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

2010 Mazda3

1…89111314…17

Comments

  • sonnyrockersonnyrocker Member Posts: 127
    I really don't like the modern look. I like the retro gauges. They look great on the 2009.

    If you can find a 2009, for the price, it is a much better car than 2010. First, you get all the goodies for much, much less. 2nd, it just looks so much better. The clear LED tailight looks awesome. Both front and back of 09 looks better than 2010. I do like the sides of the 2010 better. But they charge too much for 2010 compare to 2009 models.
    I paid $16K for my 2009, and that includes all tainted windows and rear spoiler is included as well.
  • igozoomzoomigozoomzoom Member Posts: 801
    Ideally, it would be both a gauge showing actual (correct) coolant temp and a warning light when it hits a certain threshold (preferably before it's pegged on 'H').

    That's how they do it for fuel level. There's a gauge showing amount of fuel and a warning light when it hits a certain low point...

    I wonder how accurately the trip computer calculates Miles Remaining?
    2015.5 Volvo S60 T6 Drive-E Platinum, 2012 Mazda CX-9 GT
  • sonnyrockersonnyrocker Member Posts: 127
    I don't buy the argument that the guages aren't accurate.
    They are very close to what its supposed to be, that's why they are there.
    The temp guage is right in front of you next to your mph guage. There is no excuse for not paying attention unless you don't look at your guages at all. I drive manual so I look at the guages panel all the time.
  • roadburnerroadburner Member Posts: 17,348
    I wonder how accurately the trip computer calculates Miles Remaining?

    Based on my measurements, it's 4%-5% optimistic.

    Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport; 2020 C43; 2021 Sahara 4xe 1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica Wife's: 2015 X1 xDrive28i Son's: 2009 328i; 2018 330i xDrive

  • roadburnerroadburner Member Posts: 17,348
    I don't buy the argument that the guages aren't accurate.
    They are very close to what its supposed to be, that's why they are there.
    The temp guage is right in front of you next to your mph guage. There is no excuse for not paying attention unless you don't look at your guages at all. I drive manual so I look at the guages panel all the time.

    The temp gauge isn't accurate. It's designed to indicate half way between hot and cold unless the engine is really hot or really cold. Think about it, have you ever seen the needle move even a millimeter once the engine has reached operating temperature? In contrast, the coolant temperature gauge needles in my 1975 BMW 2002 and 1999 Wrangler move around quite a bit.

    Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport; 2020 C43; 2021 Sahara 4xe 1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica Wife's: 2015 X1 xDrive28i Son's: 2009 328i; 2018 330i xDrive

  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    The temp gauge isn't accurate. It's designed to indicate half way between hot and cold unless the engine is really hot or really cold.

    I suppose what this discussion shows is that the degree of accuracy is based on a driver's perception. For many drivers, a simple indication that the engine is within the acceptable range or not, is likely enough. And, if one uses common sense one can avoid problems. Now, on a hot day with a loaded car moving slowly up a hill, most drivers would like know that the guage is working in case there is a problem. Reminds me of one hot summer's day in New York City when my co-driver learned the lesson the hard way; we ended up stopping the car a few times to give it a chance to cool down.
  • roadburnerroadburner Member Posts: 17,348
    For many drivers, a simple indication that the engine is within the acceptable range or not, is likely enough. And, if one uses common sense one can avoid problems.

    I guess it's OK for a commuter car or grocery getter, but when I'm on the track I want to know exactly what the coolant temperature is doing. The last thing I need is for the gauge to suddenly indicate full hot just as the coolant starts to boil over- all while I'm trying to slow down from 130 mph to 80 mph for Turn One at Putnam Park.

    Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport; 2020 C43; 2021 Sahara 4xe 1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica Wife's: 2015 X1 xDrive28i Son's: 2009 328i; 2018 330i xDrive

  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    I guess it's OK for a commuter car or grocery getter, but when I'm on the track I want to know exactly what the coolant temperature is doing.
    Precisely. I think you would agree most drivers being commuters would not run into this scenario, and, it would be safe to say, you're not the average grocery getter. ;)

    Personally, I'm waiting for the technology that slaps sense into drivers trying to manouevre through inner city traffic, construction sites, highways exits/entrances and the like while texting on a cellphone. This increases my temperature.
  • usf813usf813 Member Posts: 8
    I agree with you 100% sonnyrocker. Case in point. the temp gauge on my '97 Civic finally went above the water line and started approaching the redline. I've had the car since day 1 and this is the first time it's ever happened (and I do keep an eye on my gauges). It happened a half mile after leaving the house (was still warm from a previous trip) and I was able to pull off and slow down, before a major overheating, and make it back to my condo w/out cracking a head. Turns out the upper radiator hose and heater hose cracked and began leaking fluid. That gauge cost me $250 in repairs vs. thousands for a new engine.

