Author Topic: Day-by-Day Review: 2012 Mazda3 GS-Sky; Day 1 (Read 24259 times)

sacrat · « **Reply #40 on:** January 30, 2012, 12:24:26 am »

Quote from: airbalancer on January 27, 2012, 04:45:51 pm

I usually put my truck in awd in the rain just makes it a nicer drive
I have lost the rear end a couple of times with 2 wd truck

You mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgZTVkjQwto

D70 · « **Reply #41 on:** January 30, 2012, 07:29:48 am »

A Vancouver real world result

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/skyactiv/3

9.8 -- avg L/100km

theonlydt · « **Reply #42 on:** January 30, 2012, 07:42:58 am »

Quote from: D70 on January 30, 2012, 07:29:48 am

A Vancouver real world result

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/skyactiv/3

9.8 -- avg L/100km

Interesting choice. You could have chosen:
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/andrewthong/3 - 8.2

or

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/cwanner/3 - 8.0

or

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/syme/3 - 6.8

or

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/wenmaster/3 -7.7

and if you want to challenge my choices: http://www.fuelly.com/driver/awagawa/3 - 11.1

nlm · « **Reply #43 on:** January 30, 2012, 08:36:54 am »

A reader could conclude that the 3 sky version does not get much better fuel consumption than the Impreza (9.5 vs 10.0 (or 11.5 for the other Impreza review)) but since differents methods of measurement is it still useful to compare the results between these cars?

Weird how this 3 doesn't have the fuel consumption meter, must have been oversight?

jaman · « **Reply #44 on:** January 30, 2012, 08:59:28 am »

Oh great, so the CX-5 might get ~10-11 L/100 in mild weather? Another reason to bring the diesel version over.

wing · « **Reply #45 on:** January 30, 2012, 09:08:23 am »

I'll report back later tonight both on the forum and in the blog itself with another measurement which will contain about 100km of travel. We'll see how it goes. It was cold this morning though.

aaronk · « **Reply #46 on:** January 30, 2012, 09:15:43 am »

I seem to notice a lot of the boastful new compacts achieving real-world MPG's significantly lower than their EPA ratings. There's probably 4-5 new small cars that rate as high as 40 mpg on the highway but, according to real-world tests, are achieving much much less. Why is that?

hemusbull · « **Reply #47 on:** January 30, 2012, 09:24:14 am »

Whatb is dgood in my opinion, is the fact there is no trip computer! Yes, it is good one 'cause all trip computers are ...vehicle friendly instead to serve the drivers honestly! They do the same job as so called "official gas mileage" which is never the "real world" gas mileage! Honest approach, Mazda!

libraman · « **Reply #48 on:** January 30, 2012, 09:25:20 am »

Quote from: nlm on January 30, 2012, 08:36:54 am

A reader could conclude that the 3 sky version does not get much better fuel consumption than the Impreza (9.5 vs 10.0 (or 11.5 for the other Impreza review)) but since differents methods of measurement is it still useful to compare the results between these cars?

Weird how this 3 doesn't have the fuel consumption meter, must have been oversight?

I would not draw many conclusions based on someone driving in and around Ottawa in the dead of winter.

Did the 2011 3 have the fuel meter? Are they very accurate?

quadzilla · « **Reply #49 on:** January 30, 2012, 09:32:35 am »

Quote from: hemusbull on January 30, 2012, 09:24:14 am

Whatb is dgood in my opinion, is the fact there is no trip computer! Yes, it is good one 'cause all trip computers are ...vehicle friendly instead to serve the drivers honestly! They do the same job as so called "official gas mileage" which is never the "real world" gas mileage! Honest approach, Mazda!

False.

My car's computer is spot on, so are many others.

quadzilla · « **Reply #50 on:** January 30, 2012, 09:34:13 am »

I'll also post this here as I did in the fuel economy thread.

I did a test by driving to the trail head which was approx 12kms from my hotel. Set the display to show average L/100 and watched it drop as I drove further.

The drive from the hotel to trail head had only 1 stop sign, 3kms of 60kph then 7kms of 80kph then 2kms of 50kph.

