Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 ...
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
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"!
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.
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.
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?
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
Like you, I frequently fill beyond the shut off. There is a cautionary note about this from the EPA.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.