    I just don't understand how Mazda overlooked this! It's just seems so fundamental to me to include in an instrument display.
  • unicorn62unicorn62 Member Posts: 13
    The 2010 mazda3 is a overall well done car, but the mpg needs to be there if mazda wants to compete with the cars that get 35 to 39 mpgs, that includes the both the i and s models. They should give you a choice on what size rim you want on the car. My overall mpg on the mazda3 sport is as low as 25 and as high is 30.The only thing i don't like is the 17' rims. If anyone needs tires for the 3 try Tirerack.com they have the tires for alot less than if you went to a tire store.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The 2010 mazda3 is a overall well done car, but the mpg needs to be there if mazda wants to compete with the cars that get 35 to 39 mpgs, that includes the both the i and s models

    Considering that the Mazda3 is Mazda's best seller, and is considered one of the best cars in its class for 7 model years now, I really do not think that statement is true. Besides, what car in this class gets 39mpg? I can't think of one. Not even sub-compacts like the Fit or Yaris or Accent get that.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    An opinion is neither "true" nor "false."

    Several cars in this class can get 35 to 39 mpg on the highway: Civic, Corolla, Elantra, Focus for example can all reach upper 30s on the highway. Actually the Mazda3i can also, at least the pre-2010 cars could. And there are some mid-sized cars with power comparable or better than that of the Mazda3s that can get over 35 mpg on the highway. I am talking about real-world mpg vs. EPA here. If the original opinion was regarding average fuel economy or EPA numbers, then I agree that is a stretch for a car like the Mazda3 since there are few cars of any kind that hit those numbers.
  • igozoomzoomigozoomzoom Member Posts: 801
    The 2.0L MZ3 'i' with 5-speed manual has an EPA highway rating of 33mpg. The highway rating drops to 29mpg for the 2.5L in the 's' models. For the sake of comparison, the Civic Si is also rated at 29mpg and the Toyota Matrix (2.4) gets 28mpg highway.

    The Civic (1.8L) has an EPA highway estimate of 34mpg (manual) or 36mpg (automatic). Ford Focus, using the same 2.0L engine as the Mazda3 i (w/o VVT), gets 35mpg highway. So there's no question, that there are other small cars with better fuel economy than the Mazda3. But most (all, IMO) aren't nearly as much fun as to drive as the MZ3. Quite a few buyers (based on sales figures) are willing to sacrifice a few mpg to get the "Zoom Zoom"!

    In most other markets (including Canada), Mazda offers the 2.0L engine in both the 4-door and 5-door bodystyles. The U.S.-spec 5-door is unusual having the 2.5L engine and 17" alloy wheels standard. In Canada, you can get a 5-door with 2.0L and 16" steel wheels. I'm surprised, especially considering current economic conditions, that Mazda didn't offer the entry-level 5-door model here in the U.S.
    2015.5 Volvo S60 T6 Drive-E Platinum, 2012 Mazda CX-9 GT
  • unicorn62unicorn62 Member Posts: 13
    I didn't just buy the mazda 3 sport for the " zoom zoom" if i need the power to merge on the highway the power is there as well in passing. I got the sport because the color i have you can only get in the s model. Like i said if mazda want to keep selling the 3 they need to work on the MPG's or people will look to other cars that do and mazda will lose people they had before. :mad: I'm happy with the style of the car but they need to work more on the MPG's!
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Quite a few buyers (based on sales figures) are willing to sacrifice a few mpg to get the "Zoom Zoom"!