Around the 8km mark the average finally got down to 10L/100 with no traffic. It continued to drop and when I stopped it was down to 8L/100. I don't think I could find an easier drive with no interruptions to test with.

Just shows how bad short drives with stop signs/lights and traffic destroy good fuel economy.

safristi · « **Reply #51 on:** January 30, 2012, 09:57:32 am »

.The trouble with all this quibbling aboot minor mileage differences,is one stroke of an OPEC/Voter(USA) pen in the main.............and POOF goes yer $vs miles per galleon! construct...............

Like playing the batchelor game with 5 Robot babes in the mix..............I'm in for that....

Did anyone see the Indian fellow (from INDIA) who sez driving at a steady 1,500 RPM...!!!! gave him the best mileage.those burst starts and stoppies are the SUNOFFACOCO destroyer.......he doesn't look at the speedo but the Tacho..................I could do with a nice fish Taco about now........but something smells fishy about the CAFE EPA and Canuck versions......

JRM · « **Reply #52 on:** January 30, 2012, 10:04:31 am »

Quote from: nlm on January 27, 2012, 12:55:41 pm

Quote from: DKaz on January 27, 2012, 11:50:11 am
Don't need AWD if all you're doing is urban driving, just appropriate tires and driving know-how. Remember, the two key issues in the rain are hydroplaning and stopping. AWD will not help your vehicle not hydroplane and AWD will not stop faster than a FWD or RWD.

And drive like a grandma!

That's a pretty general statement. My wife is a long time grandma and she drives like a bat out of Hell!

greengs · « **Reply #53 on:** January 30, 2012, 12:23:18 pm »

I got 8L/100 kms every tank pretty much driving rush hour traffic in my 2012 Civic. In my impreza I got 10L/100kms doing the same routes. Neither car has fancy transmissions or DI.

Blueprint · « **Reply #54 on:** January 30, 2012, 12:54:03 pm »

To put things in perspective, "our" local weekly blogger, Eric Descarries at La Presse, had a TDI Jetta with DSG last week. His average? 9.5 l/100 km, and he doesn't trust trip computers. All his numbers are calculated, and he reports how the computer compares to the fuel pump math.

This guy got some nice mail from Smart owners after he reported 8.9 l/100 km after a week in the mobile phone booth.

wing · « **Reply #55 on:** January 30, 2012, 01:14:50 pm »

The computers work perfectly fine, everytime I've checked they are DEAD on. Unless Eric is filling up the cars when he gets them he could be way off. The cars are always delivered "full" but sometimes that "full" could have 20-40 km on it!

Blueprint · « **Reply #56 on:** January 30, 2012, 01:26:50 pm »

Quote from: wing on January 30, 2012, 01:14:50 pm

The computers work perfectly fine, everytime I've checked they are DEAD on. Unless Eric is filling up the cars when he gets them he could be way off. The cars are always delivered "full" but sometimes that "full" could have 20-40 km on it!

I know that topping-off is the only way to go, and that's what I would do in your or Eric's shoes. I did a comparo drive once with Car and Driver, and they did not account for fuel economy before the first fill-up of the road trip. That was in 2004, pre-trip computers in common cars. They also used premium in all cars to use a level base, something they do (or used to in those days) so the performance tests would be on the best grounds possible.

nlm · « **Reply #57 on:** January 30, 2012, 01:28:40 pm »

Quote from: JRM on January 30, 2012, 10:04:31 am

And drive like a grandma!

That's a pretty general statement. My wife is a long time grandma and she drives like a bat out of Hell!
[/quote]

It was a friendly rib at a previous post about just drive like a grandma for better fuel efficiency.

blur911 · « **Reply #58 on:** January 30, 2012, 01:38:07 pm »

Quote from: Blueprint on January 30, 2012, 01:26:50 pm

That was in 2004, pre-trip computers in common cars.

Really? My 1987 Audi had a trip computer, as did my 1990 Ford/Mazda, my other 3 1990 Audi's, etc. Oddly, our top of the line 2003 Subaru doesn't have one.

greengs · « **Reply #59 on:** January 30, 2012, 01:49:53 pm »

BTW the gallery link goes to the subaru impreza pics