• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

the new mazda3 looks way better in person

ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
dealer here had 4 tucked in the back that are destined for the auto show next week. the grille does stand out but it's not anywhere near as bad as the pics make it look. and it looks really good next to an rx8. the inside is like a shrunk 09 mazda6, which is a good thing. if it was on sale today i'm sure i would have bought one.

the 09 mazda6 is really nice as well. the 3.7 ford engine has plenty of guts, the suspension is firm without being jarring, and the interior is very nice. it's very quiet inside as well. very tight turning radius for being such a big car.
 
Mazda has really turned around in the last 5-10 years. I prefer their styling to every other mainstream brand on the market. Is the new 6 available in wagon form?
 
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
I like the Mazda3 but the gas mileage on such a car is crap IMO. Deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...

24 / 32 mpg is bad?
Click to expand...

Real-world MPG from the 2.3 seems to be far from good. The 2.0 is better on economy, but the C1 platform is a bit on the heavy side, so the lack of power is noticeable.

 
edmunds reports 21 as their best and 17 for their worst for a tank. that's with the new 2.5.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
edmunds reports 21 as their best and 17 for their worst for a tank. that's with the new 2.5.
Click to expand...

Youch...that is pretty crappy...good lord. Might as well get a full size truck.
 
Originally posted by: Chunkee
Originally posted by: ElFenix
edmunds reports 21 as their best and 17 for their worst for a tank. that's with the new 2.5.
Click to expand...

Youch...that is pretty crappy...good lord. Might as well get a full size truck.
Click to expand...

they're all lead foots over there
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
edmunds reports 21 as their best and 17 for their worst for a tank. that's with the new 2.5.
Click to expand...

wow. I regularly get 24 mpg out of my V6 Mazda6. 30 mpg if it's on a trip (all highway). How can a 4 banger be worse?
 
Originally posted by: Chunkee
Originally posted by: ElFenix
edmunds reports 21 as their best and 17 for their worst for a tank. that's with the new 2.5.
Click to expand...

Youch...that is pretty crappy...good lord. Might as well get a full size truck.
Click to expand...

Don't know if I'd go as far as a full size truck. My Dodge gets 11 mpg. Best ever was 18 all highway.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
edmunds reports 21 as their best and 17 for their worst for a tank. that's with the new 2.5.
Click to expand...

Please link me to the article from Edmunds that test the 2009 Mazda3 and says it only got 21 MPG. I haven't seen the article.
 
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
I like the Mazda3 but the gas mileage on such a car is crap IMO. Deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...

24 / 32 mpg is bad?
Click to expand...

Compared to other cars in its class, yes it's on the lower end.
Click to expand...

yup, I get 26-27 on highway and around 22 in city. It's not horrible, but it is kind of dissapointing. 32 is possible on the 2.0 engine, but I can't see it on the 2.3 engine.
 
Originally posted by: JDub02
Originally posted by: ElFenix
edmunds reports 21 as their best and 17 for their worst for a tank. that's with the new 2.5.
Click to expand...

wow. I regularly get 24 mpg out of my V6 Mazda6. 30 mpg if it's on a trip (all highway). How can a 4 banger be worse?
Click to expand...

It's all about matching an appropriate motor to the weight, aerodynamics, and so forth of the vehicle. There are more than a few examples of small engines sometimes being too small for the vehicle, and having to operate at a higher output (and sucking more fuel while doing so) to accomplish the same thing a larger motor can do without breaking a sweat.

My GF's Kia Rio, with a 1.6L ~110hp I4, gets approximately the same fuel economy, actually a *shade* worse, than my 2.0L ~140hp I4 in my Focus. Both vehicles are in the 2600lb range. Ironically, the Focus motor is a Mazda Duratec (same as in the Mazda3i, sans VVT, so 140hp instead of 148hp.)

There's more to it than that, but you get the idea.

Corvettes also get better fuel economy than S2000s, and that's comparing motors from 5.7 to 7.0 to the 2.0 in the Honda 🙂
 
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: ElFenix
edmunds reports 21 as their best and 17 for their worst for a tank. that's with the new 2.5.
Click to expand...

Please link me to the article from Edmunds that test the 2009 Mazda3 and says it only got 21 MPG. I haven't seen the article.
Click to expand...

http://www.motortrend.com/road..._quick_test/index.html

Not sure about Edmunds, they might have been hammering it, but MT reports the official numbers as 21/29 with the optional 6-speed, which might make the Automatic numbers something like 20/28 or 19/27.
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign


It's all about matching an appropriate motor to the weight, aerodynamics, and so forth of the vehicle. There are more than a few examples of small engines sometimes being too small for the vehicle, and having to operate at a higher output (and sucking more fuel while doing so) to accomplish the same thing a larger motor can do without breaking a sweat.

My GF's Kia Rio, with a 1.6L ~110hp I4, gets approximately the same fuel economy, actually a *shade* worse, than my 2.0L ~140hp I4 in my Focus. Both vehicles are in the 2600lb range. Ironically, the Focus motor is a Mazda Duratec (same as in the Mazda3i, sans VVT, so 140hp instead of 148hp.)

There's more to it than that, but you get the idea.

