the absolute hghest mileage - I think it's a very good compromise of comfort/features/mileage for the price paid. I don't really see anything in this price range with features that come close - leather, NAV and Bose system for under $23K - all while getting about 30+ mpg in the city. Also - having a CVT in my other car - I really like that Mazda stayed with the regular automatic tranny. Many others (like the Impreza) have gone to the CVT in order to improve mileage - somehow Mazda figured out how to work around that ...
  • woochiferwoochifer Member Posts: 32
    "Can anyone with the SkyActive technology give me any idea what kind of mpg your getting so far? Is it anywhere near the hight 30's, nearly 40mpg the EPA says it gets?"

    Accounting for just the highway portion of my commute with a Skyactiv Mazda3i Touring hatchback, I regularly hit 38+ MPG, and that's with two sizable grades along the route. Of course, that's using the trip computer and my pump calculation is normally ~2 MPG below the trip computer's calculated average.

    My first few tankfuls have been averaging 31-34 MPG in mixed driving (mostly highway), but with the last fill up I calculated 36.5 MPG.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    edited February 2012
    Thanks for posting your early impressions and fuel economy results idig and woochifer!

    Idig,

    Compared to the results I've seen posted by most owners of "conventional" Mazda 3i automatics, as expected your results for mostly city conditions seems somewhat superior. I'm also curious what rpm your automatic's tachometer may register at 60 mph in top gear?

    Woochifer,

    Does your car have the manual or automatic and if it has the manual, what rpm is registered on the tachometer at 60 mph in top gear?

    I'm also curious where each of you live and what the weather conditions & average morning & afternoon temperatures may be in your areas since cold temperatures tend to cause mpg results to take a hit-particularly when the average trip distance may be less than 10 miles.

    Based on my experience your mileage can be expected to improve over the first few thousand miles.

    Thanks again!
  • jdigjdig Member Posts: 5
    I'll take a look tomorrow at the RPM on my commute to work and let you know what it reads at 60 mph. Needless to say with the news of gas prices going up again - I am pretty happy with those numbers. My last couple of cars have had high power V6 engines (TL and Maxima). While you can't beat the smoothness and power of a good V6 - the mileage has been around 21 mpg in mostly city drivingin both cars. 10+ more miles per gallon is significant!
  • woochiferwoochifer Member Posts: 32
    edited February 2012
    "Does your car have the manual or automatic and if it has the manual, what rpm is registered on the tachometer at 60 mph in top gear?"

    It has the AT, and at 60 MPH the engine is spinning at about 1,600-1,700 RPM. Unlike the AT that comes with the MZR engines, the engine rev speed matches the road speed very closely with the Skyactiv AT. The weather conditions have been mild where I live, so it's typically in the mid-40s in the morning, and 60s during the day.
  • fisher2013fisher2013 Member Posts: 2
    At 65mph I'm doing just below 2k in 6th gear. I bought the iGT model with an automatic back in December. I've put 3k miles on it so far. I did a lot of highway driving right off the bat and averaged around 37-38mpg doing 75mph. My commute in town is almost all slow city driving with a lot of cold starts, especially in the morning. My first two full city tanks both got me around 24mpg. My most recent tank I got 26mpg, but I threw in some highway driving where I could. My commute is short, so my car barely has time to fully warm up each way, which added to the cold outside temperatures (Ohio) is probably why my mpg are on the lower end. My car fuel avg. says 31mpg over the course of the entire 3k miles.

    A few things I've noticed about the car:
    1) On cold starts, the engine sounds loud when you first start it. I've read this is it increasing the fuel/air mix to try and heat up the engine quicker.
    2) When it's anything below freezing out, the engine does take a decent amount of time to heat up. My previous car, a 1998 Nissan Maxima warmed up much faster. I'm guessing this has something to do with less friction in the engine causing less heat but getting me more mpg.

    Overall I love the car. I drove a manual before this, but I don't miss it so far. The transmission is incredibly smooth and seems to always pick the correct gear. The Bose stereo is also very impressive for only having 265 watts. The ride is sporty enough without being uncomfortable and the overall feel of the car is that it's solidly built.