    Maybe if the Mazda3 had fuel economy on a par with the Civic/Corolla/Focus, we'd see the Mazda3 at or near the top of the small-car sales charts instead of those cars. A car can have both excellent fuel economy and crisp handling--Honda has proven that. Maybe Mazda could add an "HF" trim (high fuel economy) to the Mazda3 for people who want both, but wouldn't mind sacrificing some power to get it.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    His post was not an opinion really, and nor was my remark. He made a claim that the Mazda3 cannot compete with the fuel economy it gets. Mazda has proven that to be not true. Nothing to dispute there.

    I really try to shy away from "real world fuel economy", because it all depends on how you drive and where you live. Do you really think the majority of 2010 Fusion Hybrid owners are going to get over 1,400 miles per tank (over 80mgp average), like the drivers of the Fusion Hybrid experiment got? I think not. I know that example is a quite extreme, but, it is a case where driving habits influence fuel economy.

    But, as far as the EPA is concerned, there is no compact that gets 39mpg. If there is a car that is rated that well, I would sure like to know!
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Let's see how far off Mazda is from those you mentioned.

    Toyota Corolla LE: 26/35 (132hp/128tq) , XRS 22/30 (158hp/162tq)
    Honda Civic: 26/34 (140hp/128tq)
    Ford Focus: 24/35 (140hp/132tq)

    Mazda3: i 25/33 (148hp/135tq) , s 21/29 (167hp/168tq)

    With far more power and better proven performance then the listed above competition, and at most a 1mpg city and 2mpg highway fuel economy disadvantage, I think it's an absolute joke to say that the Mazda3 is not on par with the competition. It's not like we are talking about 5 or 6 mpgs here. 1 to 2 is the difference. Give me a break.....
  • shiposhipo Member Posts: 9,148
    "But, as far as the EPA is concerned, there is no compact that gets 39mpg. If there is a car that is rated that well, I would sure like to know!"

    The 2009 VW Jetta TDI 6-Speed: 30 City, 34 Combined, 41 Highway. :shades:

    Best regards,
    Shipo
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Yes, the Mazda3's fuel economy is "on a par." It would be nice if it equalled or exceeded that of competitors that are of older design, like all of those you listed above, but that is asking for too much I guess.

    I think it's weird though that Ford can get 34 mpg on a mid-sized sedan with an engine of comparable power to the Mazda3s, yet the Mazda3s gets 5 mpg less, yet is a lighter car. :surprise:
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Then there's the Insight and (mid-sized) Prius at over 39 mpg, but we digress. :)
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    That is an interesting point. As is how Ford gets 3 mpg (hwy) less for that very same midsize vehicle with the very same engine, but in a different trim level.

    Also, oddly, the Fusion with 2.5 (non S) is rated at 22/31, while the Mazda3 with 2.5 engine is rated at 22/29. Yet both are at 25 mpg combined.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The 2009 VW Jetta TDI 6-Speed: 30 City, 34 Combined, 41 Highway.

    I stand corrected!!!
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    It would be nice if it equalled or exceeded that of competitors that are of older design, like all of those you listed above, but that is asking for too much I guess.

    There is nothing wrong with wishing for that. In fact, I wish it were better as well. But, since the rest of the car is light years ahead of the others, it does not concern me. That is how Mazda builds and markets their cars.

    As far as the age of each design goes, the Corolla and Focus are little over a calender year old. The Civic is the only one due for a redesign, probably next year.
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    I think it's an absolute joke to say that the Mazda3 is not on par with the competition.

    According to the EPA site (fueleconomy.gov), here are the combined ratings (that is a combination of highway and city driving) for several recent vehicles with automatic transmissions:

    31 - 2009 Honda Fit
    29 - 2010 Toyota Corolla ; 2009 Honda Civic (non-hybrid)
    27 - 2009 Ford Focus ; 2010 Mazda3 i
    25 - 2010 Mazda3 s ; 2002 MazdaProtege

    The difference between the top rank (35 mpg) and the lowest (25 mpg) is about 20%. Mazda has not significantly boosted the fuel economy of its Mazda3 s since 2002 (when the model was known as the Protege). The Mazda2 promises a welcome change on this front.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    The Focus a little over a year old? Hardly. It's an ancient design as cars go, about ten years old without a full redesign (here in the US, anyway--other lands get a more modern Focus). The Mazda3 is the newest compact design out there--until the Forte debuts, anyway. BTW, check out the power and fuel economy numbers of that car, then tell us that the Mazda3 is "light years" ahead.
  • blackadder5639blackadder5639 Member Posts: 31
    Not necessarily, unicorn62.

