New Mazda3 owner with fuel efficiency worries

[JovianGhost]

Hello everyone!

First time Mazda (and new car) owner here. A few weeks ago I test drove a Mazda 3 and fell in love with it right away. After testing driving other cars I knew the 3 was for me, so I ended up buying a 2010 Mazda 3 GS in copper red. Absolutely fantastic car.

My only real worry is the fuel efficiency. I can't help but feel that something is wrong with the car, in terms of fuel efficiency.

Here are the numbers.

Gasup 1: This is city driving ONLY. I drove to work and back, as I normally do. Drove from a full tank down to 3 pegs (1/4 tank.)
326km trip, 39.47L pumped, 12.1L/100k = 19.4MPG

Gasup 2: This is a combination of city and highway. I calculated I drove 148.8km on the highway, which is ~33% of the total trip. The remaining 67% is just to work and back, nothing else. This time I drive from a full tank until the gas light came on (1 peg left.)
441.2km trip (146.8/33% highway, rest city), 40.08L pumped, 9.08L/100k = 25.9MPG

These numbers, particularly the first one, seem awfully bad. Hell, I got better mileage on my old car! (2001 Nissan Sentra GXE.)

A few things I'd like to point out: on my second trip, which I drove from a completely full tank to the gas warning light (down to 1 peg on the fuel meter) I only filled 40L until the pump stopped. Only 40? According to the manual I'm supposed to have a 55L tank. Does this mean that last little peg is 15L? I don't think so.
Also, notice how the first time I gassed up only half a litre less than the second time, and yet the second time I could drive until I was much lower (2 pegs down.)

It sounds to me like my fuel indicator is messed up. At least, I hope it's as simple as that, and not that the car has horrible fuel efficiency.

Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions?

[WingZero_]

I have a 2010 Sport GT. I average around 25-26mpg city, and when I went to Niagara for my honeymoon it was around 36mph highway.

[WingZero_]

And yes that one bar is worth quite a bit. I was amazed my first fill up. I even had the estimated range down to 1 mile before and it still had 8litres in the tank.

[JovianGhost]

25-26mpg seems fine for city. But I got less than 20. That doesn't sound right at all.

Just today I noticed that I'm already down by one peg, and that's after only 22.5km! At this rate I'll be down to a quarter tank (when I usually fill up) after just barely 200km!

[fatsock]

Your car seems a little extra thirsty, can you get it checked out? It doesn't sound like you're drag racing at every light...

[stevenma188]

I'm wondering if the reason your first fillup is so bad is because of how new your car is. It hasn't had time to break in yet, causing it to run not as efficiently as it should.

[froggy]

usually up until your first oil change (don't wait until 8000) go around 3 or 4k, your mileage will not be up to par. also the fuel gauge is very pessimistic you can drive down to about 5 litres left in your tank then you'll start feeling it hesitating and jerking around. there are times when I've let it go down under the last line and when I fill it right up it only goes to like 46 or 48 litres. I'd also double check the air pressure in the tires to make sure it's up to spec. Is the car an auto? Because if it is then "that's your problem right there"

[JP3]

I thought the capacity was 60L?

Anyway, I'm sure once you break-in your car more the better the fuel mileage gets. At least that's what everyone's been sayin. My 2010 GS (albeit MT) now at about 3000km does around 500km per tank now. It was similar to yours in its earlier life (a month ago.)

Welcome btw. :)

[JovianGhost]

Your car seems a little extra thirsty, can you get it checked out? It doesn't sound like you're drag racing at every light...
Checked out? It's brand-spanking new. Even if I do take it back to the dealer I doubt they're going to do anything with it. They're just gonna gimme something along the lines of "depends on how you drive it" or "multiple conditions affect it" or something like that. I don't even think it's worth my time, honestly; not to mention this dealer is already giving me the runaround.