    The one warning I will say is that the dealerships seem to just be getting the oil filters in. I changed the oil at 3k and the dealer initially gave me the wrong filter, assuming all of the 2.0 engines had the same filter. NOT the case, so just make sure before you pull the old filter that you have the correct one.
  • jdigjdig Member Posts: 5
    Ok - probably close to the last poster but this is what I saw today:

    50 mph - 1500 rpm
    60 mph - 1750 rpm
    65 mph - 2000 rpm

    I agree with woochifer comments regarding cold starts. Once it warms up - it's much quieter and smoother. I don't really see any change in the MPG if I push it hard or am gentle on the gas. I really like that. On some prior cars it felt like if you accelerated quickly you could almost see the gauge move. Also - I don't notice any less power when the A/C is on - seems to accelerate just fine with it on or off ...
  • chessterchesster Member Posts: 15
    edited February 2012
    I purchased my Skyactive Mazda3 GT (automatic transmission) on 11/12/2011. I live in central NJ but I work in Maryland so I’m on the NJ Turnpike and I95 twice a week. Mileage is roughly 60% highway 40% city. When on the highway I set the cruse to 70 and leave it at that. The data below shows my experience so far; I fill up at the same station and at the same pump every week.

    Date   AVG. MPG
    11/12 37.8
    11/20 39.7
    11/27 38.4
    12/04 37.8
    12/11 37.6
    12/18 38.8
    12/26 38.2
    01/02 38.2
    01/08 37.3
    01/16 37.7
    01/22 33.9
    01/29 38.6
    02/05 38.0

    On that 01/22 date I think I just messed up - I was distracted at the pump that day.

    As of today 2/8/2012 the odometer reads 4783 and the avg. MPG on the dash reads 38.6

    Chesster
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    edited February 2012
    Thanks for sharing your early impressions and mpg results woochifer, fisher13 & idig. I find your comments very enlightening and am hopeful someone who's purchased a SkyActive package with the 6-speed manual will also chime in eventually.

    My 3i's 2.0 L engine is also louder immediately following a cold start, however I wouldn't say it's unusually loud in comparison to other 4-cylinder engines. I have always felt that immediately after a cold start the engine's idle speed seemed to be unnecessarily high though, so if your SkyActive engines rev similarly high this might explain your "engine louder when cold" observations. Once warm my 3i's engine is very quiet at low rpm, but can turn somewhat "boomy" as engine rpm rises. I generally keep rpm under 3k since it's unnecessary to rev the engine higher unless stronger than normal acceleration may be called for for merging in traffic while entering the freeway, passing slower vehicles on two-lane highways, etc.

    Although I generally prefer driving a manual transmission vehicle-and still feel my 3's manual is a joy to use, based on your observations the new automatic engineered for the SkyActive package sounds like it could be a gem. By comparison, I haven't been favorably impressed by posts I've read from owners of Mazda 3 vehicles equipped with the conventional 4 or 5-speed automatics.

    I'm still curious how the gearing of the SkyActive's 6-speed manual compares to that of the 5-speed in my car since my main complaint about my 3i's running gear is that the overall gearing in 5th is unnecessarily low and allows the engine to spin way faster than necessary at cruising speeds. I see ~ 2.5k rpm at 60 mph and over 3k rpm past 70 mph in my 3i. If the overall gearing was 20-25% higher I wouldn't be surprised if I could consistently produce 40 mpg averages per tank of fuel. A few years ago while I was on vacation in June and was making a lengthy drive to the coast I took my time and managed to score a 53 mpg average over 200 miles while driving in nearly ideal conditions (i.e. on mostly flat roads in light traffic and with v/little wind). By limiting cruising speeds to between 53-55 mph and being very careful to maintain light, steady pressure on the throttle I was favorably impressed by the results my car was capable of producing. Of course, in the real world it's simply not possible to get away with limiting yourself to such cruising speeds on the highway w/o risking "road rage"!
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    edited February 2012
    Your results are impressive Chesster, although based on the increased EPA mileage ratings for the SkyActive package, frankly I thought they might be higher. Your results with your SkyActive automatic almost mirror what I generally get with my '05 3i w/5-speed manual. Of course the 40% city miles probably have been working against your highway driving results. Also, I've feel the cruise control in my car tends to be overly sensitive and have found I'm able to improve my car's mpg when driving on the highway by not engaging the cruise-especially when the terrain may not be relatively flat. Of course Mazda may have improved the cruise control since my car was built.