    The Mazda 3s is NOT an economy car. It is a compact, but it is meant to for buyers who want style, equipment, and some power in an attractive style and want only decent fuel economy........kinda like a poor man's 3-series. The Lancer (the current generation), Jetta and Rabbit/Golf are also similar.
    Given the performances of these cars, their fuel economy is very reasonable. Mind you, they are NOT economy cars.

    One Mazda 3i is perhaps an economy car. Its fuel economy figures are only 1 or 2 mpg lower than the Civic/Corolla competition, but it has at least 8 hp more! I think a loss of 1 or 2 mpg for 8 hp is worth it!
    Mazda could probably modify the gearing to get an extra 1 or 2 mpg (like the Focus), but then the character of the car would no longer be sporty enough to qualify as zoom-zoom!

    The question is whether or not the major priority for buyers of compact cars is fuel economy. Looking at the success of the Mazda 3, it appears like there is a considerable market for compact-but-not-economy cars.
  • blackadder5639blackadder5639 Member Posts: 31
    BTW, check out the power and fuel economy numbers of that car, then tell us that the Mazda3 is "light years" ahead.

    Cars are not judged by fuel economy and power numbers alone!

    What compact non-luxury car has steering-controlled headlights, a near-luxury car interior, dual-zone air-con, and a (class-leading) sporty-but-comfortable-and-refined ride all in one package? The fact that the Mazda 3 has all these, for an affordable price, is a major reason why it is "light-years" ahead of its competition!
  • blackadder5639blackadder5639 Member Posts: 31
    Have you considered the displacement/power output in your list? The Fit, Corolla and Civic are 1.5 L or 1.8 L with 140 hp or less. The Focus and Mazda 3i have 2.0 L engines with 148 hp......the Mazda 3s has 167 hp!

    Given the power output of the Mazda 3, its fuel economy is competitive with the competition (Focus, Lancer, Golf/Rabbit, Jetta). The Mazda 3i has the same fuel economy as the Focus!

    BTW, comparing the fuel economy of the Mazda 3s (167 hp) and the Protege (130 hp), it's very clear that Mazda has made a lot of progress since 2002!......how does a 37 hp gain for the same fuel economy sound?

    Mind you, the real competition of the Mazda 3s are the Jetta, Golf/Rabbit, Lancer and perhaps the Impreza.
    The Mazda 3i has competitive fuel economy with the Focus, Civic and Corolla. The Fit is not a Mazda 3 competitor.
  • unicorn62unicorn62 Member Posts: 13
    Blackadder, I had a small suv the nissan rogue(08) that got 33.5mpg doing 60mph and 32.0 doing 65mph the rogue is alot heaver and has the 2.5l engine and has 170hp with 175torque, now you tell me why the mazda3 shouldn't get better mpg's. :confuse: By the way i am not a he i am a she BACKY!!!
  • blackadder5639blackadder5639 Member Posts: 31
    Backy (a.k.a. unicorn62), the FWD Rogue is rated 22/27 city/hwy by the EPA. The Mazda 3s is rated 22/29 for the automatic. The Rogue weighs 3281 lb; the Mazda 3s weighs 3064 lb. I would say the Mazda 3s fuel economy compares well with the Rogue! (BTW, a 200 lb wieght difference is not "a lot heavier".....that's about the weight of an average 6-ft man!)

    When you take the Mazda 3s for what it is, a compact-but-not-economy car, its fuel economy is very competitive. Look at similar cars:
    VW Rabbit 2.5 L (170 hp): 21/29 mpg
    Mitsubishi Lancer 2.4 L (168 hp): 21/28 mpg
    Subaru Impreza 2.5 L (170 hp): 20/27 mpg.

    In fact, compared to its competition, the Mazda 3s has class-leading fuel economy! Remember: a compact car is not necessarily an economy car!
  • blackadder5639blackadder5639 Member Posts: 31
    Well, Shippo, you know we're talking about gasoline, non-hybrid cars here...... LOL!
  • blackadder5639blackadder5639 Member Posts: 31
    I think it's weird though that Ford can get 34 mpg on a mid-sized sedan with an engine of comparable power to the Mazda3s, yet the Mazda3s gets 5 mpg less, yet is a lighter car.

