Author Topic: CTC Review: 2010 Mazda3 GT (Read 70674 times)

mmret · « **Reply #100 on:** February 22, 2009, 08:43:46 pm »

Has anyone noticed that the headliner is really crummy in this car?

Dante · « **Reply #101 on:** February 22, 2009, 09:17:45 pm »

Hey Wing, one thing I forgot to ask you is if Mazda put a remote trunk opener on the key fob for the sedan. The last generation sedan did not have it and for me this was one feature I missed. The other one was the dead pedal. I think Mazda addressed the later, but I'm not sure.

Dante · « **Reply #102 on:** February 22, 2009, 09:39:00 pm »

Wing, I'm no defender of the Mazda3 fuel economy, but I think it would be interesting to compare back-to-back (I know it's hard to do a proper comparison due to so many factors involved) with the other 2.4L-2.4L, FWD in the class. I know two other similar offerings in the class, Rabbit and Lancer would not thrill the fuel efficiency crowd either.
Comparing the fuel efficiency with the 1.8L Civic and Toyota is pointless.

wing · « **Reply #103 on:** February 22, 2009, 09:51:56 pm »

Compare to the 2.4L Matrix I had in December, the Mazda was poor!

carcrazy, yes there is button on the fob

Dante · « **Reply #104 on:** February 22, 2009, 10:03:23 pm »

Quote from: wing on February 22, 2009, 09:51:56 pm

Compare to the 2.4L Matrix I had in December, the Mazda was poor!

carcrazy, yes there is button on the fob

Thanks Wing. Did you notice if your tester had a dead pedal too?

wing · « **Reply #105 on:** February 22, 2009, 10:15:09 pm »

Pretty certain it does...

Ice · « **Reply #106 on:** February 22, 2009, 11:28:08 pm »

Quote from: carcrazy on February 22, 2009, 09:39:00 pm

Wing, I'm no defender of the Mazda3 fuel economy, but I think it would be interesting to compare back-to-back (I know it's hard to do a proper comparison due to so many factors involved) with the other 2.4L-2.4L, FWD in the class. I know two other similar offerings in the class, Rabbit and Lancer would not thrill the fuel efficiency crowd either.
Comparing the fuel efficiency with the 1.8L Civic and Toyota is pointless.

I haven't done a proper fuel economy analysis but by the official numbers the old Mazda 2.3L MZR in the 04 to 09 Mazda3 had less power and lower fuel economy than the 2.4L 2AZ-FE mounted in my Corolla XRS. Thats by official numbers and I really should do a proper test of the fuel economy once the winter lets up and then compare that to what the Mazda3 folks are getting in their tests. I spent allot of timing complaining about very low fuel economy with the old setup...I'm very curious to see how much better the new one is and if it matches the official numbers better.

Now the Corolla XRS does allot better fuel economy wise than the Matrix trims that have the 2.4L and I suspect thats a combination of added weight and height.

dL · « **Reply #107 on:** February 23, 2009, 02:51:07 pm »

I hope you are not determining gas mileage based on the trip computer as trip computers are always relatively inaccurate. The trip computer tells me my automatic 3 is getting 11.5L/100km but when I do the actual math of comparing total mileage and the amount of liters used between your last fill-up and this one, it is around the rated amount of 9.4-ish.

But it seems to me that the new trip computer may be more accurate if the fuel economy is similar to the last gen.

dL

Dante · « **Reply #108 on:** February 23, 2009, 03:04:43 pm »

Quote from: IceAndFire on February 22, 2009, 11:28:08 pm

Quote from: carcrazy on February 22, 2009, 09:39:00 pm
Wing, I'm no defender of the Mazda3 fuel economy, but I think it would be interesting to compare back-to-back (I know it's hard to do a proper comparison due to so many factors involved) with the other 2.4L-2.4L, FWD in the class. I know two other similar offerings in the class, Rabbit and Lancer would not thrill the fuel efficiency crowd either.
Comparing the fuel efficiency with the 1.8L Civic and Toyota is pointless.
I haven't done a proper fuel economy analysis but by the official numbers the old Mazda 2.3L MZR in the 04 to 09 Mazda3 had less power and lower fuel economy than the 2.4L 2AZ-FE mounted in my Corolla XRS. Thats by official numbers and I really should do a proper test of the fuel economy once the winter lets up and then compare that to what the Mazda3 folks are getting in their tests. I spent allot of timing complaining about very low fuel economy with the old setup...I'm very curious to see how much better the new one is and if it matches the official numbers better.

Now the Corolla XRS does allot better fuel economy wise than the Matrix trims that have the 2.4L and I suspect thats a combination of added weight and height.

An accurate FE comparison between multiple cars is very hard to accomplish.
Sometimes I get 2L/100km or so variance driving the same car, on the same road from one day to the next, without noticeable difference in the traffic conditions or driving habits.

wing · « **Reply #109 on:** February 23, 2009, 03:23:08 pm »

Quote from: dL on February 23, 2009, 02:51:07 pm

I hope you are not determining gas mileage based on the trip computer as trip computers are always relatively inaccurate. The trip computer tells me my automatic 3 is getting 11.5L/100km but when I do the actual math of comparing total mileage and the amount of liters used between your last fill-up and this one, it is around the rated amount of 9.4-ish.

But it seems to me that the new trip computer may be more accurate if the fuel economy is similar to the last gen.

dL

Did the math based on the pumps and it was 10.6, used the trip computer 10.5 That's pretty accurate, I'd side with the trip computer over the pump in this case.

ovr50 · « **Reply #110 on:** February 23, 2009, 03:37:47 pm »

Other than the fuel economy issue, a really positive report for the week. Sounds like another winner for Mazda.