    During one of the only long mostly interstate road trips I've taken in my car (from Chesterfield VA to Spartanburg SC) in February almost six years, I generally maintained 5 mph over posted limits (generally 65-70 mph) w/the cruise engaged ~ 90 % of the time and calculated ~ 39.39 mpg during the 379.3 mile drive using 9.629 gal. Note: these results were with two persons and a trunk full of luggage in the car. Of course I would expect your car should produce even higher results under similar conditions.
  • chessterchesster Member Posts: 15
    I have more detailed data that I will post in table format later.
  • chessterchesster Member Posts: 15
    edited February 2012
    Can't get the table to load properly.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Your results are impressive Chesster, although based on the increased EPA mileage ratings for the SkyActive package, frankly I thought they might be higher

    38mpg avg for 40% city/60% hwy is excellent so why would you expect higher? That is an average...not just hwy miles and it's well above the EPA estimated average.
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    As of today 2/8/2012 the odometer reads 4783 and the avg. MPG on the dash reads 38.6

    Curious that the 38.6 overall average seems higher than the average of your list of weekly averages. According to the list, the average appears around 37 mpg (which is great). Have you kept track of the gallons of gasoline consumed?
  • chessterchesster Member Posts: 15
    Yes, that was part of the data I wanted to show in table format but I just can't get it to display properly on this forum.
  • chessterchesster Member Posts: 15
    This table is what I intended to post in my original message; this is probably the best I can get it to look:

    Odmr = mileage reading on the odometer
    Miles = mileage traveled that week
    Gallons = final amount of gas topped off by the attendant
    First MPG = calculation using Gallons as the input
    Pump = amount of gas when the pump stopped by itself
    Second MPG = calculation using Pump as the input

    Dates    Odmr    Miles    Gallons    MPG     Pump      MPG
    11/20     434     424.0    11.221    37.8    1st fill-up; not accurate
    11/27     806     372.1    9.378     39.7    
    12/04    1208    402.1    10.460    38.4    10.413    38.6
    12/11    1587    378.2    10.013    37.8    9.977    37.9
    12/18    1958    371.3    9.871     37.6    9.675    38.4
    12/26    2346    388.3    10.013    38.8    9.907    39.2
    01/02    2702    355.7    9.312     38.2    9.153    38.9
    01/08    3071    368.9    9.882     37.3    9.649    38.2
    01/16    3467    396.2    10.517    37.7    10.517    37.7
    01/22    3834    366.3    10.806    33.9    I did something wrong here
    01/29    4227    393.0    10.186    38.6    10.073    39.0
    02/05    4607    380.2    10.003    38.0    9.925    38.3
  • whobodymwhobodym Member Posts: 190
    being a compulsive gas purchase recorder in a self-serve state, and owning 2 Mazdas (2006 MZ5 and 2010 MZ3 2.5) I can add that both my cars have a very significant difference between the fill amount, stopping at first pump auto-shutoff, compared to the last drib that can be nursed in, especially if you run the pump very slowly. And especially if you're parked slightly nose-down and left-side-down on a slope. It is on the order of 2 extra gallons -- I have sometimes driven more than 100 miles with the gas gauge still reading absolutely "F". I know I know, this risks gasoline expansion and leakage, harming air quality if not actually risking conflagration. I can't help it. Anyway, this leads me to conclude MPG calculations of most if not all cars and their gas purchasers, may well be varying randomly due to this factor, and require long-term averaging to get accurate MPG numbers.
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    very significant difference between the fill amount, stopping at first pump auto-shutoff, compared to the last drib ... especially if you're parked slightly nose-down and left-side-down on a slope. It is on the order of 2 extra gallons

    Like you, I frequently fill beyond the shut off. There is a cautionary note about this from the EPA.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    edited February 2012
    I agree that chesster’s average 38.6 mpg is quite good m6user. However, keep in mind that the EPA ratings for a Mazda 3 equipped with the conventional 2.0 L engine w/5-speed manual (same as my car) are 25/33, compared to 28/40 for chesster’s car w/the SkyActive engine & 6-speed automatic. I assume you will agree that the higher (by 3 mpg city and 7 mpg highway) EPA rating for the SkyActive package is significant.