    I suspect a lot of it has to do with the gearing. The Mazda 3s probably has shorter gear ratios in order to make the car sportier or more responsive, whereas the Fusion probably has taller gear ratios that enhance fuel economy at the cost of responsiveness.
    I haven't driven either the 2010 Mazda 3s or the 2010 Fusion, but I would bet that the Mazda 3s feels/is faster or at least more responsive.

    When you compare the Mazda 3s' fuel economy to other compacts with around 170 hp that are meant to be sporty (eg, Rabbit, Lancer GTS, Impreza), its fuel economy is, in fact, class-leading.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    I had a small suv the nissan rogue(08) that got 33.5mpg doing 60mph and 32.0 doing 65mph the rogue is alot heaver and has the 2.5l engine and has 170hp with 175torque, now you tell me why the mazda3 shouldn't get better mpg's

    Have you driven the Mazda3 in exactly the same way and if so what mpg did you get?

    If you are comparing your actual mpg to an EPA rating, that is not a valid comparison as the EPA highway test does not consist of cruising at a steady 60 or 65 mph. Most (all?) cars exceed the EPA highway number when driven in that way.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    According to the EPA site (fueleconomy.gov), here are the combined ratings (that is a combination of highway and city driving) for several recent vehicles with automatic transmissions:

    31 - 2009 Honda Fit
    29 - 2010 Toyota Corolla ; 2009 Honda Civic (non-hybrid)
    27 - 2009 Ford Focus ; 2010 Mazda3 i
    25 - 2010 Mazda3 s ; 2002 MazdaProtege

    Well, the Fit is a sub-compact, so it does not belong in this class. You also forgot to mention that the Corolla XRS gets a EPA combined 25mpg, same as the Mazda3 s and the Mazda3 s has a considerable power advantage.

    So again, I do not see how 2 mpg's is a big deal. Answer this in all seriousness, is 2 mpg's the difference between "competitive" and "not competitive"? I sure don't think so.
  • unicorn62unicorn62 Member Posts: 13
    Jeffyscott, I have the 2010 mazda 3s. i drive the car like i did the rogue, I don't drive it like a sport car. I haven't gone on a long trip with it yet to find out what the true mpg's are like i did with the rogue. Autonomous: I was talking to a girl that has the nissan sentra sl and she told me she went on a trip and got 41mpg and its a gas car not hybrid.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    When you compare the Mazda 3s' fuel economy to other compacts with around 170 hp that are meant to be sporty (eg, Rabbit, Lancer GTS, Impreza), its fuel economy is, in fact, class-leading.

    I don't see how 21/29 mpg with 167 hp can be considered "class leading" when another member of the class gets 22/32 mpg with 173 hp. Class-leading in terms of some luxury features being available, and maybe class leading in terms of handling, but not in terms of power or fuel economy.
  • blackadder5639blackadder5639 Member Posts: 31
    "When you compare the Mazda 3s' fuel economy to other compacts with around 170 hp that are meant to be sporty (eg, Rabbit, Lancer GTS, Impreza), its fuel economy is, in fact, class-leading.

    I don't see how 21/29 mpg with 167 hp can be considered "class leading" when another member of the class gets 22/32 mpg with 173 hp. Class-leading in terms of some luxury features being available, and maybe class leading in terms of handling, but not in terms of power or fuel economy."

    The Fusion is not in the same class as the Mazda 3s, Rabbit/Golf, Jetta, Lancer GTS and Impreza. Or are you talking of another car?
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    Sorry to say, aviboy, but you appear to have totally missed the point.
    To clarify, here are a few questions for you (and anyone else interested!):
    - Do you think most drivers think that fuel economy is important in the choice of vehicle?
    - Do you think an auto manufacturer that increases the horsepower while maintaining the same fuel economy on a vehicle is responding to demand for improved fuel economy?
    - Do you think there is a shift in the marketplace away from larger heavier vehicles towards lighter vehicles that are more fuel efficient?
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    I have the 2010 mazda 3s. i drive the car like i did the rogue, I don't drive it like a sport car. I haven't gone on a long trip with it yet to find out what the true mpg's are like i did with the rogue.

    You also won't find out the "true" mileage until you allow the car to be "broken in", so to speak. The Mazda3, just like my Mazda6, usually will see an increase in fuel economy after a few thousand miles. It's actually quite common in Mazda vehicles as a whole: mileage increases as the vehicle gets "broken in".

