Gas Mileage Discussion: Mazda Engine Efficiency *LONG*
November-22nd-2002, 12:25 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: PA
Posts: 2,339
Gas Mileage Discussion: Mazda Engine Efficiency *LONG*
This isn't a regular gas mileage discussion thread, I've seen quite a few of them already pass by. What I'm wondering is first of all, what kind of mileage people are averaging. Then with that, I'd like to compare it to other car manufacters.
For example. My mom has a 2002 Saturn SL2. Yea yea, you guys don't like Saturn's, big deal. It's a commuter car, whaddaya want?
Anyway, the specs on a 2002 Saturn and 2002 Protege are pretty close. (S) 1.9l to (M) 2.0l, (S) 124hp to (M) 130hp, (S) 122tq to (M) 135tq.... (S) 24xx lbs to (M) 26xx lbs... Pretty closely matched cars. (All info taken from Edmunds.com)
Going on that, I'd also like to compare my '90 protege with my sisters '93 Saturn SL2. Again, very similar cars. (S) 124hp, (M) 125hp, (S) 122tq, (M) 114tq. The weight it within 50lbs of each other as well. Also I'd like to point out that my sister's car is automatic.
So, with that information... My sister's car, drivingly the same style, areas, and distances, get's much better gas mileage even with the automatic transmission. I get usually around 24-26mpg in the protege with mixed driving (which is normal from what I've read on here), and my sister has yet to get under 30mpg. My mom just took it on a trip out to Pittsburg and back, a little over 180 miles each way, and she said she got about 37-38 mpg. My mom isn't a granny driver, she drives just like I do when I'm driving 'normal'.
Hell, I've yet to get that sort of mileage with my 323 which is hundreds of lbs less, smaller engine, less HP, etc. etc.
My moms 2002 (she was driving the '93 because she got in an accident with her 2002, it was getting body repair done) get's around 33mpg normal driving (back and forth to work, to the store, etc.) and she's actually hit about 40mpg flat on a longer trip.
Not only this, but I'd say that the performance between the comparable cars are quite close. Obviously I should be able to take my sisters car because it's an auto, while I'm manual... But manual for manual, it would be a close race, even with the newer cars.
I know there are a ton of factors mixed into how good of gas mileage you can expect (gearing, driving style, aerodynamics, aside from the normal factors), but can I assume mazda's engines are less efficient than some other company's? What's everyone's thoughts on this situation? Sorry for the long post
For example. My mom has a 2002 Saturn SL2. Yea yea, you guys don't like Saturn's, big deal. It's a commuter car, whaddaya want?
Anyway, the specs on a 2002 Saturn and 2002 Protege are pretty close. (S) 1.9l to (M) 2.0l, (S) 124hp to (M) 130hp, (S) 122tq to (M) 135tq.... (S) 24xx lbs to (M) 26xx lbs... Pretty closely matched cars. (All info taken from Edmunds.com)
Going on that, I'd also like to compare my '90 protege with my sisters '93 Saturn SL2. Again, very similar cars. (S) 124hp, (M) 125hp, (S) 122tq, (M) 114tq. The weight it within 50lbs of each other as well. Also I'd like to point out that my sister's car is automatic.
So, with that information... My sister's car, drivingly the same style, areas, and distances, get's much better gas mileage even with the automatic transmission. I get usually around 24-26mpg in the protege with mixed driving (which is normal from what I've read on here), and my sister has yet to get under 30mpg. My mom just took it on a trip out to Pittsburg and back, a little over 180 miles each way, and she said she got about 37-38 mpg. My mom isn't a granny driver, she drives just like I do when I'm driving 'normal'.
Hell, I've yet to get that sort of mileage with my 323 which is hundreds of lbs less, smaller engine, less HP, etc. etc.
My moms 2002 (she was driving the '93 because she got in an accident with her 2002, it was getting body repair done) get's around 33mpg normal driving (back and forth to work, to the store, etc.) and she's actually hit about 40mpg flat on a longer trip.