    My comment was based on the fact that I’ve also been able to average 38.6 mpg with my 3i’s conventional 2.0 L engine & 5-speed manual (results based on all tanks purchased over 7 years and 92k miles), and if you assume these results reflect mostly miles driven on the highway you would be wrong.

    I’ve been employed by the same company for 25 years and have driven a ~55-mile/day (~27.5-mile one-way) commute between my home and office since purchasing my 3i on March 1, 2005. Only about ½ of my commutes are driven on freeways, with the balance made up of ~25% suburban streets/highways and ~25% rural roads. During each drive (one-way) I pass through at least 17 stop-light intersections and two 4-way stop intersections (more when I may take alternative routes).

    I’ve been able to average 5.6 mpg above my car’s 33 mpg EPA highway rating. So that’s why based on the SkyActive’s 40 mpg hwy rating I thought the car’s real-world results would be higher-even though 38.5 mpg IS quite good and considerably higher than the results I’ve seen posted by most Mazda 3 owners who drive cars lacking SkyActive engines and transmissions.

    I would not be surprised if chesster’s results climb a few mpg after more break-in miles, and as temperatures rise and gas blends are revised for warmer weather conditions. By summer I hope chesster will be calculating tank averages above the EPA highway estimate of 40 mpg for his car.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    edited February 2012
    I also have realized that w/time and patience it's possible to add another 1/2 gallon, or more to our cars' gas tanks after the pump's shutoff device activates for the 1st time.

    For a while after purchasing my car I sometimes tried to fill the tank completely, but doing so was tedious and took too long. Also as others have suggested the owners manual recommends against doing so. So I stopped (gave up?).

    These days I try to fill up at the same pump and w/the car parked in the same position when I can. I also make a habit of only giving the pump one add'l squeeze until the the auto-shutoff device engages a 2nd time. While not perfect, doing so has seemed to provide fairly consistent mpg calculations for my car from tank-to-tank.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Yes, I think over time and with different temps averaging out he may well increase his average but not nearly as much as you might think. Keep in mind that he may drive differently than you and he has an automatic. Not everyone, even though they may drive fairly conservatively, may get the increase over EPA that you have because of the difference in the way they drive, terrain, temps, ethynol % in gas(many areas use year round and is only gas available), tire pressure, etc. Many people increase tire pressure to stupid amounts just to eke out another mpg. Not good for handling or the tires themselves.

    Just saying that I think your numbers are on the extreme side and few people probably care to adjust their driving to that extent. What's possible is not always what's probable.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    edited February 2012
    I have no argument with what you posted m6user, although for the record I do run higher than recommended pressures in my tires but don't exceed the tire manufacturer's maximum pressure listed on the sidewalls.

    I'll also mention that only negative I've had from doing so is a somewhat harsher ride. The original equipment tires that came on my car (16" Toyos) wore evenly during their entire service lives even though I only rotated them a few times. They also lasted longer than the o.e. tires that came on any of my other vehicles.

    When I finally replaced the Toyos all four lasted ~74,500 miles-and even then I believe they all may have had enough tread depth left to pass state inspection. Actually, the reason I replaced them then was due to what I thought was excessive noise. However, after replacing them I discovered the noise had been caused by the failure of a front wheel bearing on the driver's side. Thankfully, so far that's been the only component failure I've exprienced w/my Mazda over 7 years except for two headlights.

    For increased traction I do drop tire pressures in severe weather conditions (ice & snow), but on dry or wet pavement I've noticed little difference in traction with the tire pressure higher than Mazda's recommendation for my car (32 psi).
  • therocketmantherocketman Member Posts: 5
    Hey guys,

    I just bought a Mazda3 Skyactiv Hatchback in December and so far I am quite disappointed in the mileage. I live in Central California and my normal daily drive is a 60 mile roundtrip, of which 50 of those miles are HWY with the cruise set at 70 and no AC. That is around 80% HWY. With those numbers I average around 33 to 34 mpg per tank. I dont understand. Where is this 39 mpg hwy?

