2010 Mazda 3 Sport 2.0 or 2.5

[pete1983]

Hey folks,

I really need some opinions on the 2.0 and 2.5 Sport. I was going to buy a Matrix originally because the fuel economy was so good, but then I sat in the 3 and changed my mind automatically.

Now the only tough part is choosing between the 2.0 or the 2.5 Sport I know the fuel efficiency isn't that great on the 2.5, but I'd like some opinions from people who actually own one!

Thanks!

[distr0]

I have exactly the same as Lars, and get a teensy bit better (cause I "try" to drive granny style). Check my sig for my fill-up history. Debating between the two motors however, if you wanted the Sport 2.0 you would have to go with GX trim regardless, but with 2.5 you can get GS or GT.

[pete1983]

Not bad at all. Especially considering Mazda shows the 6-speed with 10.1L/100km for city driving. I was leaning towards the auto 2.5 for that reason.

[PearlM3]

I say screw fuel economy, mazdas get decent gas mileage to start with, go with the bigger engine, it will be more fun. The smaller engine might save you what, $5 ever two weeks on gas. For me it would not be worth it.

[dimsumboi05]

I say screw fuel economy, mazdas get decent gas mileage to start with, go with the bigger engine, it will be more fun. The smaller engine might save you what, $5 ever two weeks on gas. For me it would not be worth it.

True enough. At the end of the day, if you like the added performance that the 2.5L delivers then i say go for the GS/GT trim for the sport!

[KoukiDC5]

IMO, minimal difference between the 2 in terms of fuel economy are you planning on getting the manual? because if so then there would be a nice difference with the 2. 2.0 having a 5speed manual and the 2.5 having a 6 Speed manual :)

[WingZero_]

On my honeymoon we went to Niagara (we're from New Brunswick), I have a 2.5. I got 620km on one tank and and 580ish on another. So if you drive it normally it's pretty good on gas.

I would say drive them both that should help make up your mind, the 2.0L IMHO feels a little slow.

[Krazy]

I think for the sport.... 2.5 is necessary.

I didn't like 2.5 for my sedan nor justify myself getting a GT model.

[Honva]

Have you test drive both? In city driving, I found not much difference between the two. The main difference is when making a pass on highway.

Which one to get depends on how you are going to use your car. If you drive a lot bumper to bumper city traffic, the 2.0 will save you more and better for the earth. If you drive a lot of highway or long trip, enjoy the pleasure of the 2.5. For myself, I picked the 2.0 because I am using it to drive to work 90+km a day going downtown in rush hour. The 2.0 makes me feel less guilty while saving me a few loonies a week. It was a tough decision for me too as the GT with the tech package has a lot more toys that I like.

[ivorm]

I say screw fuel economy, mazdas get decent gas mileage to start with, go with the bigger engine, it will be more fun. The smaller engine might save you what, $5 ever two weeks on gas. For me it would not be worth it.

+1 and the trim package is nicer (but costs more)

[pete1983]

Ended up getting a black GS, Auto in black. Figured there wasn't a large enough gap in fuel economy--plus, the GS is just a nicer trim, period.

Picking it up on Tuesday. Thanks for the help everyone!

[WingZero_]

Congrats

[m_bisson]

if i had the money i would have gone for the GS as well, but i find the 2.0 to be enough.
And it's worth noting that I can beat a 2.5 Auto to 100. Automatic transmissions suck a lot of the horsepower out of the engine.

[J_man]

I think the GS is definately a great choice! The 2.0 is fun in the GS Sedan but if you don't get the manual it's a little too slow... but if you had got a manual in the 2.0 you would always be up high in the revs...which bugs some people (Not Me :)) The GS hatch is the best deal though, so I'm sure you're gonna love your car!

[kimro]

~ but if you had got a manual in the 2.0 you would always be up high in the revs... ~

That's me! Ton of fun. Gas mileage eats it.

Congrats on your purchase!

[bahbuu]

I chose a 2.5L

But don't know how accurate this is:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Mazda2010.shtml

It states that the annual fuel price should just be $100~$120 more per year compared to a 2.0L engine.

Which... isn't really a lot when you factor in the fact that 2.5L adds a more 'fun' factor. (Note: I'm talking about an automatic transmission though)

[Pokey]

Too late now as the car is already bought, but nobody mentioned the possible savings in insurance premiums. There could be a large jump between the two.....

[WingZero_]

Too late now as the car is already bought, but nobody mentioned the possible savings in insurance premiums. There could be a large jump between the two.....

76$ a month for me with my 2010 2.5

[Elusivellama]

I wouldn't say 'screw fuel economy'... but if I want to move fast, I won't think twice about whether I'll burn more gas than usual, as long as the engine is at optimum temperature.

[Pokey]

76$ a month for me with my 2010 2.5

That's an awesome rate! You're going to make lots of folks jealous with that - and for a new car too!

[pacmann33]

I think Mazda should offer the 2.0 in the GS sport trim. I like that engine, better track record than the 2.3/2.5, great on gas, and with a 5 speed it is still fun to drive! If you are stuck getting an auto, then I'd forget about the 2.0. Stick however, both are still fun, I do love the character of the 2.5. Very fun, with the manual tranny.

You are stuck with the GX sport if you want the 2.0, otherwise you'll get the 2.5. Let your budget and interior needs and wants decide FOR you.