I'm wondering if the reason your first fillup is so bad is because of how new your car is. It hasn't had time to break in yet, causing it to run not as efficiently as it should.
Hmm, I've never heard of such a thing. I would figure the car would be best when it's brand new, and then very slightly get progressively worse as time goes on. What would cause it to be not as efficient off-the-bat?


usually up until your first oil change (don't wait until 8000) go around 3 or 4k, your mileage will not be up to par. also the fuel gauge is very pessimistic you can drive down to about 5 litres left in your tank then you'll start feeling it hesitating and jerking around. there are times when I've let it go down under the last line and when I fill it right up it only goes to like 46 or 48 litres. I'd also double check the air pressure in the tires to make sure it's up to spec. Is the car an auto? Because if it is then "that's your problem right there"
Yes the car is automatic but I really don't think it should make that big of a difference.


I thought the capacity was 60L?

Anyway, I'm sure once you break-in your car more the better the fuel mileage gets. At least that's what everyone's been sayin. My 2010 GS (albeit MT) now at about 3000km does around 500km per tank now. It was similar to yours in its earlier life (a month ago.)

Welcome btw. :)

Hm, ok so everyone is of the opinion that I need to "break the car in". Well, since this is my first new car, I'm willing to entertain the idea. I suppose I have no other choice at the moment. :(

[froggy]

the new engines are very "tight" the piston ring seals and other components are still getting seated and loosened up. Also people will say that the first oil change will "purge" any left over machining evidence ie little metal shavings and powder. and the difference between and automatic and MT can be very substantial for the same engine, 1 because of weight and AT adds about 500lbs I think. 2 you can controll the shift points to be either more or less efficient or more or less sporty than an AT.

[Iceman_F1]

the new engines are very "tight" the piston ring seals and other components are still getting seated and loosened up. Also people will say that the first oil change will "purge" any left over machining evidence ie little metal shavings and powder. and the difference between and automatic and MT can be very substantial for the same engine, 1 because of weight and AT adds about 500lbs I think. 2 you can controll the shift points to be either more or less efficient or more or less sporty than an AT.

Or drive only in the AT's "Sport Mode" and control it yourself...

[froggy]

Or drive only in the AT's "Sport Mode" and control it yourself...

true but with a clutch as opposed to a viscous coupling and a torque converter, you have a little bit more effieciency and control, but at that point your only talking about a very minor difference, in feul economy.

[Iceman_F1]

true but with a clutch as opposed to a viscous coupling and a torque converter, you have a little bit more effieciency and control, but at that point your only talking about a very minor difference, in feul economy.

True. Still, I find sport mode gives me that little extra bit of both control, fuel economy as well as fun so I pretty much use it all the time :chuckle

[Thrizzl3]

True. Still, I find sport mode gives me that little extra bit of both control, fuel economy as well as fun so I pretty much use it all the time :chuckle

what fun...lol i hate manual mode..except for i the winter it proves useful:)

[froggy]

what fun...lol i hate manual mode..except for i the winter it proves useful:)

come on Phil embrace the darkside of manual shifting, it's not as bad as you might think it is, and there's so many more things you can do with it like a 4000rpm clutch drop with the parking brake up! not that I've ever done or will do that.:chuckle

[Iceman_F1]

what fun...lol i hate manual mode..except for i the winter it proves useful:)

The fun that I'm actually doing more than gas, break & steer? The fact I can pick when I change gears on the highway to pass people or get faster acceleration instead of waiting for the car to know I want to go faster to pass?

[Thrizzl3]

The fun that I'm actually doing more than gas, break & steer? The fact I can pick when I change gears on the highway to pass people or get faster acceleration instead of waiting for the car to know I want to go faster to pass?

ok fine u win:chuckle

[Noisy Crow]

There is a fuel ecomomy thread around here somewhere.... you should have a look at it. FWIW, with 2008 with the 2.3 and manual transmission I get just over 10 L/100km... about 70/30 city/highway and I am not a particularly passive driver.

[stevenma188]

what fun...lol i hate manual mode..except for i the winter it proves useful:)

The fun is being able to aggressively while maintaining the same fuel economy as driving normally with an AT transmision. Looks like on average (based on the 3 fuelly sigs in this thread), MT gets ~10% better fuel than AT.

[Iceman_F1]

There is a fuel ecomomy thread around here somewhere.... you should have a look at it. FWIW, with 2008 with the 2.3 and manual transmission I get just over 10 L/100km... about 70/30 city/highway and I am not a particularly passive driver.

Reverse that (70hwy/30city) I get just under 9 on auto.


The fun is being able to aggressively while maintaining the same fuel economy as driving normally with an AT transmision. Looks like on average (based on the 3 fuelly sigs in this thread), MT gets ~10% better fuel than AT.

How do you figure that? 10% of Phils (9.2) is 0.92L/100KM...so 10% better is ~8.28. I'm auto and I get 8.7. If you are manual, you are only 1% better than I currently am if you go by fuelly stats.

But indeed, there are other threads that compare fuel mileage. +1 to the wait until broken in as I noticed the same thing. Also depends on driving style too as I'm sure you already know.

[stevenma188]

ohhh. I thought Iceman was MT and Phil was AT.....

[Iceman_F1]

ohhh. I thought Iceman was MT and Phil was AT.....

:chuckle NOPE. Auto. My display picture even shows it! :pop

even if I was manual, wouldn't have been 10% difference. Would have been like 7 or 8%

[stevenma188]

lol....ya.....

But i would totally say that 7% - 8% = ~10%

[Iceman_F1]

lol....ya.....

But i would totally say that 7% - 8% = ~10%

:hijack smiley

There's a difference between rounding up/down a decimal point to the nearest whole number...it's something entirely different rounding up a whole number up to double digits.

Meh... back :OT

[sadd16]

would the type of gas you use help at all?

[Mundek]

Perhaps the eng. brake-in period is a bit overrated.
I have a new 2010 GX manual. First fill up = 6.8 l/100 km.
Second = 7.3.
Latest, like most past ones = 7.8.
In 2 months m3 is past 8000 km. Average fuel economy = 7.5
In my case at least what matter most is how aggressive I use the gas pedal.

Your car at over 12L/100 km for the first tank full sounds like has some problem or like u mentioned it could be the fuel gauge.

[JovianGhost]

Perhaps the eng. brake-in period is a bit overrated.
I have a new 2010 GX manual. First fill up = 6.8 l/100 km.
Second = 7.3.
Latest, like most past ones = 7.8.
In 2 months m3 is past 8000 km. Average fuel economy = 7.5
In my case at least what matter most is how aggressive I use the gas pedal.
Wow, 6.8 and 7.3? That's nuts. How much city/highway you do?


Your car at over 12L/100 km for the first tank full sounds like has some problem or like u mentioned it could be the fuel gauge.

I really hope there aren't problems-- the last thing I want is to go back to the dealer and fight with them.

I guess we'll see what happens with my third gasup (city driving only.)

[Mundek]

I probably do 60 hwy/40 city. First gas tank I was very Sunday driver like. As a matter of fact until 1500 km I have not reved past 3500 rpm. Now it's a matter of mood; who takes over - me or my inner child? :chuckle
Couple of last fill ups I reached 7.8. This reflects my harder driving and colder temp. I guess. But when u think the car is rated at 5.9/8.1 [using that outdated government method] car burns fuel within reason.
BTW I never repeated that first 6.8 result.
Good luck, eh? Hope your car does not have any issues after all.

[JovianGhost]

I probably do 60 hwy/40 city. First gas tank I was very Sunday driver like. As a matter of fact until 1500 km I have not reved past 3500 rpm. Now it's a matter of mood; who takes over - me or my inner child? :chuckle
Couple of last fill ups I reached 7.8. This reflects my harder driving and colder temp. I guess. But when u think the car is rated at 5.9/8.1 [using that outdated government method] car burns fuel within reason.
BTW I never repeated that first 6.8 result.
Good luck, eh? Hope your car does not have any issues after all.

After reading this and similar posts, I'm starting to get worried. It sounds like there IS something wrong with my car.
Today my fuel gauge dropped down to the halfway mark and I'm not even up to 200km yet. All city driving, quite gently, actually (I've been making a point to do this.)
Well, the next gasup will tell me.

When should I start to get worried, and take the car back to the dealer?