    Also, I recently took a trip and reset the avg mpg computer and after 200 miles of pure hwy driving at incredibly modest speeds (i am talking with the cruise set at 60! ) with no AC, the computer read only 36.5 mpg average.

    I supposed another reason why this is so frustrating is that my wife drives an '04 Corolla that is rated at 36 mpg hwy. That car consistently blows those numbers out of the water. You can easily achieve 36 with just 60-70% hwy while going 75-80 mph. And if you take it easy and go closer to 70 mph on a pure hwy drive, you break 36 every time getting 37,38, even up to 39.

    My only hope is that winter time is to blame. For my morning commute the temps are usually in the 30's. Could this be the reason? Any thoughts?

    Thanks.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    I can appreciate your disappointment in your skyactive's mpg results so far.

    Does your car have the 6-speed manual or the automatic transmission? Are the results you've posted coming straight from the car's computer, or are they averages based on actual calculations taken from your fill-ups (i.e. #miles driven / #gallons to re-fill the car's gas tank)? Also, have you experimented to see if your results might improve if you drive w/steady pressure on the gas vs. w/the cruise control engaged? Note: the cruise in my '05 3i is overly sensitive and tends to almost constantly tweak the throttle (based on observations of instantaneous fuel economy readings w/the cruise engaged).

    If as you've indicated most of your trips are relatively long, I don't feel the winter temperatures should make a huge difference-although winter fuel blends could play a factor.

    Thanks for sharing!
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    edited February 2012
    Yes, winter fuels can make a difference as well as lower temps. The cars usually idle faster until reaching op temp. Also, do you have hills/mountains in your commute. Your mpg really isn't that far off the estimates so only a couple of little things could be the reasons. Good idea on trying to drive carefully without the cruise and see if that makes a difference.

    You might also check your air pressure in your tires. Even though you've got a monitoring system they could still be less than optimal. Even putting in a couple of pounds over the recommended might help.
  • therocketmantherocketman Member Posts: 5
    First, thank you both for your input. I have not tried hwy without cruise yet so I will try soon. If it improves because of that I wont be much happier though cause I love cruise. I will also check my tire pressure. I reset the car comp. mpg calculator every tank in addition to calculating it on my own which produces similar results. My car is an automatic.

    As for your other questions, there are no hills at all. It is completely flat. But on the recent 200 mile rdtrip weekend I took there is a mtn. pass I went over. But in my experience roundtrips thru mtns have never negatively impacted fuel economy. On the contrary, in other vehicles I have owned, I have seen improved mileage with mtns involved.

    Another odd thing about the mileage is how different it is, according to the current mpg monitor, on my way to work versus on my way home. I average around 40-41 mpg every morning cruising at 70-75 on the way to work. But on the way home, at speeds of 65, the car comp. shamelessly displays current mpgs of ranging between 31-35. I have gone so far as to investigate differences in altitude and I will admit, where I live is higher. But only by 100 feet! Over 30 miles, I cant understand why the mpgs are so bad.

    Thanks again, guys.
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    edited February 2012
    my normal daily drive is a 60 mile roundtrip, of which 50 of those miles are HWY with the cruise set at 70 and no AC. That is around 80% HWY. With those numbers I average around 33 to 34 mpg per tank. I dont understand. Where is this 39 mpg hwy?
    80% of 39 is about 31 to 32.

    I recently took a trip and reset the avg mpg computer and after 200 miles of pure hwy driving ... the computer read only 36.5 mpg average.
    36.5 is about 94% of 39.

    In addition to the factors already noted, some others to consider are: engine needs to "break in", winter road conditions are not optimal, test period is too short, trip computer needs adjustment.

    Suggestion: Keep track of the gasoline used and your odometer reading; do a manual calculation of the mpg.
  • therocketmantherocketman Member Posts: 5
    Thank you autonomous. I should have specified that I do calculate the mpg manually at every fill-up.