    I don't see why the 3 won't be averaging in the mid-30s within a few months...
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    - Do you think most drivers think that fuel economy is important in the choice of vehicle?

    Of course. The real question is: would I settle for a coma-inducing Corolla or Civic just to get 2 more MPG? I wouldn't, and there are more than a few others on this forum that feel the same way.

    - Do you think an auto manufacturer that increases the horsepower while maintaining the same fuel economy on a vehicle is responding to demand for improved fuel economy?

    Yes. Why? They're getting better overall performance for the same amount of $$$ in gas. Case in point: Your Protege example. A car that has almost a 30 percent INCREASE in horsepower is huge, no matter what class the vehicle is in. It also usually means that fuel economy drops, since there's more power, but not in this case.

    - Do you think there is a shift in the marketplace away from larger heavier vehicles towards lighter vehicles that are more fuel efficient?

    Like my father-in-law? He drove a gas-guzzling '95 TBird before trading to a '09 Mazda3. Two more doors, 33% less cylinders, 30 MORE horsepower, and a fuel bill that's a fraction of what it was before with the Ford. He also thinks it's more fun-to-drive than the TBird, and miles ahead of the Corolla that he tried out on a test-drive.

    Sorry, but I've also driven the Corolla and Civic, and I'd GLADLY spend a few extra $$$ in gas if I could still have FUN behind the wheel, and I'll still say the same thing when (not if) gas hits $5/gallon.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I already mentioned the Forte earlier in this thread. It is a compact (albeit with a mid-sized interior, another advantage it has over the Mazda3 btw). Specifically, I am talking about the sport trim, SX, with a 2.4L, 173 hp mill and 22/32 mpg. (Although Forte's 2.0L engine also out-powers and out-mpgs the Mazda3i). It's in the same car class as the cars you listed (except it does not have AWD as does the Impreza; that car stands apart because of that).
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    No point in me responding to autonomous now! You beat me to it.
  • blackadder5639blackadder5639 Member Posts: 31
    Backy, Kia Forte (173 hp, 22/32 mpg) isn't out yet! But let's for now assume that it's available for sale. Two issues still come up:

    1. Assuming that the Forte is as sporty and responsive as the Mazda 3s, the Rabbit 2.5, Lancer GTS and Impreza, it'd still be the only car in that class that betters the Mazda 3s' fuel economy! That would still make the Mazda 3s very competitive on the fuel economy front. [And since the Forte isn't out yet, the Mazda 3s still has class-leading fuel economy! ;) ]

    2. We'll have to wait till we see what the Road Tests say and how Kia markets the Forte. If they market it as a sporty compact like the Mazda 3s and its competition are (and if Road Tests prove that to be true), then you're right! [But, in that case, the Forte would be the only one in its class with that fuel economy, so the Mazda 3s would still be competitive on the fuel economy front!]
    If it turns out to be not so much of a sporty car but more of a compact family car, then its fuel economy gains would have come at the expense of sportiness. In that case, it would be hard to fault the Mazda 3s' fuel economy.

    Backy, whichever way you look at it, the Mazda 3s (and the Mazda 3i) have competitive or class-leading fuel economy in their respective classes! :)
    I think your problem is that, just because the Mazda 3s is a compact, you expect it to have Corolla-like fuel economy. But the fact remains that 'compact" and "economy" aren't necessarily synonymous. See the Mazda 3s for what it is.
  • autonomousautonomous Member Posts: 1,769
    Thanks for the quick response. Let's look at your answers.
    Q: Do you think most drivers think that fuel economy is important in the choice of vehicle?
    A: Of course. The real question is: would I settle for a coma-inducing Corolla or Civic just to get 2 more MPG?
    I agree with your first sentence but not your second one. See next answer.

