Topic: Test Drive: 2013 Mazda3 Sport GS-Sky

[mixmanmash]

I had to get my oil change done at Weber last November. $105 after tax for a synthetic oil change!!! Alberta's must be well paid. Same oil change costs $70 after tax in Vancouver. At least I had a $50 off coupon. I'll do my oil change in Vancouver next time, even if it means soon it early.

Yup.  It use to be $60 before GoAuto took over.  I use to bring my own oil and it was $20.  The labour rates are certainly higher in AB.

[JMB]

I would love to know if anyone who has the 2.5L motor is actually achieving anything close to the 10.2/7.0 supposedly achievable. 

I have had the 2.5 GT for 3.5 years now and, while I really like the car overall (aside from tight back seats...challenging with an infant seat now, and a faulty 6 speed transmission that took months to have dealt with properly), my average fuel economy is consistently over 11.3.  Most of the miles are done in stop/go city traffic and I don't make much of an effort to drive with a light foot, but still I would expect a bit better than 11.3/100km from a modern 2.5L 4cyl.  I achieved better economy in my old 240sx's 2.4L.

The 2.5L in the Mazda 3 is anything but modern.  It's a design that is over 10 years old.  It wasn't that efficient even when it first came out.  Mazda back in the day wasn't known for fuel efficiency.  They are now making big waves to improve that.

I imagine the 2.5 will disappear after this generation of the 3 is phased out, replaced by the 2.5L skyactiv. 
Other than poor fuel economy, the 2.5 L5 VE is a good engine.  Yes you're right it's been around since about 2000, so going on its 13th year now!  It has lots of guts for 60-120km acceleration, and matched to the 6 speed it's loads of fun.

[dkaz]

I had a 2.3L Mazda 5, averaged 9.5 L/100km overall. My 100% urban trips would be in the 10-11 range, and downtown it would be as bad as 13. On the highway, I'd be down at 6.5 to 8.0. I got it down to 6 late at night going home from hockey a few times, doing 80 on the highway (construction speed limit).

My Skyactiv 3 does 7-8 in 100% urban trips, 10 downtown, 4.5 to 6.0 on the highway.

[mixmanmash]

I would love to know if anyone who has the 2.5L motor is actually achieving anything close to the 10.2/7.0 supposedly achievable. 

I have had the 2.5 GT for 3.5 years now and, while I really like the car overall (aside from tight back seats...challenging with an infant seat now, and a faulty 6 speed transmission that took months to have dealt with properly), my average fuel economy is consistently over 11.3.  Most of the miles are done in stop/go city traffic and I don't make much of an effort to drive with a light foot, but still I would expect a bit better than 11.3/100km from a modern 2.5L 4cyl.  I achieved better economy in my old 240sx's 2.4L.

The 2.5L in the Mazda 3 is anything but modern.  It's a design that is over 10 years old.  It wasn't that efficient even when it first came out.  Mazda back in the day wasn't known for fuel efficiency.  They are now making big waves to improve that.

I imagine the 2.5 will disappear after this generation of the 3 is phased out, replaced by the 2.5L skyactiv. 
Other than poor fuel economy, the 2.5 L5 VE is a good engine.  Yes you're right it's been around since about 2000, so going on its 13th year now!  It has lots of guts for 60-120km acceleration, and matched to the 6 speed it's loads of fun.

Yup.  Reminds me of the FS-DE in my Protege.  Good engine, decent power/torque, good gearing with the 5 speed, but not that great on fuel.  TC ratings on mine were 9.6 city, 7.2 highway.  In town, with 10-20% freeway, I'm usually between 8-9 L/100km.

[WagonGuy]

Love our 2012 Skyactiv hatch.  The fuel economy is great (can almost drive from Ottawa to Windsor on a single tank).  The interior's a bit dated compared to the competition, but the drive is so superior compared to the Elantra, Matrix and Focus we test drove (to be fair we wanted to like the Focus, but the automatic was far too herkyjerky when pulling away from a stop sign that we rejected it five minutes into our test drive).  I do miss my old Protege5 however - it felt lighter on its feet and the steering feel was far more tactile.  The Mazda3 feel so much more solidly built, so I guess it's a fair trade off

[Solstice2006]

I would love to know if anyone who has the 2.5L motor is actually achieving anything close to the 10.2/7.0 supposedly achievable. 