    And you are right, 94% of 36.5 mpg is not bad. Possible my expectations are too high, but I do hope that on a pure highway drive at very modest speeds, I could get closer to the claimed 39 mpg hwy.

    As far as the engine needs to "break in", I also hope that this is the case. Its just that when I read posts like some of the others on this thread getting much better mileage than I am with brand new similar models, I cant help but wonder as to why I am not getting better results.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    edited February 2012
    I know exactly what you're talking about. In every vehicle I've had in the last few years I've been able to get 1-2, sometimes more, MPG better than the EPA estimated highway when driving straight freeway fairly conservatively. It sounds like you have experienced similar results. It seems these new, lighter 40mpg cars are having trouble getting those kind of results and it seems like all the factors have to be almost perfect to just reach the hwy estimate. Short runs of good mpg are great but extended hwy trips you hope to meet or beat on a consistent basis...at least I do.

    It will be interesting to see how all these cars do after the engines are well broken in and people have tracked some MPG over a long period and different seasons. Don't give up hope!
  • therocketmantherocketman Member Posts: 5
    Thanks for sharing. Its good to hear that someone else has similar experiences with cars and mpg. What do u drive currently?
  • fisher2013fisher2013 Member Posts: 2
    When I first bought the car (4 door, Skyactiv, Auto) I did long highway trips at 75-80mph and I was getting about 37-38mpg. I changed the oil at 3k miles with synthetic and went on a road trip last weekend. Doing the same 70-80mph (depending on speed limits) I got 42.5mpg. I think getting an oil change helps, as the first oil always gets "dirty" just from the engine being new.

    Also, I have noticed (like smoothsailing said) that the cruise control seems to always be using the gas. If you drive without it you can actually coast for bits, which gets you much better gas mileage. Try without the cruise control. If you love cruise control that much, then just live with a 1-2mpg penalty and call it a day.

    I did some research on mpg with new cars, since my in the city, cold commute was getting around 26mpg, and cars actually get their best gas mileage after 10,000 miles. So don't be too worried yet.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    I've got a 2007 Mazda6 i auto that I believe is rated at 32 hwy and if I am going around 75-80 on a long trip it gets right at 32 or 33. If I do 65-70 it will bring in 33-34. And if I really am not in any kind of hurry and go 60-65 I can get 35-36 out of it. I also have a little older SUV V6 and P/U V8 and usually get about 1-2 over the hwy mpg estimates on a longer trips but I tend to use the Mazda for those if I can. I find on the SUVs and P/Us that high MPH really affects MPG because they are not very aerodynamic and really push the air instead of slice through it like the more recent car designs.

    If I go on a long trip I track my hwy mpg but on a normal basis I just keep track of a few tanks of gas a couple of times a year to make sure the average is maintaining. On a normal basis I probably drive about 60city/40hwy and it will vary from tank to tank and that's why I usually track 4-5 tankfuls to get a decent average. I am not a hypermiler by any means either as it seems I'm in a hurry about half the time. :sick:

    Now, when I get a new car I do as many of you are doing. I track it very carefully for the first 6 months. Never had a problem meeting or beating the EPA numbers even under the old pre-2008 methodology.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    edited February 2012
    Sure seems strange why you seem to be getting significantly better results at higher cruising speeds in the morning vs. at lower speeds in the evening. Since you say the roads are relatively flat, do you know if there may be a prevailing wind direction during the routes you're using which could mean you may have a tail wind in the morning and may be facing a head wind when the route is reversed during the drive home? Since the skyactive package includes relatively tall gearing, I could understand how the engine will need to work harder when having to climb grades and combat a head wind. Still, the loss of 5+ mpg despite lower average cruising speeds and (I'm guessing) higher outside temperatures in the afternoon sure seems weird. :confuse:
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    edited February 2012
    Fisher2013's results seem more in line w/what I was expecting to hear reported by more skyactive owners than we've heard from so far.

    An average of 42.5 mpg at 70-80 mph cruising speeds is very respectable and exceeds the car's 40 mph EPA hwy rating. Of course why other skyactive owners don't seem to be doing nearly as well w/their cars is of course a mystery. As some have suggested tire pressures could make a difference. I've learned from experience that pressures even slightly below the mfg's recommendations can cause mpg to drop like a stone, while higher pressures can improve results more than some might think. I generally run my car's tire pressures at ~ 40 psi and the only drawback I"ve noticed is a stiffer ride.