    Q: Do you think an auto manufacturer that increases the horsepower while maintaining the same fuel economy on a vehicle is responding to demand for improved fuel economy?
    A: Yes. Why? They're getting better overall performance for the same amount of $$$ in gas. Case in point: Your Protege example. A car that has almost a 30 percent INCREASE in horsepower is huge, no matter what class the vehicle is in. It also usually means that fuel economy drops, since there's more power, but not in this case.
    You hit the nail on the head mentioning overall performance. I think an automaker that is providing increased horsepower without improving the fuel economy of the vehicle is not improving the overall performance. By offering bigger engines (going from 2.0L to 2.5 L) without improving the fuel economy (i.e. 25 mpg), Mazda has only completed half the equation. Similarly, in your first answer, you cite the Corolla/Civic as non-performant, but you are only seeing half the picture. The Corolla/Civic (and esp. the Fit) perform better in terms of fuel economy. By my way of thinking, both the power output and the fuel efficiency are necessary for overall performance. And to be a leader in the market, they have to be together in an affordable package. That's the formula I see sophisticated auto manufacturers, like Honda, pursuing.

    Q. Do you think there is a shift in the marketplace away from larger heavier vehicles towards lighter vehicles that are more fuel efficient?
    A. Like my father-in-law? He drove a gas-guzzling '95 TBird before trading to a '09 Mazda3. Two more doors, 33% less cylinders, 30 MORE horsepower, and a fuel bill that's a fraction of what it was before with the Ford. He also thinks it's more fun-to-drive than the TBird, and miles ahead of the Corolla that he tried out on a test-drive.
    Kudos to your father-in-law for taking a step in the right direction!

    Sorry, but I've also driven the Corolla and Civic, and I'd GLADLY spend a few extra $$$ in gas if I could still have FUN behind the wheel, and I'll still say the same thing when (not if) gas hits $5/gallon.
    I agree that driving should not be a bore. And gas hit $5/gallon a long time ago (in Europe and other parts of the world). The Europeans have some of the most spirited cars (and drivers) with fuel economy numbers that may surprise many. In fact, some of these vehicles come from Mazda (including Mazda3 diesels and Mazda2). We need to encourage automanufacturers to follow the true formula for overall performance and not give us half the answer. So, to the 30% HP improvement you mention I say let's raise the fuel efficiency by 30%. Improve both the HP and the fuel economy. And, yes, it can be done. :)

    p.s. Bring over the Mazda2!
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    My "problem" is that I don't agree with those who claim the Mazda3 is the Best Car on the Planet, "light years" ahead of all other cars in all respects. My "problem" is also that when someone suggests anything to the contrary, they are immediately jumped on by the Mazda fanboys.

    I don't expect the Mazda3s to have the fuel economy of a 1.8L, 132 hp car like the Corolla 1.8. I was simply pointing out that, relative to other cars in its class, the Mazda3 is not tops in fuel economy--or power for that matter. Is that a big deal? Only if you wish to make it one. I don't. I see it as a point of discussion, nothing more.

    Anyway, I don't see why fuel economy gains must come at the expense of sportiness. I mean, is there something that says a great-handling car cannot also have best-in-class fuel economy? Why must the two be mutually-exclusive? Do the Mazda engineers think, "Hmm, we tuned the suspension for sporty handling, thus we must make sure the powertrain doesn't provide best-in-class fuel economy because that would take away from the sportiness of the car." I would hope not.
  • joe0302joe0302 Member Posts: 16
    Not Bad Eh? :shades:
  • blackadder5639blackadder5639 Member Posts: 31
    "You hit the nail on the head mentioning overall performance. I think an automaker that is providing increased horsepower without improving the fuel economy of the vehicle is not improving the overall performance."

    Autonomous, not necessarily. It depends on what the car is meant for. (I think) Fuel economy is not the proirity of the Mazda 3s....it's not meant for those who want the best possible fuel economy. Hence, it is better for it to gain 37 hp over the Protege while maintaining the same economy than to, say, gain 25 hp and perhaps 2 or 3 mpg.
    And, like I illustrated in my earlier post, if you look at the Mazda 3s' direct competition (Rabbit, Lancer GTS, Impreza), its fuel economy is actually class-leading.
  • blackadder5639blackadder5639 Member Posts: 31
    I was simply pointing out that, relative to other cars in its class, the Mazda3 is not tops in fuel economy--or power for that matter.
    Relative to its current, direct competition (Rabbit, Jetta, Lancer GTS, maybe Impreza), its fuel economy is tops with the automatic transmission; power is down a little but it appears that performance is on par.

