Author Topic: Day-by-Day Review: 2012 Mazda3 GS-Sky; Day 1 (Read 24273 times)

Autos_Editor · « **on:** January 25, 2012, 03:07:25 am »

The Mazda3 GS-Sky is the first North American Mazda to get the company's new SkyActiv fuel saving technology. Follow this week's blog for James' impressions.
Read More...

sweetadad · « **Reply #1 on:** January 25, 2012, 05:00:24 am »

I'll be curious to see the mileage over the 5 days. Although not a true test, but enough to give an idea on how much better the new Mazda 3 is in terms of gas consumption. I have a 2011 M3 GX (base with 2.0 L) and the gas consumption varies between 9 and 11L/100KM (summer-> winter). nothing to brag about.

Patrick_D1 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 25, 2012, 08:03:16 am »

Quote from: sweetadad on January 25, 2012, 05:00:24 am

I'll be curious to see the mileage over the 5 days. Although not a true test, but enough to give an idea on how much better the new Mazda 3 is in terms of gas consumption. I have a 2011 M3 GX (base with 2.0 L) and the gas consumption varies between 9 and 11L/100KM (summer-> winter). nothing to brag about.

Sounds about right - my girlfriend used to have a 2009 GX that got very similar mileage. I got the impression that the 4-speed auto was absolutely killing the fuel economy. Pair that with the hilariously large fuel reserve (12L or so on a 55L tank) and it felt like the car lived at the gas station.

alienc · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2012, 08:21:15 am »

I agree with both of the previous posters comments. Have a 2009 GX 5-spd and the gas mileage is about the same (9-11 l/100km) and the amount of fuel left when the gas light comes on is usually around 12 litres as if I fill it when it first comes on I can usually only get about 40-45 litres in the tank.

Hopefully the SKY technology helps out in the fuel economy department, I can't complain that my car isn't powerful and wouldn't trade fuel economy for smaller output but if they can keep the performance the same (or better) and increase the mileage it's definitely on my list to replace my present Mazda when the lease is up.

nlm · « **Reply #4 on:** January 25, 2012, 08:43:43 am »

Yup, similar mileage with the 2010 2.0L w/4spd 3 I commuted on/off last year.

Interesting how the new 3 feels more solid than the new Impreza for James; for me the 2004 Impreza felt a lot more solid than the 2010 3 even when equipped with the far better tires.

Spec5 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2012, 11:16:02 am »

For anyone comparing - my mother-in-laws 08 Sentra w/CVT gets 9.3L/100kms (according to the computer) - and that car probably spends most of its time either warming up in the driveway (she'll OFTEN run it through x2 15 minute cycles!) or below 50km/h commuting traffic (commute is approx 15kms each way)

jekelly · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2012, 01:00:36 pm »

Wow, I'm impress of what your telling me guys. I've droven a Ford Fiesta for one day this week an the trip computer showed me an average of 8.9L/100km. I don't know if the trip computer is trustable but my calculation (there was no trip computer in 2007) with my Ford Escape 2007 4cyl 4X2 is about the same as your Mazda3. I begin to beleive that I should not bother try to downsize my car if I'm gonna save 1-2L/100km.

Ciao.

Factger · « **Reply #7 on:** January 25, 2012, 04:00:53 pm »

Our 2005 mazda3 gt got a little better fuel mileage than our 2002 maxima.(maxima is about 10.2L/100km 60%highway/40%city)

Wing
With all the fuel savings from the engine & transnmission does it have a major effect on the ("zoom zoom") sportiness that the previous Mazda3 has.

mik101 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2012, 04:49:52 pm »

"The transmission in my tester is the optional six-speed automatic (a $1,200 upgrade from the six-speed manual)."

No, you were right the first time. It's an option, not an upgrade. Upgrades make the vehicle perform better (fuel economy, or performance -- I don't care which).

wing · « **Reply #9 on:** January 25, 2012, 08:14:45 pm »

Actually the auto does offer better fuel economy. 7.6/5.1 for the manual and 7.1/5.0 auto

theonlydt · « **Reply #10 on:** January 25, 2012, 08:19:18 pm »

Quote from: wing on January 25, 2012, 08:14:45 pm

Actually the auto does offer better fuel economy. 7.6/5.1 for the manual and 7.1/5.0 auto

Good answer

I still don't think it's an upgrade (like the other poster), but you are completely right about stated fuel economy and you should be applauded for knowing your stuff

ajay · « **Reply #11 on:** January 26, 2012, 07:23:51 am »

Shifts at 2000 rpm ? Wheres the ZOOM ZOOM in that !

tpl · « **Reply #12 on:** January 26, 2012, 07:35:53 am »

Quote from: ajay on January 26, 2012, 07:23:51 am

Shifts at 2000 rpm ? Wheres the ZOOM ZOOM in that !

