Topic: CTC Review: 2010 Mazda3 GT

[wing]

Well considering I owned a 2.3L Mazda3 myself and my co-worker currently sitting beside me does currently.

He has averaged over 10,000+Km 10.2L/100km  I averaged around 9.8L/100km on my own vehicle.  The Mazda3 2.3/2.5 is not fuel efficient that's a fact.  The 2.0L should be much better.

[ovr50]

Well considering I owned a 2.3L Mazda3 myself and my co-worker currently sitting beside me does currently.

He has averaged over 10,000+Km 10.2L/100km  I averaged around 9.8L/100km on my own vehicle.  The Mazda3 2.3/2.5 is not fuel efficient that's a fact.  The 2.0L should be much better.

Agree, don't see the problem myself. Wing made a statement of fact, like it or not.

[Thinking Out Loud]

'splains why there are standardized tests tho.  Are they real-world realistic?  No.

Does it provide a baseline of credibility against which results can be compared?  Absolutely.

...."even beter than the real thing"....feeling some U2 vibes.....

[Dante]

Well considering I owned a 2.3L Mazda3 myself and my co-worker currently sitting beside me does currently.

He has averaged over 10,000+Km 10.2L/100km  I averaged around 9.8L/100km on my own vehicle.  The Mazda3 2.3/2.5 is not fuel efficient that's a fact.  The 2.0L should be much better.

This is similar to my experience over 60K+ and almost 4 years of ownership - around 10L/100km on average. My driving included all sort of conditions: 4-season driving, highway (120 km/h), city (downtown Toronto traffic jams), short trips (lots), -30 degrees to +30 degrees temperatures, strong winds, snow storms, you name it.

However, Mazda3's, and any other vehicle's fuel efficiency is all relative and we should set the reference straight - other similar vehicles with similar engines.

[Dante]

EPA, which I think posts more conservative numbers than the Canadian counterpart, rates both 2009 Mazda3 2.3L 5AT (no 2010 ratings yet) and the 2009 Matrix 2.4L 5AT at 9.8L/100km combined.

So how much worse is the Mazda3 compared to similar vehicles/engines? Not a whole lot as you could see.

[libraman]

Well considering I owned a 2.3L Mazda3 myself and my co-worker currently sitting beside me does currently.

He has averaged over 10,000+Km 10.2L/100km  I averaged around 9.8L/100km on my own vehicle.  The Mazda3 2.3/2.5 is not fuel efficient that's a fact.   The 2.0L should be much better.

The only facts are the numbers you get when you drive that car.  So, what would you say is a fuel efficient car and based on what data?

[vdk]

i'm around 10l/100km too.. I don't think you'll find a better car to compare the 3 to..

[wing]

Well considering I owned a 2.3L Mazda3 myself and my co-worker currently sitting beside me does currently.

He has averaged over 10,000+Km 10.2L/100km  I averaged around 9.8L/100km on my own vehicle.  The Mazda3 2.3/2.5 is not fuel efficient that's a fact.   The 2.0L should be much better.

The only facts are the numbers you get when you drive that car.  So, what would you say is a fuel efficient car and based on what data?

Compared to other cars I have driven.  Matrix (2.4L) 7.5L/100km -- A3 (9L/100km) --  Magentis (9.2L/100km) -- Cobalt (7. -- Mazda6 (9.2).

I admit the mazda3 was not broken in and that could affect it's mileage, but the number was surprisingly high for my commute.

/thread

[Dante]

I just compared again on EPA's website (fueleconomy.gov) all C-segment cars (hatches) with 2.3L-2.5L I4, 5/6 Auto or CVT transmissions (Mazda3, Lancer Sportback, Vibe, Matrix, Caliber and Rabbit).
They all are in the same ballpark at around 10L/100km combined.

Sentra (2.5L CVT) and Cobalt (2.2L 4AT) are around 9L/100km combined.

That would indicate to me that the Mazda3 is no worse or better than the other similar cars. In real life you mileage may vary, but I would think the same would be true for all of them.

[Triple Bob]

Everyone knows that fuel economy dips 30-40% during cold weather driving.

40%, even with denser air..?

[rami]

10 L / 100 KM is atrocious for a small car like this. Our 2008 toyota sienna gets 11.2 L / 100 km, all winter city driving in Calgary. and it has a 266hp 3.5 litre V6 and weighs 2000kg.

our 2004 civic ( 1.9 litre, less power than the mazda) gets 6.5 litres / 100km in the city.