    It may be possible that some versions (sedans?) could have slightly better aerodynamics than others (5-doors). However, I wouldn't expect the difference would be THAT significant.

    I also doubt if simply changing the motor oil & filter would explain the improvement fisher2013 noticed, but I agree that mpg can improve as the engine loosens-up over the first 10k miles. My 3i's average improved from day one over the first 10k miles, and continued to improve with add'l miles until my results seemed to plateau in the mid-38 mpg range after ~ 50k miles. I've tracked all of my car's fill-ups since purchase and even when I've replaced the engine oil with higher, or lower viscosity motor oils I've never noticed a consistently demonstrable improvement in my car's results.
  • therocketmantherocketman Member Posts: 5
    I have looked into wind direction before and it is never consistently blowing any one direction nor is it very windy here anyway. I will go a few thousand miles more using the cruise and then I will try the next few thousand without and see what happens. I will also check the tire pressure. I hope that I will get results like fisher2013's soon.
  • whobodymwhobodym Member Posts: 190
    It was a stranger's car, but he was right there getting out, so I just asked him. He showed me, the trip computer said average MPG was 35.0. If the calibration of the meter were exactly the same as my '10 2.5L 3s, true MPG is a little higher, 36 or 37.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    edited April 2012
    I recently ran across a youtube video posted by mpgomatic where they tested a Mazda 3 Skyactive over 800 miles.

    Their results showed the car was capable of producing 45 mpg at a target highway cruising speed averaging 68 mph w/the cruise control disengaged.

    This result is more in line with what I thought the car s/b capable of, based on results I've seen with my 3i's conventional 2.0 L over seven years. A few years ago I managed to get 626-miles out of one tank for an average of 46.7 mpg. However doing so required the use of hypermiling techniques plus considerable patience while limiting highway cruising speeds to no more than 60 mph.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP6ObxL_pgc
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    edited April 2012
    That sounds about right. Under ideal conditions I can get 38-40 mpg at that speed on my Sentra, which is EPA rated 34 mpg highway. So 45 mpg on a 40 mpg Skyactiv under ideal conditions should be doable. CR got 43 mpg highway on their Skyactiv 6AT tester.
  • chickraechickrae Member Posts: 44
    Went 275.5 miles. 7.5 gallons of gas. Figuring it was 36mpg. Went 75-80 the entire trip. Do you get better gas mileage if you don't use the cruise control or if you do. I used it most of the way, after I got out of some traffic.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    edited April 2012
    It depends on how good you are at really keeping a steady, easy speed yourself. If not, it could even be worse without the cruise control. I could probably get a smidgeon better mpg "by foot" so to speak but if on a long trip it just isn't worth the difference. It's nice to be able to move the right foot around and wiggle your ankle. If you got 36mpg driving that fast I would think you could get around 40mpg going 65. The possible increase by not using cruise would be negligible.
  • chickraechickrae Member Posts: 44
    edited April 2012
    I am not good at keeping the same speed on my own. I find myself speeding. Especially in this new mazda because it's so quiet inside....much quieter than the mustang convertible I just traded in. When it's quiet, I tend to go faster because it doesn't seem like I am going that fast. I am better off using the cruise, but I was just curious if it helps on the gas mileage.

    Maybe next trip, I will stay at 65 and see if it increases the mpg. I am actually really happy with the 36, compared to what I used to get in my other vehicles.
  • smoothsailinsmoothsailin Member Posts: 73
    edited April 2012
    If the terrain is relatively flat, I've found that I can only do a little better mpg wise by driving with a steady foot vs. using the car's cruise control. However, if the terrain is up and down w/the cruise engaged my car tends to accelerate up hills and decelerate down the other side. In such situations using the car's momentum to my advantage improves mpg significantly. The cruise in my 3 is overly sensitive to slight variations in the car's road speed. The cruise control operation in my other vehicles (Toyotas and a Kia w/automatic transmissions) don't appear to be as sensitive.
  • chickraechickrae Member Posts: 44
    I did notice the sensitivity in it, especially when going up and down hills. On the hills I took the cruise off and just tried to keep the same speed. I am wondering if shifting it into "manual" would help with the hills and mpg? I have that and don't know how to use it.
  • farkle0079farkle0079 Member Posts: 9
    I've had a 5 door Mazda 3 Skyactiv auto for a month now and have been getting 38mpg commuting to and from work (50mi round trip) in the Bay Area (traffic jam in the morning, crusing at 70mph in the evening).