My DSG GTI does that when left to its own devices...nearer 1800 rpm in fact. Fuel economy is good.
However if one is heavy footed or the transmission is in sport mode it will shift up at 5900 which means it never gets into 5th or 6th. In manual mode of course it will stay in gear until 6400 or so.

Plenty of ZOOM ZOOM

dkaz · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2012, 08:17:31 am »

Quote from: Force on January 25, 2012, 08:03:16 am

Quote from: sweetadad on January 25, 2012, 05:00:24 am
I'll be curious to see the mileage over the 5 days. Although not a true test, but enough to give an idea on how much better the new Mazda 3 is in terms of gas consumption. I have a 2011 M3 GX (base with 2.0 L) and the gas consumption varies between 9 and 11L/100KM (summer-> winter). nothing to brag about.

Sounds about right - my girlfriend used to have a 2009 GX that got very similar mileage. I got the impression that the 4-speed auto was absolutely killing the fuel economy. Pair that with the hilariously large fuel reserve (12L or so on a 55L tank) and it felt like the car lived at the gas station.

Quote from: alienc on January 25, 2012, 08:21:15 am

I agree with both of the previous posters comments. Have a 2009 GX 5-spd and the gas mileage is about the same (9-11 l/100km) and the amount of fuel left when the gas light comes on is usually around 12 litres as if I fill it when it first comes on I can usually only get about 40-45 litres in the tank.

Quote from: nlm on January 25, 2012, 08:43:43 am

Yup, similar mileage with the 2010 2.0L w/4spd 3 I commuted on/off last year.

Interesting how the new 3 feels more solid than the new Impreza for James; for me the 2004 Impreza felt a lot more solid than the 2010 3 even when equipped with the far better tires.

Drive smarter. I've been averaging 9L/100km mostly city the past month in my Mazda 5 which is 750 lb heavier and has the thirstier 2.3L engine.

By the way a lot of new vehicles have the gas light come on at roughly a fifth to a quarter tank left.

Patrick_D1 · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2012, 08:33:30 am »

Quote from: DKaz on January 26, 2012, 08:17:31 am

Drive smarter. I've been averaging 9L/100km mostly city the past month in my Mazda 5 which is 750 lb heavier and has the thirstier 2.3L engine.

By the way a lot of new vehicles have the gas light come on at roughly a fifth to a quarter tank left.

The mileage reported was from my girlfriend's driving, not mine. She's far from a lead-foot and did primarily highway. If it was doing 9 L/100 km with her at the wheel, I shudder to think of what it was averaging the few times I drove it for extended periods.

nlm · « **Reply #15 on:** January 26, 2012, 08:51:16 am »

Quote from: DKaz on January 26, 2012, 08:17:31 am

Drive smarter.

I think the comments were more about the relative fuel efficiency of the previous gen 3 rather than complaining about terrible mileage. Driving just as 'smart' in the newer 3 or even some of its competitors would give the same proportional drop in fuel economy.

quadzilla · « **Reply #16 on:** January 26, 2012, 10:31:44 am »

I find that most people give out false numbers when it comes to their fuel efficiency. Things people say...

I drive about 400kms a tank
I think I get about 11L/100
I always fill up when the light comes on
My commute isn't that bad

How about some real number and real descriptions of these said routes.

I can easily get sub 10's city in my GTi but at the same time I can just as easily get 15's. Route, driving style and traffic can make the biggest change to mileage. I imagine the worst being driving less than 10kms at a time.

greengs · « **Reply #17 on:** January 26, 2012, 11:50:38 am »

Quote from: quadzilla on January 26, 2012, 10:31:44 am

I find that most people give out false numbers when it comes to their fuel efficiency. Things people say...

I drive about 400kms a tank
I think I get about 11L/100
I always fill up when the light comes on
My commute isn't that bad

How about some real number and real descriptions of these said routes.

I can easily get sub 10's city in my GTi but at the same time I can just as easily get 15's. Route, driving style and traffic can make the biggest change to mileage. I imagine the worst being driving less than 10kms at a time.

Agree 100%. City driving at 4-6pm is also a lot different than same routes at 10am or 10pm

Blueprint · « **Reply #18 on:** January 26, 2012, 01:00:51 pm »

Trip computers can be funny. On my Sentra, fill-up the tank, reset the trip computer, and drive at a steady 50 km/h for a couple of kms and you'll get 3.9 l/100km. Get in a traffic jam for a couple of hours after that reset, and get 23 l/100km instead. Short trips and idling kill mpg. Averages for full-tanks are more relevant, and these days we have little traffic despite the cold and my manual Sentra delivers 8.2's, about a litre more than in summertime. Never had calculated averages higher than nines.

safristi · « **Reply #19 on:** January 26, 2012, 03:03:29 pm »

folks don't rely on another guys tales,guages or whateffer................drive your choice....and it's a few $100 bucks either way per year in extra gasoline for your vehicle category choice......most likely MORE.....if U are suckered into believing the Canadian "sticker #'s) or even CAFE numbers from the USA..relax Mon No worries.................