Not only this, but I'd say that the performance between the comparable cars are quite close. Obviously I should be able to take my sisters car because it's an auto, while I'm manual... But manual for manual, it would be a close race, even with the newer cars.
I know there are a ton of factors mixed into how good of gas mileage you can expect (gearing, driving style, aerodynamics, aside from the normal factors), but can I assume mazda's engines are less efficient than some other company's? What's everyone's thoughts on this situation? Sorry for the long post
November-22nd-2002, 01:48 PM
#2
Protege Enthusiast
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 282
Yeah, i'm averagng about 25-27 MPG with mixed driving on my 03 p5. Hearing that your mom got 40 MPG is pretty freaking crazy. I'm thining something along the lines of that car's gearing allows for low RPM, high speed driving, unline P5, which is going like 4k at 80 mph....
My last car, 01 Celica GT-S, averaged about 25-27 mpg too, but it had a 1.8L and the car was 2500 lbs. I did have it slightly modded and that mileage includes a LOT of aggressive driving. I think the best i ever got was like 29 mpg or soemhign, and that car has a 6th gear too :P
My last car, 01 Celica GT-S, averaged about 25-27 mpg too, but it had a 1.8L and the car was 2500 lbs. I did have it slightly modded and that mileage includes a LOT of aggressive driving. I think the best i ever got was like 29 mpg or soemhign, and that car has a 6th gear too :P
November-22nd-2002, 02:20 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 401
I think it's gearing...my dad's 1990 Cavalier with 2.2. l and 5 speed used to take 6 liter/100km on hwy(vs Protege's 7-8)
I don't think that 2.2 Cavalier is more efficient than Pro(it was with TBI and technology wasn't up to Mazda in 2002 for sure-but sure it was geared differently.
Alex
I don't think that 2.2 Cavalier is more efficient than Pro(it was with TBI and technology wasn't up to Mazda in 2002 for sure-but sure it was geared differently.
Alex
November-22nd-2002, 02:31 PM
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: PA
Posts: 2,339
I think you guys might be right... I'm taching at 3k just going 60 mph in my pro... That's nothing less than ridiculous... I'll have to see what my mom's car does at those RPMs when she gets it back.
November-22nd-2002, 08:25 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 93
1986 Chevy Celebrity (bought used), auto, 6cy, 89 octane gas, college car, stock: 27-30 mpg
1993 Pontiac Grand Am (bought used), auto, 4cy, 89 octane gas, mixed city and highway, stock: 29-35 mpg
1997 Ponitac Sunfire (bought new), auto, 2.2L 4cy, 89 octane gas, mixed city and highway, stock: 33-35 mpg.
2003 Mazda Protege ES (bought new), auto, 2.0L 4cy, 89 octane gas, mixed city and highway, stock (see sig): 24-26 mpg.
That's what I remember. My first two cars were used beaters that I haven't had in years.
1993 Pontiac Grand Am (bought used), auto, 4cy, 89 octane gas, mixed city and highway, stock: 29-35 mpg
1997 Ponitac Sunfire (bought new), auto, 2.2L 4cy, 89 octane gas, mixed city and highway, stock: 33-35 mpg.
2003 Mazda Protege ES (bought new), auto, 2.0L 4cy, 89 octane gas, mixed city and highway, stock (see sig): 24-26 mpg.
That's what I remember. My first two cars were used beaters that I haven't had in years.
November-22nd-2002, 10:05 PM
#10
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: PA
Posts: 2,339
Originally posted by TheMAN
proper break-in (drive like a ***** for the first 3000 miles; gradually stepping up RPM between shifts), redline oil (tranny + engine), FS-ZE intake manifold, HKS intake
proper break-in (drive like a ***** for the first 3000 miles; gradually stepping up RPM between shifts), redline oil (tranny + engine), FS-ZE intake manifold, HKS intake
So anyways, does anyone have any theories besides gearing that would be robbing us of mpg? I rememberd back to my '89 Beretta GT 2.8l V6, I used to get 24-28 with that beastie, and it's a *gasp* GM product.
November-26th-2002, 07:31 AM
#12
Protege Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 173
I was told by a Toyota dealer that the engines on Saturns run a lot warmer and therefore get better mileage. (What does a toyata dealer know about saturns?? ) "I don't know" But that was his theary! He also said that the saturns might not last as long overall, compared to our cars! We also have dual cooling fans and so do neons and they also get crappy as hell gas mileage!
November-26th-2002, 08:24 AM
#13
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: PA
Posts: 2,339
Originally posted by distance
I was told by a Toyota dealer that the engines on Saturns run a lot warmer and therefore get better mileage. (What does a toyata dealer know about saturns?? ) "I don't know" But that was his theary! He also said that the saturns might not last as long overall, compared to our cars! We also have dual cooling fans and so do neons and they also get crappy as hell gas mileage!
I was told by a Toyota dealer that the engines on Saturns run a lot warmer and therefore get better mileage. (What does a toyata dealer know about saturns?? ) "I don't know" But that was his theary! He also said that the saturns might not last as long overall, compared to our cars! We also have dual cooling fans and so do neons and they also get crappy as hell gas mileage!
My mom has been buying new saturns since '97, and I don't we've had a maintence issue once. There was a recall for some seatbelt thing in '00, but that's all I remember.
I would think the dual cooling fans wouldn't matter, because it's pretty much the temperature (i.e. volume) of the air coming into the engine that would make a difference in gas mileage. Who knows? It's a good subject none the less
November-26th-2002, 09:43 AM
#14
Protege Newbie
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 23
What’s the problem with your understanding about the car you bought?
Designing a car and selling it to meet the needs of varied locations and people that drive them has always been a problem. Some car companies take the tact; “since the federal government (US), dictates that a car company as a whole must meet a minimum MPG” the design of small cars and their gas mileage will offset the large cars and their lack of it. None, or very little consideration is given to performance, or how it will ride, or if it is fun to drive.
That said, I have been reading several posts about the Mazda’s “high revving” and low gas mileage. To this I would like to say “Mazda did not have to worry about “corporate MPG”. They don’t build cars that weight 2 tons and seat six people or SUV that are 30 feet long and need to tow 8,000 pounds. They build small light weight cars to meet the needs perceived by their marketing research. They can build "fun".
Mazda has elected to build cars that are fun to drive while still meeting the market they are in, thus 4 doors are a must (except sport car). The second consideration was most of these cars will be sold to young singles, or newly married couples with small children and putting a baby seats in the back seat and strollers in the trunk mandates 4 doors and large trunks. The engineers needed to make the cars comfortable for 4 adults (US size) to be able to market their car in the US (biggest market area they have), so they set out to make a fun to drive 4 door sedan that will cruse at highway speeds and idle in stop and go traffic without most people complaining about engine vibration or continually shifting gears while at highway speeds when fully loaded going up hills. They did not have to take in to consideration fuel economy since it burns 89 octane and gets pretty good mileage on that. I personally feel they did a good job of that.
Ever ridden in a sunbird on the highway and come to a overpass and the transmission shift down to get the car over the top? Does your Mazda do that? The RPM are high to get the engine in a power bandwidth that will allow it to cruise at 60 – 80 without have to hunt for a gear to maintain speed with a load. They put the 2.oL in this year so that they would have more low end pick up so that accelerating on to a entrance ramp will not be a toss of the dice. In short, the engineers designed and built a car that will appeal to their market while keeping the “fun” in it (Zoom Zoom). The Mazda corners better, has less roil, and better pickup of any car in it’s class (money). It is comfortable to ride in around town and in a pinch you can put 4 full size adults in the car with luggage and go on a trip without having to allow extra time to get to the destination because you know that you are going to have to cross a mountain.
This car was never designed to be a “mass people mover”. It was designed in mind that most of the time it will have no more that 2 people in it with no luggage, moving around town in stop and go traffic. They made that fun. They made that easy on the engine and transmission. They made that with style.
Enjoy the car for what it is. It is not a world class race car, It is not a SUV that can pull a 40 foot boat, it does not wallow around town and drinks gas like there is no tomorrow. It is a wonderful car for the money and should last a long time with minimal cost for repairs, if you treat it well. To some of you that are just starting out I say "good choice" be glad you don’t have high insurance premiums, repair cost, and high gas bills. To those of us that are later in life I say “good choice” you have decided that transportation is just that. It is an expense and you should keep it low while feeling good about what you drive.
Bob
That said, I have been reading several posts about the Mazda’s “high revving” and low gas mileage. To this I would like to say “Mazda did not have to worry about “corporate MPG”. They don’t build cars that weight 2 tons and seat six people or SUV that are 30 feet long and need to tow 8,000 pounds. They build small light weight cars to meet the needs perceived by their marketing research. They can build "fun".
Mazda has elected to build cars that are fun to drive while still meeting the market they are in, thus 4 doors are a must (except sport car). The second consideration was most of these cars will be sold to young singles, or newly married couples with small children and putting a baby seats in the back seat and strollers in the trunk mandates 4 doors and large trunks. The engineers needed to make the cars comfortable for 4 adults (US size) to be able to market their car in the US (biggest market area they have), so they set out to make a fun to drive 4 door sedan that will cruse at highway speeds and idle in stop and go traffic without most people complaining about engine vibration or continually shifting gears while at highway speeds when fully loaded going up hills. They did not have to take in to consideration fuel economy since it burns 89 octane and gets pretty good mileage on that. I personally feel they did a good job of that.
Ever ridden in a sunbird on the highway and come to a overpass and the transmission shift down to get the car over the top? Does your Mazda do that? The RPM are high to get the engine in a power bandwidth that will allow it to cruise at 60 – 80 without have to hunt for a gear to maintain speed with a load. They put the 2.oL in this year so that they would have more low end pick up so that accelerating on to a entrance ramp will not be a toss of the dice. In short, the engineers designed and built a car that will appeal to their market while keeping the “fun” in it (Zoom Zoom). The Mazda corners better, has less roil, and better pickup of any car in it’s class (money). It is comfortable to ride in around town and in a pinch you can put 4 full size adults in the car with luggage and go on a trip without having to allow extra time to get to the destination because you know that you are going to have to cross a mountain.
This car was never designed to be a “mass people mover”. It was designed in mind that most of the time it will have no more that 2 people in it with no luggage, moving around town in stop and go traffic. They made that fun. They made that easy on the engine and transmission. They made that with style.
Enjoy the car for what it is. It is not a world class race car, It is not a SUV that can pull a 40 foot boat, it does not wallow around town and drinks gas like there is no tomorrow. It is a wonderful car for the money and should last a long time with minimal cost for repairs, if you treat it well. To some of you that are just starting out I say "good choice" be glad you don’t have high insurance premiums, repair cost, and high gas bills. To those of us that are later in life I say “good choice” you have decided that transportation is just that. It is an expense and you should keep it low while feeling good about what you drive.
Bob
November-27th-2002, 08:39 PM
#15
Protege Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 332
man you guys, i get sooo happy when i hit at least 23mpg. I average 21-22. I dont drive agressivly. I got an AT. The highest ill rev is like 5 and thats NOT often at all. I do a bunch of city driving though, and some very very slight (not steep) hill driving. I wouldnt even put in the hill part but thats the only thing i can see why my mpg is so low. I dont carry a lot in my car so its like the stock weight. The only thing a carry are books for school, and thats about it. I still like the milage i get though, im just dissapoited cuz i want to be seeing the 25-27 everyone else is seeing. . .
EDIT: i forgot to metion, I am on 18 inch rims on 35 series tires. Before the rims i was pulling like 22mpg consistantly. Havent recently watched it with the intake and the wheels. If i got bigger wheels, then technically, shouldnt i be getting more mpg?
EDIT: i forgot to metion, I am on 18 inch rims on 35 series tires. Before the rims i was pulling like 22mpg consistantly. Havent recently watched it with the intake and the wheels. If i got bigger wheels, then technically, shouldnt i be getting more mpg?