For some, the fuel thing is a non-issue and if all else were roses, I would be happy with the car.

wing · « **Reply #111 on:** February 23, 2009, 03:51:21 pm »

Yeah one thing to note. Even though it wasn't the greatest it still only cost me $23 to drive for the week. My truck would have easily been double if not more.

Angry Chicken · « **Reply #112 on:** February 23, 2009, 04:30:23 pm »

Quote from: wing on February 23, 2009, 03:23:08 pm

Quote from: dL on February 23, 2009, 02:51:07 pm
I hope you are not determining gas mileage based on the trip computer as trip computers are always relatively inaccurate. The trip computer tells me my automatic 3 is getting 11.5L/100km but when I do the actual math of comparing total mileage and the amount of liters used between your last fill-up and this one, it is around the rated amount of 9.4-ish.

But it seems to me that the new trip computer may be more accurate if the fuel economy is similar to the last gen.

dL

Did the math based on the pumps and it was 10.6, used the trip computer 10.5 That's pretty accurate, I'd side with the trip computer over the pump in this case.

I've got 42,000 km on my car and have kept meticulous fuel economy records:

My 2007 Mazda3 Sport GT with the 2.3 litre 4-cyl. 5spd MT averaged 9.15 litres /100 km overall. Here's the breakdown obtained by an average for the times that I felt like recording mileage in specific conditions:

City: 10.5 l / 100 km
Hwy: 8.25 l /100 km (mostly 400-series highways, 120 km/h)
Country: 7.2 l /100 km (2 -lane, Ottawa area roads, very limited stop-and-go)

I'd be surprised if the new 2.5 litre 6 spd MT didn't obtain similar numbers. It ain't in Corolla territory, but then it's a different type of car. Still respectable numbers I would say!

/Eric

Ex-airbalancer · « **Reply #113 on:** February 23, 2009, 08:49:20 pm »

Quote from: wing on February 23, 2009, 03:51:21 pm

Yeah one thing to note. Even though it wasn't the greatest it still only cost me $23 to drive for the week. My truck would have easily been double if not more.

But a truck is so much better

Dante · « **Reply #114 on:** February 24, 2009, 10:42:31 am »

Quote from: wing on February 22, 2009, 09:51:56 pm

Compare to the 2.4L Matrix I had in December, the Mazda was poor!

Interesting how Chris Chase averaged 12.5L/100km driving the Matrix XR in Ottawa's winter for a week. Of course the environmental conditions and the driving pattern may be different, but my point is that it's hard to rule out if Mazda's fuel economy is poor or not relative to similar vehicles/engines based on vehicles driven under different conditions.

libraman · « **Reply #115 on:** February 24, 2009, 11:43:07 am »

Quote from: carcrazy on February 22, 2009, 09:39:00 pm

Wing, I'm no defender of the Mazda3 fuel economy, but I think it would be interesting to compare back-to-back (I know it's hard to do a proper comparison due to so many factors involved) with the other 2.4L-2.4L, FWD in the class. I know two other similar offerings in the class, Rabbit and Lancer would not thrill the fuel efficiency crowd either.
Comparing the fuel efficiency with the 1.8L Civic and Toyota is pointless.

Hey, don't you know. This site is renowned for making unsubtantiated claims about fuel economy (see 50 litre challenge and related articles for glaring example). In this case we are talking about a brand new engine driven in winter conditions and temperatures. A recently borrowed Vibe with the 1.8 fared not much better...and it was broken in. If you want an accurate comparison of fuel economy wait until Consumer Reports evaluates it.

Generally, I like the reviewers on this site, especially, Mr. Wilson. However, when it comes to fuel economy claims take them for what they are, claims.

wing · « **Reply #116 on:** February 24, 2009, 11:52:58 am »

They aren't "claims". I averaged what I averaged on my daily commute. Conditions change, but are fairly similar for my commute. Would you rather I not tell you what I averaged? Then you can go by the NRC numbers which are over inflated, and then 100 ppl will comment how how I never mentioned what I averaged.

The Matrix I had (a 2.4) I averaged 7.8L/100km. Chris drives in a totally different environment than myself. He travels mostly within the city and at rush hour at time. I drive mostly back country roads. I ALWAYS achieve better fuel economy than him with the same vehicle, usually 1 week apart. It will be interesting to see his results with the Mazda3.

MKII · « **Reply #117 on:** February 24, 2009, 11:55:21 am »

I think it is quite obvious that Mazda (zoomzoom company) is not in the fuel economy game. Come on people, where have you been. Mazda's whole market plan is based on sporty driving.

Dante · « **Reply #118 on:** February 24, 2009, 12:10:37 pm »

I don't debate one bit Wing' observations and I think any review should include that info. Mazda is not the most fuel efficient vehicle in the class for sure and that's a fact.
However, my question is how far apart is it from the best in class (whichever car may be)? I don't believe that the fuel consumption difference between Mazda3 and Matrix for example is as much as 3L/100 km, under the same test conditions. I would expect something around 1L/100km in a rigorous test, but not more than 1.5L/100km difference in any case.

libraman · « **Reply #119 on:** February 24, 2009, 12:35:43 pm »

The reviewer's claim is that the fuel economy sucks for this vehicle. Everyone knows that fuel economy dips 30-40% during cold weather driving. To say that a car's economy sucks as a result of such driving of a brand new engine is irresponsible and diminishes the credibiity of the reviewer.