[Shnak]

In the Porsche 911 Carrera PDK article, the reviewer got 10.5L/100km for a 345HP engine... There is NOOOOOOOOOOO good reason for this 2.5L to be as bad as it is on gas. The only reason is its constructor that hides behind the 'we build zoom-zoom vehicles' reason to justify their bad fuel economy... Is a Mazda3 more 'zoom-zoom' than a 345HP Porsche?

[Dante]

In the Porsche 911 Carrera PDK article, the reviewer got 10.5L/100km for a 345HP engine... There is NOOOOOOOOOOO good reason for this 2.5L to be as bad as it is on gas. The only reason is its constructor that hides behind the 'we build zoom-zoom vehicles' reason to justify their bad fuel economy... Is a Mazda3 more 'zoom-zoom' than a 345HP Porsche?

Can you tell me what Toyota is hiding behind since Chris Chase averaged 12.5L/100 km during his week in the Matrix XR?

[Jaeger]

Everyone knows that fuel economy dips 30-40% during cold weather driving.

40%, even with denser air..?

My thought exactly.  That claim has a certain odour to it, if you get my meaning.  My fuel economy sure doesn't drop significantly (if at all) during the winter.

Jaeger

[jaman]

Everyone knows that fuel economy dips 30-40% during cold weather driving.

40%, even with denser air..?

Dense air has nothing to do with fuel economy, maximum horsepower, yes. The ECU "always" calculates the correct amount of air and fuel, it's just with denser air the volume is slightly less than with hotter air.

[jaman]

In the Porsche 911 Carrera PDK article, the reviewer got 10.5L/100km for a 345HP engine... There is NOOOOOOOOOOO good reason for this 2.5L to be as bad as it is on gas. The only reason is its constructor that hides behind the 'we build zoom-zoom vehicles' reason to justify their bad fuel economy... Is a Mazda3 more 'zoom-zoom' than a 345HP Porsche?

While I generally agree with you, it is possible that the 911 got better or equal milage than the Mazda3. Think about it, even though the engine is cabable of producing 345hp, while driving around town, you may be using all of 150 hp (I think to maintain constant speed, you only use like 10-20hp). So if the Porsche engine is much more effecient producing 150hp than the Mazda, then your milage will be better.

[MKII]

I have read that for every 10 degree F drop in temperature, aerodynamic drag increases by 2%.
Jaeger, I find it hard to believe that you see little or no difference between winter/summer fuel economy.
Do you not drive in slushy roads, use winter tires, use the electrical systems more in winter eg:lights (less daylight,  rear window defroster, heater blower motor,  heated seats/mirrors , windshield washer pump , or warm your car.
I read that just bad road conditons (snowy/slushy) can effect FE as high as 50%, and  cold temperatures effect FE up to 13%.

You got some amazing tips on wintertime FE you can share?

[vdk]

Isn't there some sort of anti freeze added to gas in the winter? I'm sure as hell that doesn't burn..

[Jaeger]

I have read that for every 10 degree F drop in temperature, aerodynamic drag increases by 2%.
Jaeger, I find it hard to believe that you see little or no difference between winter/summer fuel economy.
Do you not drive in slushy roads, use winter tires, use the electrical systems more in winter eg:lights (less daylight,  rear window defroster, heater blower motor,  heated seats/mirrors , windshield washer pump , or warm your car.
I read that just bad road conditons (snowy/slushy) can effect FE as high as 50%, and  cold temperatures effect FE up to 13%.

You got some amazing tips on wintertime FE you can share?

I won't pretend to be concerned with what you do or don't find hard to believe.

On long highway trips my Altima V6 6MT returns around 30mpg.  It does that pretty much whatever the season.  Sure, I'm using the heater in the winter - but is that a bigger drag on economy that using the AC in the summer?  Sure, if I'm driving on slushy roads that creates more drag - just like driving through heavy rain in a summer thunderstorm does. But in those conditions, you're driving slower anyway (if you have a brain) which provides its own fuel economy offset.

By the theory advanced, I should be getting as little as 18mpg hwy in the winter (40% reduction).  Sorry - that just doesn't happen.  Seasonal impact on fuel economy is close enough to zero as to make no diference.

Want some "amazing" driving tips?  Keep your speed moderate and constant.

Maybe you could provide some "amazing" insight into why you see a 40% decrease in winter fuel economy?  If everyone knew what you were doing to get that much of a drop, it would be highly instructive, to say the least.

Jaeger

[Shnak]

During city driving, especially short trips (<10km), winter driving is a lot worse than summer driving. That's where the 30-40% bump in fuel consumption will be noticed.