    Is that a big deal? Only if you wish to make it one. I don't. I see it as a point of discussion, nothing more.
    That's the whole point; we're having a discussion. It's not a big deal. I just think that you're failing or refusing to see the Mazda 3s for what it is. It may be in the same weight/size class as the Corolla, but they're meant for completely different types of buyers. For its intended buyer (the one who might consider the Rabbit or Lancer GTS), it's economy is about class-leading and its performance is on par.

    Anyway, I don't see why fuel economy gains must come at the expense of sportiness. I mean, is there something that says a great-handling car cannot also have best-in-class fuel economy?
    Handling and vehicle dynamics do not come at the expense of fuel economy. (This is not entirely true, tires that maximise handling will lead to slightly lower fuel economy, maybe 1 mpg......low rolling resistance tires maximise economy at the expense of handling.)
    But "responsiveness" of the engine and the car overall comes at the expense of fuel economy. All things being equal, a car that is geared for the engine to remain in the "sweet spot" of power/torque will be more "responsive" and hence sportier, and less economical, than one that is geared to keep the engine revving as lowly as possible (thus saving as much fuel as possible while often not being in the sweet spot).
    Because of the zoom-zoom strategy, the Mazda 3 has sweet spot type gearing. That is why the Mazda 3i is still 1 or 2 mpg down compared to the Focus, and that's partly why it is sportier than the Focus. The Corolla and the Civic, like the Focus, are also geared for maximum economy.
    The Mazda 3s and its direct competitors all have sweet spot type gearing.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I just think that you're failing or refusing to see the Mazda 3s for what it is.

    I see the Mazda3s for what it is. You however are failing or refusing to acknowledge that other cars in the same class have leap-frogged the new Mazda3s in some areas, specifically the combination of power with fuel economy. Whether it's important or not is in the eyes of the car buyer.

    Because of the zoom-zoom strategy, the Mazda 3 has sweet spot type gearing.

    There is a simple solution to providing both "sweet spot", sport-oriented gearing and gearing for optimal fuel economy. Check out the Jetta and Rabbit, for example. They offer a 6-speed Tiptronic automatic with Normal and Sport modes. You want sport-oriented gearing? Flick the shifter into "S", or flick it into manumatic mode and shift for yourself. You want optimal fuel economy? Use Normal shift mode. Still plenty of responsiveness with the 170 hp engine for most situations, but lets you squeeze out a few more miles per tank. Or for stick shifts, provide a 6-speed box with true overdrive in 6th (and maybe 5th).
  • blackadder5639blackadder5639 Member Posts: 31
    I see the Mazda3s for what it is.

    Good! Looks like I'm making some progress! :)

    You however are failing or refusing to acknowledge that other cars in the same class have leap-frogged the new Mazda3s in some areas, specifically the combination of power with fuel economy......There is a simple solution to providing both "sweet spot", sport-oriented gearing and gearing for optimal fuel economy. Check out the Jetta and Rabbit, for example.

    Let's check the power and fuel economy of the Rabbit and Mazda 3s.

    Mazda 3s:
    Manual 21/29, Automatic 22/29 Power/Torque 167/168 (from mazdausa.com)
    0 to 60 mph 8.1 s Quarter Mile 16.0 @ 86.3 (from Edmunds)

    VW Rabbit:
    Manual 21/30 Automatic 20/29 Power/Torque 170/177 (from vw.com)
    0 to 60 mph 8 s (from vw.com)

    From the figures, the fuel economy is a wash between the Rabbit and the Mazda 3s, and performance (acceleration) is too! Where is the "squeeze out a few more miles per tank" you're talking about?
    I asked Karl on his blog about his opinions, and he felt the Mazda was slightly sportier while the VW was slightly more luxurious and felt more "substantial". His Mazda 3 comments were in reference to the previous-gen Mazda 3.

    Based on the facts/figures and the driving impressions (from Edmunds' chief editor, Karl), it is obvious that the Rabbit (and any of its direct competitors) haven't "leap-frogged the new Mazda3s" in any areas! [The Rabbit has considerably more torque, but that hasn't resulted in more performance or torque.....the Mazda 3s has some features the Rabbit lacks, eg, dual-zone A/C and adaptive headlights!]
    BTW, the Mazda 3s also has a 6-spd manual and an automatic with manual-shift mode just like the Rabbit!...... ;)

    So, you are the one who is refusing to see that the Mazda 3s is not behind its direct competition in any way! :)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles