Fuel economy
January-6th-2004, 10:08 AM
#1
Protege Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2
Fuel economy
Hello,
I purchased a Mazda 3 GT Hatch a couple of weeks ago. I was told that the vehicle would get 42miles/gallon. I was also told that the car will not initial get as good of fuel economy. Is it true that your vehicle won't get optimum fuel economy until it has 15000kms? why?
On my first tank I averaged 29 miles/gallon.
Is there anything that I can do to improve fuel economy?
Thanks,
BTW: I love this car! I test drove all the competiting vehicles in this class and not one could come close to the tight ride that the Mazda has...this car beg's to be driven fast...
I purchased a Mazda 3 GT Hatch a couple of weeks ago. I was told that the vehicle would get 42miles/gallon. I was also told that the car will not initial get as good of fuel economy. Is it true that your vehicle won't get optimum fuel economy until it has 15000kms? why?
On my first tank I averaged 29 miles/gallon.
Is there anything that I can do to improve fuel economy?
Thanks,
BTW: I love this car! I test drove all the competiting vehicles in this class and not one could come close to the tight ride that the Mazda has...this car beg's to be driven fast...
January-6th-2004, 04:50 PM
#2
Demands Perfection
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 344
Maybe, But Not Likely
I trust you've the "i" 2 litre engine vs. the "S" 2.3?
The 2.3 will never deliver that kind of fuel efficiency, sadly.
The 2 litre-- Maybe if you have an empty car, half a tank of fuel, no head wind, flat driving, 60mph speed, and properly inflated tires you'll get into the 40's, but I personally feel that's unlikely. High 30's is about as realistic as you're likely to be yielded in a Mazda...
The 2.3 will never deliver that kind of fuel efficiency, sadly.
The 2 litre-- Maybe if you have an empty car, half a tank of fuel, no head wind, flat driving, 60mph speed, and properly inflated tires you'll get into the 40's, but I personally feel that's unlikely. High 30's is about as realistic as you're likely to be yielded in a Mazda...
January-7th-2004, 10:32 AM
#3
Protege Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 2
fuel economy
I was comapring the fuel economy to the U.S Gallons. The 42 mpg was based on the UK Gallons. 6.7l/100km = 42mpg(UK).
I have the 2.3 GT Hatch Mazda3. My first fill up was at 584km, it took 48litre to fill up so I still had 7 litres left. mostly hwy driven.
I have the 2.3 GT Hatch Mazda3. My first fill up was at 584km, it took 48litre to fill up so I still had 7 litres left. mostly hwy driven.
January-7th-2004, 11:01 AM
#4
Demands Perfection
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 344
Ahh!
Given the numbers you've mentioned, conversion to the archaic system we're all forced to use here in the U.S.:
584 km = 362.881 miles
48 l = 12.684 gallons
That yields 28.609 miles per gallon; about what I'd expect from Mazda (poor).
Not to rant too much, but I've been bothered by Mazda's apparent lack of effort to render competative fuel economy. That outlined above is about what the Protege currently gets with its 2 litre engine, and I've never been happy with that sad showing at all.
Although I like the 3 a lot, Mazda engines continue to lag behind the likes of Honda, for instance. The 4-cylinder available in the Accord delivers BETTER fuel economy despite being a bigger engine (2.4 vs. 2.3), let alone driving a bigger, heavier car. I think that sucks.
That said, I'd imagine your economy will improve a little as the car is broken in...
Amen!
584 km = 362.881 miles
48 l = 12.684 gallons
That yields 28.609 miles per gallon; about what I'd expect from Mazda (poor).
Not to rant too much, but I've been bothered by Mazda's apparent lack of effort to render competative fuel economy. That outlined above is about what the Protege currently gets with its 2 litre engine, and I've never been happy with that sad showing at all.
Although I like the 3 a lot, Mazda engines continue to lag behind the likes of Honda, for instance. The 4-cylinder available in the Accord delivers BETTER fuel economy despite being a bigger engine (2.4 vs. 2.3), let alone driving a bigger, heavier car. I think that sucks.
That said, I'd imagine your economy will improve a little as the car is broken in...
Amen!
January-7th-2004, 03:46 PM
#5
Protege Newbie
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 24
I don't think the Mazda engines lack too much behind if they do. I have owned a 91 CRX si for five years during my college time. The manufacturer suggested mpg were 25/32 for city/fwy.
I NEVER got anywhere close to 28 mpg even though the 2 times I drove down to LA and came back to North Cal.
The best that I had was 27.4 mpg, something like that on that long trips on Hwy 5.
My friends have one 2000 Accord and 2001 Accord, both 4 cylinders and auto tran.. Theirs claim 28/30 auto/manual mpg on fwy, but theirs NEVER approach anywhere close to 28 mpg.
My other friend just bought a Scion xB and is claimed to run 36+ mpg in Manual on fwy. She has NEVER seen it pass 30 mpg.
I think that Mazda is more HONEST in the mpg claims.
Besides, Honda cars nowadays lack the sportiness one can find from a Mazda.
my cents.
---------------------------------------
2001 LX with Mazdaspeed body kit
17" alloys from Konig Monsoon
1997 GS-R spoiler - fits perfect
I NEVER got anywhere close to 28 mpg even though the 2 times I drove down to LA and came back to North Cal.
The best that I had was 27.4 mpg, something like that on that long trips on Hwy 5.
My friends have one 2000 Accord and 2001 Accord, both 4 cylinders and auto tran.. Theirs claim 28/30 auto/manual mpg on fwy, but theirs NEVER approach anywhere close to 28 mpg.
My other friend just bought a Scion xB and is claimed to run 36+ mpg in Manual on fwy. She has NEVER seen it pass 30 mpg.
I think that Mazda is more HONEST in the mpg claims.
Besides, Honda cars nowadays lack the sportiness one can find from a Mazda.
my cents.
---------------------------------------
2001 LX with Mazdaspeed body kit
17" alloys from Konig Monsoon
1997 GS-R spoiler - fits perfect
Last edited by 2001ProtegeLX; January-7th-2004 at 04:23 PM.
January-26th-2004, 09:05 AM
#6
Protege Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Delaware
Posts: 2
My 2 cents...
You can add Acura to the list of dishonest MPG claims. I just ordered the Black Mica 5 door, where I'll trade in my 2002 Acura RSX Type S. The fuel economy "claims" for the RSX were 24 city and 31 highway. In two years of driving I never got over 26 mpg (long freeway trip, driving like a grandmother), and the average is 19 to 20 mpg. Hoping to get around 29 or 30 in the Mazda 3.
You can add Acura to the list of dishonest MPG claims. I just ordered the Black Mica 5 door, where I'll trade in my 2002 Acura RSX Type S. The fuel economy "claims" for the RSX were 24 city and 31 highway. In two years of driving I never got over 26 mpg (long freeway trip, driving like a grandmother), and the average is 19 to 20 mpg. Hoping to get around 29 or 30 in the Mazda 3.
August-1st-2006, 03:47 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DAllas, PA
Posts: 502
Originally Posted by 2001ProtegeLX
Besides, Honda cars nowadays lack the sportiness one can find from a Mazda.
While MAzda's engines don't deliver quite the fuel efficiency of a newer honda or toyota. However, how many NEW Honda's can u get for $18,000 that have 17 inch wheels, a 160bhp 2.3 liter engine, and stock suspension capable of ~67mph slaloms? While still getting 25 city/32 highway?
Personally I have been very happy with my mileage. I've been getting an average of about 27mpg with about 20% city / 80% small town driving.
And that includes some "spirited" driving.
If you want outstanding gas mileage, don't buy a car that is aimed to provide a sporty ride.
August-2nd-2006, 10:28 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 80
I've never gotten great fuel economy in my Protege5. Usually 25-29. Rarely get to 30. I blame the gearing. I think the Mazda3 does quite a bit better, especially on the highway.
My site has recently launched a survey to get to the bottom of real-world fuel economy. Just for 2006 and 2007 models right now, but 2005 by end of the week (August 4) and earlier years soon.
http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php
My site has recently launched a survey to get to the bottom of real-world fuel economy. Just for 2006 and 2007 models right now, but 2005 by end of the week (August 4) and earlier years soon.
http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_economy.php
August-7th-2006, 01:05 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 19
It's important to note how the MPG claimes are derived. They are not issued by the factory but by the EPA here in the US. The following text has been taken directly from the EPA's homepage and describes the conditions under which the testing is performed.
"Vehicles are driven over identical driving patterns by professional drivers in controlled laboratory conditions on a dynamometer, which is like a treadmill for cars. The conditions that occur during driving, such as wind drag and inertia are accounted for on the dynamometer. There are two types of tests that are conducted: city and highway tests.
The city test is approximately 11 miles long and simulates a stop and go trip with an average speed of about 20 miles per hour (mph). The trip lasts 31 minutes and has 23 stops. About 18 percent of the time is spent idling (as in waiting for traffic lights). A short freeway driving segment is included in the test. The engine is initially started after being parked overnight.
The highway simulates a 10 mile trip with an average speed of 48 mph. The vehicle is started "hot" and there is very little idling and no stops."
Now I don't know about any of you, but my highway driving speeds, on average, are a hell of a lot higher than 48mph, and as far as the city number is concerned, according to columns written by Patrick Bedard for Car & Driver, the stop and go simulation is a rediculous farse on how us "city drivers" (boston here) really do drive...meaning we don't feather the throttle as we pull through an intersection or else we will get our asses run into.
The bottom line is the EPA figures are based on driving conditions that NO ONE will ever experience in the real world.
The best i've gotten on a 293 mile tirp with no traffic and the cruise control set to 75mph was about 33mpg, with a pretty good tailwind I should add.
Your mileage may vary....you got that right!
"Vehicles are driven over identical driving patterns by professional drivers in controlled laboratory conditions on a dynamometer, which is like a treadmill for cars. The conditions that occur during driving, such as wind drag and inertia are accounted for on the dynamometer. There are two types of tests that are conducted: city and highway tests.
The city test is approximately 11 miles long and simulates a stop and go trip with an average speed of about 20 miles per hour (mph). The trip lasts 31 minutes and has 23 stops. About 18 percent of the time is spent idling (as in waiting for traffic lights). A short freeway driving segment is included in the test. The engine is initially started after being parked overnight.
The highway simulates a 10 mile trip with an average speed of 48 mph. The vehicle is started "hot" and there is very little idling and no stops."
Now I don't know about any of you, but my highway driving speeds, on average, are a hell of a lot higher than 48mph, and as far as the city number is concerned, according to columns written by Patrick Bedard for Car & Driver, the stop and go simulation is a rediculous farse on how us "city drivers" (boston here) really do drive...meaning we don't feather the throttle as we pull through an intersection or else we will get our asses run into.
The bottom line is the EPA figures are based on driving conditions that NO ONE will ever experience in the real world.
The best i've gotten on a 293 mile tirp with no traffic and the cruise control set to 75mph was about 33mpg, with a pretty good tailwind I should add.
Your mileage may vary....you got that right!
December-20th-2006, 08:51 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 4
The best gas mileage I've ever seen with my '06 Touring hatch (with the 5AT and 9,800 miles) was 35.2 miles per gallon. That mileage was achieved during a highway trip a little over a week ago.
Total distance was close to 400 miles, and I had the cruise set at 65 the whole way save for the times when I would have to slow down in passing through small towns.
That said, 35.2 mpg is still not 40+ mpg. But It's better than the 29 or 31 mpg that the car is supposed to get on the highway.
Total distance was close to 400 miles, and I had the cruise set at 65 the whole way save for the times when I would have to slow down in passing through small towns.
That said, 35.2 mpg is still not 40+ mpg. But It's better than the 29 or 31 mpg that the car is supposed to get on the highway.
December-20th-2006, 03:26 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: burlington, ON....it's west of Toronto
Posts: 535
i get anywhere from 250km/tank (driving like a psycho) to 400 km/tank (driving like, a grandmother, and starting in second).....
i have a mazda3, with the 2.0L (standard tranny)
i have a mazda3, with the 2.0L (standard tranny)
December-21st-2006, 01:58 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: burlington, ON....it's west of Toronto
Posts: 535
k, Olestra, i've never EVER been anywhere close to 500km/tank....my best is 400ish....and that was a bunch of highway driving.
and screw the manual....i dont need a manual to tell me how to drive my car.
if i wanted to drive my car slowly, and get awesome fuel economy, i woulda bought a Prius.
and in order to get 500km/tank, you must be doing ALOT of highway driving, im all in the city, back and forth to school and work
and screw the manual....i dont need a manual to tell me how to drive my car.
if i wanted to drive my car slowly, and get awesome fuel economy, i woulda bought a Prius.
and in order to get 500km/tank, you must be doing ALOT of highway driving, im all in the city, back and forth to school and work