Corvettes also get better fuel economy than S2000s, and that's comparing motors from 5.7 to 7.0 to the 2.0 in the Honda 🙂
Click to expand...

It's also very much about gearing and aerodynamics. The Corvette slips through the wind and has a very high sixth gear. IIRC, cruising at 70mph in a C5 vette is something like 1400RPM. The S2000 is geared to milk that little 4cyl for all it's worth.
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: ElFenix
edmunds reports 21 as their best and 17 for their worst for a tank. that's with the new 2.5.
Click to expand...

Please link me to the article from Edmunds that test the 2009 Mazda3 and says it only got 21 MPG. I haven't seen the article.
Click to expand...

http://www.motortrend.com/road..._quick_test/index.html

Not sure about Edmunds, they might have been hammering it, but MT reports the official numbers as 21/29 with the optional 6-speed, which might make the Automatic numbers something like 20/28 or 19/27.
Click to expand...

Here's a test drive by James Healey at USA Today. Averaged 22 MPG. The Edmunds test drive does not mention fuel economy at all. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
I like the Mazda3 but the gas mileage on such a car is crap IMO. Deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...

24 / 32 mpg is bad?
Click to expand...

Real-world MPG from the 2.3 seems to be far from good. The 2.0 is better on economy, but the C1 platform is a bit on the heavy side, so the lack of power is noticeable.
Click to expand...

The "first look" in Road&Track said something like: the 2.3 has minimally better performance than the 2.0 so you might as well get the 2.0 b/c of better economy.

 
Mazda's cars have traditionally had poor gas mileage compared to their competition (I'm not including the Miata here).

The last Protoge before the 3 was terrible but great power and fun to drive. They still have that trend with very zippy cars and loads of fun packed in but for that reason mileage is dismal.
 
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: ElFenix
edmunds reports 21 as their best and 17 for their worst for a tank. that's with the new 2.5.
Click to expand...

Please link me to the article from Edmunds that test the 2009 Mazda3 and says it only got 21 MPG. I haven't seen the article.
Click to expand...

http://www.motortrend.com/road..._quick_test/index.html

Not sure about Edmunds, they might have been hammering it, but MT reports the official numbers as 21/29 with the optional 6-speed, which might make the Automatic numbers something like 20/28 or 19/27.
Click to expand...

That's not what M/T reports.

From the article:

The 2.5L is more powerful, too, at 167 hp and 168 lb-ft of torque, and returns the same fuel economy at 22 city/29 highway when optioned with a six-speed. A 2.0L mill is also available for the new 3 and returns 25 city/33 highway mpg with a five-speed manual -- an increase of 1 mpg city and highway from last year's 2.0L trim.

So it's 22/29 for the 2.5L and 25/33 for the 2.0L

FYI: I already knew Edmunds had not reported on the 2009 Mazda3.

So again, I can't see that being poor gas mileage. Not sure what the competition is, but how much better can it be without being a hybrid? SoundTheSurrender - what else is in the class with better mileage.




 
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: ElFenix
edmunds reports 21 as their best and 17 for their worst for a tank. that's with the new 2.5.
Click to expand...

Please link me to the article from Edmunds that test the 2009 Mazda3 and says it only got 21 MPG. I haven't seen the article.
Click to expand...

http://www.motortrend.com/road..._quick_test/index.html

Not sure about Edmunds, they might have been hammering it, but MT reports the official numbers as 21/29 with the optional 6-speed, which might make the Automatic numbers something like 20/28 or 19/27.
Click to expand...

That's not what M/T reports.

From the article:

The 2.5L is more powerful, too, at 167 hp and 168 lb-ft of torque, and returns the same fuel economy at 22 city/29 highway when optioned with a six-speed. A 2.0L mill is also available for the new 3 and returns 25 city/33 highway mpg with a five-speed manual -- an increase of 1 mpg city and highway from last year's 2.0L trim.

So it's 22/29 for the 2.5L and 25/33 for the 2.0L

FYI: I already knew Edmunds had not reported on the 2009 Mazda3.

So again, I can't see that being poor gas mileage. Not sure what the competition is, but how much better can it be without being a hybrid? SoundTheSurrender - what else is in the class with better mileage.
Click to expand...

Focus, Sentra, Corolla, etc, etc.

The 2.5L pushes it well below the fuel economy numbers of the competitor's 2.0 offerings, which in turn are usually slightly better, or no worse than the 2.0 numbers for the Mazda3. This is due to the 3 being about the heaviest car in the class.

It's a nice car, but the price is also higher than most of the competition.
 
Originally posted by: LikeLinus

FYI: I already knew Edmunds had not reported on the 2009 Mazda3.
Click to expand...

uh, we're talking about the 2010, and they had a full test on the 1st, which reported their best and worse tanks. if you click over to the performance and specs page of it, it reports 20.6 as their average.
 
that's about right. my 2004 is about 17 to 23 mpg.

when i tried hypermiling or whatever the fuck it's called, i think i managed to hit 25 mpg
 
Wow... sorry to hear about all your guys shitty mileage. Mine hasn't been nearly that bad. I get around 26mpg with mixed driving usually, up to 32mpg highway(34 once with nice tailwind). I have an 06 with the 2.3 and 5-speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top