[Mundek]

JG,
What's your latest reading? If you are still around 9L/100 km that would be not too bad. also check your tire pressure. Your tank is 55L. It's 60 for the 2.5 eng. Lastly I'm able to pump another 2L of gas after the pump stops automatically. My today's result: 7.7 L/100 km. Mixed driving city/hwy and mixed aggressive.
If nothing else helps I would visit a dealer and ask for comprehensive fuel and ignition system check up.

[JovianGhost]

I've only gassed up twice, so that's both my readings (12.1 and 9.08.) I'm just below half a tank now so I won't need to gas up for several days at least.

My tires look ok, but of course that's just a visual inspection-- I'll need to measure them proper.

Someone I spoke with today told me the car won't realize it's true efficiency until 10,000km. Does this sound like something that could be true? It sounds awfully high for a "break in period"...

[coursol]

First off the manual in the mazda 3 is actually worse then the auto. check the manufature statement. I am guessing the gear ratio.
I bought mine new and the worse i got was 8.6 but average 7.9. i do mostly hiway driving. My wife and i are very spirited drivers. There is no way this guy is getting this low of millage unless he is spending alot of time in idle mode. break in or no break in.

[JovianGhost]

First off the manual in the mazda 3 is actually worse then the auto. check the manufature statement. I am guessing the gear ratio.
I bought mine new and the worse i got was 8.6 but average 7.9. i do mostly hiway driving. My wife and i are very spirited drivers. There is no way this guy is getting this low of millage unless he is spending alot of time in idle mode. break in or no break in.

Not a lot of idling. In fact, traffic is fairly smooth on the way to work. On the way back home there's a bit of traffic, but I'm usually home in 25min. This is pretty much most of the driving I do. I will go out on the weekends and on the occasional weeknight, but I never drive in bumper-to-bumper traffic. In fact, my driving habits are the same since my last car ('01 Nissan Sentra, out of which I got 320-350 km before gassing up; that's full tank to a quarter.)

It's sounding more and more like I really should take my car into the dealer to have a look. This should be covered under warranty, right? I mean, wouldn't this be classified as a defect?

[Mundek]

To Coursol: Pay attention, we are talking about 2.0L engines here. Better fuel economy with manual tranny listed by Mazda. 8.1 vs 8.7 city & 5.9 vs 6 hwy.
And yes "this guy" is getting 7.7 L/100km or so on average. No idling other than necessary. I did 8700 km in 10 weeks. Lots of driving as I'm a salesman.
Plenty of fill ups. Your 7.9 is not far off isn't it?
Like I said before I never did repeat that 6.8 L/100km result.
Thank you.

JG: if you had only 2 fill ups so far I'd wait be4 going to the dealer.
As for the brake-in period I can only speak from my experience: had brand new Mazda5 for 3 yrs and now the m3. Neither one got better with mileage.

[JovianGhost]

JG: if you had only 2 fill ups so far I'd wait be4 going to the dealer.
As for the brake-in period I can only speak from my experience: had brand new Mazda5 for 3 yrs and now the m3. Neither one got better with mileage.

I agree; I'll wait another month. But I don't want to wait any longer, since in winter the fuel efficiency will be even WORSE.

[Mundek]

I'll drink to that.

[sip]

I think you should be more accurate in determining the liters consumed. The correct way is to fill up the tank until it is full, drive and fill up again. The difference is the gas consumed.

[JovianGhost]

I think you should be more accurate in determining the liters consumed. The correct way is to fill up the tank until it is full, drive and fill up again. The difference is the gas consumed.

That's what I'm doing.
I take note of my tripmeter when I pull into the gas station, then I check the receipt for the amount of gas pumped, and calculate it like that. I was doing it myself until I discovered fuelly.com, which is now calculating it for me (gave me the same results.)

And yes, I fill up the tank to FULL when I gas up (wait until the pump shuts itself off, then pump a bit more.)

[Mundek]

Hey JG,
Any updates on fuel economy yet?

[grex]

I dont know if this helps...buuuut

I picked up my car thursday morning - I did 473 kms, 2 little squares left on the gauge and I just filled up - 96.3 cents a litre and It cost me just over 45 $...on my 94 civic I was getting around 380 kms for about 29 - 32 $. I signed up to fuelly and it says im getting 23.6 mpg. This doesn't seem that bad.

[mazda lover]

I dont know if this helps...buuuut

I picked up my car thursday morning - I did 473 kms, 2 little squares left on the gauge and I just filled up - 96.3 cents a litre and It cost me just over 45 $...on my 94 civic I was getting around 380 kms for about 29 - 32 $. I signed up to fuelly and it says im getting 23.6 mpg. This doesn't seem that bad.

what size engine? auto or standard?

[seaneeboi]

This car does suck gas thats for sure. My 2009 Honda CRV gets 9.8 on average L/100KM way better then my 2010 Mazda 3 Sport.

[grex]

what size engine? auto or standard?

2.5L 6 speed manual.


why is there something up?

[gfong]

Hey all,

Got my 2010 Mazda 3 Sport GS Auto about 2 weeks ago. It's still a new car.
I have mainly driven city/hw : 95%:5%.

Right now, total mileage is 320 with 1/4 tank left. Since my car is 2.5 L engine which means it has 60 litres fuel tank.

If you do the math on mileage, 320 km / 45 Ls => 14 L / 100 km. Does this seem high? I even try to drive like a granny to push extra fuel mileage!

[cwp_sedan]

Hey all,

Got my 2010 Mazda 3 Sport GS Auto about 2 weeks ago. It's still a new car.
I have mainly driven city/hw : 95%:5%.

Right now, total mileage is 320 with 1/4 tank left. Since my car is 2.5 L engine which means it has 60 litres fuel tank.

If you do the math on mileage, 320 km / 45 Ls => 14 L / 100 km. Does this seem high? I even try to drive like a granny to push extra fuel mileage!

You are driving 95% in the city. This doesn't surprise me the least that your mileage isn't that great. It does seem a little high but I find stop and go kills my mileage. It may get a little better but even driving like a grandma won't always better your L/100km.

[mazdabetty]

http://www.torontomazda3.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=38425

:whoa Wow you even used the exact same thread title... LOL!!!

[cwp_sedan]

http://www.torontomazda3.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=38425

:whoa Wow you even used the exact same thread title... LOL!!!

Thanks! Threads merged since it's the same damn thing. :bang

[riceRocket]

Yea, i noticed mazda 3 is really bad in terms of gas milage too. In summer time, my 97 accord usualy gets me 750 km for 53 litre of gas ( i always drive until the light comes up lol ). This is with rush hour driving to and from work. For my gf's mazda3, although i never measured it, but it would hit the bottom mark when theres only 400 something KM on it.

[gfong]

anyways, i did some more driving, refuel to a full tank.

Total Mileage is about 500 km on car.

I did pure highway driving. 1/4 tank (15 L) = 160 km which translates to 9.3 L/ 100 Km.

The official mazda website for 2010 Sport 3 GS states:
9.2L/100 Km City
6.8L/100 Km Highway

Should I still be worried or just continue to break in the car and wait?

[zoom4106]

sorry, out of topic... for how long and what should i do to the car to break it in? thanks!

[bman13]

City stop and go is always gonna kill ya....especially if the ratio is higher towards city vs. hwy.

[The Good Doctor]

my mazda 3, just filled it up again...bought in november 2009....just got 12L/100km...100% city driving...

pretty brutal

i drive a GS 5 speed manual...

where should I shift?

[mikeball]

I average 680KMs per tank in the summer, and 630KMs a tank in the winter. Most of my driving is country/highway. 2.5L 6m

When I am driving "sedately" at 60-80km/h I average 5-6 l/100km depending on the grade of the road. At 100km/h I average 7-9 L/100km again, depending on grade. When I drive through Algonquin park at 120-140 KM/H I average 10-12L/100km.

[mikeball]

my mazda 3, just filled it up again...bought in november 2009....just got 12L/100km...100% city driving...

pretty brutal

i drive a GS 5 speed manual...

where should I shift?


With the 2.5L I tend to shift at 2k-2.5k RPM. Hell, when I get up to the speed I wish, I just shift into top gear. This can get you better efficient on slight downhills or flat roads, but will hurt your efficiency on inclines.

[colinchrisc]

With the 2.5L I tend to shift at 2k-2.5k RPM. Hell, when I get up to the speed I wish, I just shift into top gear. This can get you better efficient on slight downhills or flat roads, but will hurt your efficiency on inclines.

I'm shifting at around 3k with my 2.0, am I shifting too late?

[m_bisson]

nah 3000 is fine, otherwise you gotta give it extra gas to accelerate from the low RPMs and you waste more. By the way, the 6l/100km that they show in the brochure is under IDEAL driving conditions assuming you don't accelerate fast at all. The numbers are not realistic, they simply show the BEST that an engine can do. Most people probably get 10-15l higher than what the car claims it can do.

Some BMWs have a gauge (like a tach/spedometer) that show your fuel consumption in L/100k. The needle goes as low as 5 and as high as 25. Under "normal" acceleration the needle maxes out at 25L/100km. That's basically stopped at a red light and accelerating to match what the other drivers on the road are doing. So if you're in stop and go traffic you're wasting loads of fuel.
12l/100km is actually pretty decent for an average :)

[Trinidad]

To chime in here, I also had a 2010 mazda3 GS Auto for a week and this was during this winter season, got 600km out of it with 70% highway and 30% city. Not bad all thing considered as my 2008.5 GS got about 530km during winter and 600km during the summer.

[Primera28]

I owned a 2010 mazda3 1.6 and i noticed that i may have a problem with the electronic fuel gauge. The total fuel capacity is 55L. Unfortunately when the fuel gauge shows empty and i visit the gas station to add fuel i can add 44L max. So there is a difference of 11L approx. I thing there is a mulfunction with the fuel meter. I beleive that there is no problem with the consumption but the problem is that the indication is wrong. If the indication was correct i will be able to travel for another 160-170 km approx.240724082409

[Primera28]

I understand what you mean but did you thing that is normal when a tank has 11L which is the 20% of the tank to show completely empty? Don't concentrate on the trip computer but see the indicator and the fuel pump indication as well.

[LittleRedGT]

Curious to know how the others with poor fuel economy are making out as the car breaks in. My new GT sedan is getting 12.4 l/100k with all city driving. To say that I'm disappointed is a gross understatement. At about 1500 K now. Not sure how to proceed in terms of finding out if there is a problem.

[m_bisson]

I just hit about 3200k on my 2010 GX and my last tank was 8.04L/100k.

Windows 7 (not sure about the others) has a fuel efficiency calculator by the way. Open the normal calc., click on "view", then go to "Worksheets" and select the fuel economy one.

Littlered, it could just be your driving style too.

[JSI]

AT adds about 500lbs I think.

reading through this thread I saw this and thought..........."That can't be right"

So for what Google could tell me here is the dif:

2009 Curb weight GX Sedan: 1248 kg (2751 lbs)(M/T); 1262 kg (2782 lbs)(A/T)
2009 Curb weight GT Sport: 1340 kg (2954 lbs)(M/T); 1364 kg (3007 lbs)(A/T)

So the difference is ≈ 50lbs

[Flunk]

After I switched to the summer tires my gas consumption has dropped to about 8L/100KM, nearly 100% city driving. I'm at just over 8K KMs and I'm just past the first servicing so I think it's probably as good as it will get. It's not exactly a Toyota, but pretty good. Then again I don't have to actually drive a Toyota and that's priceless. I have a Sport GX, 2.0L AT.

http://www.fuelly.com/sig-metric/31421.png (http://www.fuelly.com/driver/Flunk/3)

Yes, 11L reserve is completely normal. It's not inaccuracy, it's intended.

[Roconne]

I haven't been too impressed with my fuel efficiency either (but that's just because I'm coming from a more efficient car), but I still have less than 1000km so I guess this isn't that bad. So far I've been about 60/40 (hwy/city) and I've gotten 9.1L/100km on the first fill up and 8.8L/100km on the 2nd; according to Fuelly. This is with the GS Sport 6speed MT, trying to shift between 2800-3400rpm.

To the guy shifting around 2k-2.5k, HOW?? haha. I feel like the engine is bogging down to much if I'm trying to stay that low.