I have had the 2.5 GT for 3.5 years now and, while I really like the car overall (aside from tight back seats...challenging with an infant seat now, and a faulty 6 speed transmission that took months to have dealt with properly), my average fuel economy is consistently over 11.3.  Most of the miles are done in stop/go city traffic and I don't make much of an effort to drive with a light foot, but still I would expect a bit better than 11.3/100km from a modern 2.5L 4cyl.  I achieved better economy in my old 240sx's 2.4L.

The 2.5L in the Mazda 3 is anything but modern.  It's a design that is over 10 years old.  It wasn't that efficient even when it first came out.  Mazda back in the day wasn't known for fuel efficiency.  They are now making big waves to improve that.

I imagine the 2.5 will disappear after this generation of the 3 is phased out, replaced by the 2.5L skyactiv. 
Other than poor fuel economy, the 2.5 L5 VE is a good engine.  Yes you're right it's been around since about 2000, so going on its 13th year now!  It has lots of guts for 60-120km acceleration, and matched to the 6 speed it's loads of fun.

I wouldn't limit the old 2.3L & 2.5L to the only engines with poor fuel economy.  The old 3.0L Duratec in the Mazda6 was horrible as well.  I would average in the 11's.  The same drive, I average in the 8's with my Mazda5. 

[mixmanmash]

I would love to know if anyone who has the 2.5L motor is actually achieving anything close to the 10.2/7.0 supposedly achievable. 

I have had the 2.5 GT for 3.5 years now and, while I really like the car overall (aside from tight back seats...challenging with an infant seat now, and a faulty 6 speed transmission that took months to have dealt with properly), my average fuel economy is consistently over 11.3.  Most of the miles are done in stop/go city traffic and I don't make much of an effort to drive with a light foot, but still I would expect a bit better than 11.3/100km from a modern 2.5L 4cyl.  I achieved better economy in my old 240sx's 2.4L.

The 2.5L in the Mazda 3 is anything but modern.  It's a design that is over 10 years old.  It wasn't that efficient even when it first came out.  Mazda back in the day wasn't known for fuel efficiency.  They are now making big waves to improve that.

I imagine the 2.5 will disappear after this generation of the 3 is phased out, replaced by the 2.5L skyactiv. 
Other than poor fuel economy, the 2.5 L5 VE is a good engine.  Yes you're right it's been around since about 2000, so going on its 13th year now!  It has lots of guts for 60-120km acceleration, and matched to the 6 speed it's loads of fun.

I wouldn't limit the old 2.3L & 2.5L to the only engines with poor fuel economy.  The old 3.0L Duratec in the Mazda6 was horrible as well.  I would average in the 11's.  The same drive, I average in the 8's with my Mazda5.

True.  That engine was a pig.  But again, the basic engine was also from the mid 90s. My moms 97 Taurus wagon used it.

[jyarkony]

One small correction here:

"The Skyactiv engine also gets an impressively high 12:1 compression ratio (about 20 percent higher than most engines) to help get the most power out of every drop of regular unleaded fuel, while a specially-tuned 4-2-1 exhaust system helps fight the engine knock that can otherwise be the Achilles heel of high-compression designs."

If I am not mistaken, Mazda could not implement the 4-2-1 exhaust manifold in this application because of space restrictions.  Hence, they had to drop the compression to 12:1, whereas in the CX-5, the same engine has a 13:1 compression ratio.

The issue I found in the 3 is rear seat space.  I found it very tight when compared with my 2002 Protege.  I can comfortably sit behind myself (6 ft) in the Protege but found it a challenge in 2010+ Mazda3s.

Yup, we had this verified by Mazda and the article is now corrected. Thanks!