    Going from the Bay Area to Sacramento this past weekend I got 42-43mpg driving 70-75 (mostly 70). I find that the trip computer "avg" is about 1-1.5mpg low.

    Overall I'm extremely pleased considering I came from a 2012 Elantra that could never break 32.5mpg driven the same way (my relatives took it to southern california a week ago and they couldn't break 32.5mpg doing highway only either).
  • chickraechickrae Member Posts: 44
    ah the bay area....love that place...grew up there.
    38 is really good. I did a trip from where I live to Lake Powell, AZ and round trip I got 38 to 39. I love this car.
    Was about a few days away from buying a 2012 Elantra when I learned about the skyactiv in the Mada. I am glad I didn't buy the Elantra.
    Did you purchase your Elantra new and then when it didn't come close to the 40mpg...you sold it or traded it?
    I asked the salesman at the Hyundai dealership about the Elantra not acheiving the 40mpg as advertised. He said he had never heard anyone complain that they weren't getting it.
    Do you feel like the mazda handles the road better than the Elantra.
  • farkle0079farkle0079 Member Posts: 9
    I purchased the Elantra new at the very end of July 2011. I was convinced by four family friends that also had 2012 Elantras to get it. The "40mpg!" sticker really blinded me from the car's faults when I first bought it.

    10k miles later and never coming close to 40mpg I sold it to my relatives (who know fully well what they're getting).

    Sounds like that Hyundai salesman is lying to you. When I took my Elantra in for service at the dealership and told the salesman who sold me the car he told me he had heard a good amount of the same and to contact Hyundai USA and that they'll "take care of me" (which really meant they'll send you a letter saying "too bad, sucks for you"). Out of the four family friends that own Elantras, only one has ever reached 40mpg, and that was driving horribly slow (50mph) on I5. None of the others have ever broken 35mpg.

    The Mazda drives incredibly better than the Elantra. For one, the transmission is WAY smoother. It also doesn't downshift two gears at the slightest tap and jerk you around like the Elantra does. The Mazda's speed also doesn't drop like a rock like the Elantra when you start going up a grade. The engine noise is much quieter on the Mazda as well. Handling-wise the Elantra doesn't come close to the Mazda. There's less body roll, and cornering is predictable and controlled in the Mazda whereas there's a large weight shift mid-turn with the Elantra. I also hated parts of the Elantra's interior. I felt the palcement of the air vents was very bad as the steering wheel and my hands blocked any line of sight to my upper body/face. I also didn't like the lack of steering wheel audio buttons in the Elantra. Another area the Elantra was deficient in was the headlights. The normal beams weren't terribly bright (although the day-time driving lights were very good), and the high-beams were too focused on the centerline of the car and gave no visibility along your periphery making them useless on turns.
  • woochiferwoochifer Member Posts: 32
    edited April 2012
    Just as an experiment, I decided to try maximizing my fuel economy on the latest tank. Nothing radical -- just keeping the highway speeds around 70 MPH with minimal accelerating and decelerating. Canceling the cruise control on large grades, and just maintaining a steady throttle position (riding the downhill momentum and letting the car go slower uphill). No short trips on cold starts. Minimize city driving.

    Trip computer shows 40.6 MPG with over 430 miles driven so far, and just under a 1/4 tank left (range shows about 100 miles). Based on my prior experience, the actual pump calculation will probably be closer to 38 MPG, but it's still impressive to see what the car can do with just minor tweaks to my driving habits. Normally, with more city driving and a heavier right foot, I get between 32 and 36 MPG (up to 38 MPG on the trip computer). Of course, this is also only the second tank since the car had its first oil change, which could also boost the fuel economy.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles