Fuel Economy

Quote:

---

Originally posted by keving


Edit 1 - Please bear with me, I\'m trying to figure out how to format this so it\'ll be less of a jumble haha.
Edit 2 - Ugh..I can\'t seem to get all my info to work, so I\'ll just post my L/100Kms here.
Edit 3 - Arggghh! Okay I give up, sorry about the hard to read format :(
Edit 4 - There... a bit better.

Date L/100KM

Dec 29/04 13.21243842
Jan 11/05 11.64467198
Jan 23/05 14.14464286
Jan 28/05 12.11188119
Feb 07/05 11.40339375
Feb 15/05 9.737881508
Feb 21/05 9.505939902
Mar 02/05 9.940118153
Mar 10/05 12.05361659
Mar 24/05 10.21136865
Apr 06/05 10.20926793
Apr 14/05 10.57276995
Apr 28/05 10.23495341
May 14/05 10.2461126
May 23/05 12.12732095
Jun 08/05 10.12265585
Jun 15/05 11.19259259
Jul 02/05 9.88672406
Jul 17/05 10.19047619
Jul 27/05 10.1451087
Sep 06/05 9.873464373
Sep 13/05 9.421164584
Sep 18/05 9.155746911
Sep 23/05 9.083880379
Sep 27/05 8.771382637

I see a pretty good trend going. The first couple of fillups, I was unaware that by turning on the rear defroster that would automatically turn on the air-conditioning, hence the horrible horrible fuel economy. Also, for the Sept 05 entries, I\'ve been driving more highways (around 20/80 highway/city) than before (city driving exclusively). I drive a 2.3L sedan with a 5spd, 16 inch tires ;) . Overall, I\'m pretty happy to see the fuel economy numbers slowly improving. :)

---

Your figures look like mine.

Hwy: 8.5-9.5
City: 10.5-11.5

No where near the posted EPA ratings (at least on the window stikers of 2004/2005 MY vehicles). I have yet for TheBiz to confirm the 2006 MY stikers and their ratings.

Change your driving to more city than highway, and you\'ll start seeing figure in the 10\'s or 11\'s. My opinion is that 10 is reserved for 6-cylinder vehicles. My friend\'s 3.0L Inline 6 BMW 330Ci coupe makes 225-hp and averages the same 10+ L/100km (50 city/50 hwy). The extra 65-horse is evident in all driving conditions.

Hmm... another thought occurred to me:

3.0L 6-cylinder engine = 0.500 L/cylinder
2.3L 4-cylinder engine = 0.575 L/cylinder

Does that mean anything? I doubt it. But I do know that I shouldn\'t be getting the same fuel economy of a premium compact 3-series.

We\'ll see what Avante comes up with their assessment of my vehicle next week\'s Tuesday/Wednesday.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PiCASSO
No where near the posted EPA ratings (at least on the window stikers of 2004/2005 MY vehicles). I have yet for TheBiz to confirm the 2006 MY stikers and their ratings.

---

Brochure Specs
(All numbers are L/100km)

2.0L Sedan(obviously)

5MT 4AT
2004 city 8.5 9.1
hwy 6.2 6.4

2005 city 8.5 9.1
hwy 6.2 6.4

2006 city 8.4 9.1
hwy 6.1 6.4

2.3L Sedan

5MT 4AT
2004 city 9.2 9.8
hwy 6.7 7.5

2005 city 9.2 9.8
hwy 6.7 7.5

2006 city 9.2 9.4
hwy 6.7 7.0

2.3L Sport

5MT 4AT
2004 city 9.2 9.8
hwy 6.7 7.5

2005 city 9.2 9.8
hwy 6.7 7.5

2006 city 9.2 9.4
hwy 6.7 7.0

Hope these numbers help... Myself, I am with Psivic.. I just gas it when it gets low and drive like I stole it.

;)

time to add some spice here :)

first and foremost my numbers can be seen here

http://xs51.xs.to/pics/05426/mileage.jpg

at the top, in the blue, you see my averages. 9.0L/100km is NOT spectacular BUT i\'ll take it. why? 2 reasons: 1) I redline more often than not 2) unfortunately most of my trips are SHORT and that\'s what brings the average down. my driving habits are roughly as follows (per week):

all cold starts
8x8km
2x70km
2x35km
2x50km

plus some misc stuff 10x5km (warm starts)

1) how can you not redline with a car like this? :D everytime it puts a smile on my face.. hehehe.. especially now with the simota intake .. zoom vroom :)

2) here\'s my hypothesis .. our cars LOVE the highway, hate the city. moreso, like any other car, our cars suck on SHORT trips on a cold engine (maybe even more than any other make/model)

when the car is cold (overnight or at the end of a work day) the engine takes about 3min or so (in these temps) to warm up. let me quickly rehash the concept of open/closed loop - done ;)

while the engine is getting to its operating temp it\'s pretty much siphoning the fuel like mad (running rich). my trips to and from the go station are a prime example of that. ~8km each way (12 minutes) and after about 3-4min the engine is finally at the operating temp but the \'damage\' has been done.

My car has almost 30K on it and it\'s just a month shy of 1 year. I\'d say it\'s been broken in already ;) and it looks like the TYPE of gasoline or the SEASON has very little impact on the fuel consumption. it seems the short trips (cold starts) are the ones that contribute to poor fuel economy. compare that to driving 800km from here to NJ and averaging 7.7L/100km WHILE driving at 140kph or more ;) on the turnpike often downshifting into 4th to pass/have fun (this is not the time to chastise me)

One last thing to add is, i never noticed this cold start (city) vs highway gas consumption until recently when i installed my simota intake.. granted i love to hear that thing roar and i WOT it more often, it seems like the city mileage has gone down BUT looking at the spreadsheet (last 4 tanks or so) there\'s no discernable drop.

just a quick plug on starting car up vs. idling

Quote:

---

So, when should you turn off the engine? Believe it or not, more than 10 seconds of idling uses more fuel than restarting the engine. As a rule of thumb, if you\'re going to stop for 10 seconds or more – except in traffic – turn the engine off. You\'ll save money. And your vehicle won\'t produce harmful emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.

---

for more fuel efficiency stuff read this

and as for EPA, it gives you the theoretical, best case, ideal conditions examples.. so i guess it\'s nice to compare car to car based on the numbers but don\'t be completely dissapointed if you don\'t reach those numbers.. especially if you do not want to drive like cstraw or Eric :p to each their own :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by majic

at the top, in the blue, you see my averages. 9.0L/100km is NOT spectacular BUT i\'ll take it. why? 2 reasons: 1) I redline more often than not 2) unfortunately most of my trips are SHORT and that\'s what brings the average down. my driving habits are roughly as follows (per week):

---

Oh how I wished I was getting figures like your, Maciej. Since late April 2005, I\'ve averaged 9.992 L/100m (52% city and 48% highway), or since October 2004 I am at 10.232 L/100km. Here are my latest numbers:

http://x10.putfile.com/10/29419145574.gif
Image

As you can see, my best was 7.671 and worst 13.309 L/100km. I have to admit, that I\'m on the same boat with regards to SHORT trips, taking me just over 7-km to get to work each day. Put to put in perspective, 1.0L/100km does make a financial difference. Although the price of gasoline is under 90-cents, let\'s use that for our calculations.

1.0L/100km
$0.90 / L
24,000 km/year

Savings of $216 per year in gasoline alone. Keep in mind, Maciej, that our city rating is 9.2 L/100km, while highway at 6.7 L/100km. Yes, those are \"ideal\" conditions, but wouldn\'t I (or anyone else) who is driving 50% city and 50% highway be getting an average closer less that the city EPA rating?

Based upon my driving habit, and compared to many of my friends averages, this 2.3L 160-hp Mazda3 should be averaging me 8.5L/100km in 50/50 city/highway driving. But the current 1.7L/100km difference does hit the annual additional price for fuel: $367.20 (at average 90-cents a litre).

For perspective, please consider my friends\' fuel economy numbers, with the same 50/50 city/highway split:

BMW 330Ci, 225 hp, 5M -> 10.2 L/100km
Infiniti G35, 300 hp, 6M -> 11.5 L/100km
Honda Accord, 2.3L 150 hp, 4A -> 9.0 L/100km
BMW 328i, 190 hp, 5M -> 9.5 L/100km

All of these guys are agressive like I am on the road and my nearest displacement engine is the Accord, but that\'s A) an automatic and B) larger car (weight)... yet still getting better fuel economy.

Sadly, I\'ve \"relaxed\" on my driving for the past few months... trying to conserve fuel and show an improvement in the figures. Unfortunately, the numbers that I\'ve been collecting don\'t lie... city driving 10.5-11.5 L/100m, and highway driving 8.0-9.0 L/100km.

Well since everyone else is doing it, here is my most recent portion of my fuel economy logbook:
2004 Mazda 3 Sport 5psd

Date $ L km miles L/100km mpg(m) mpg (I)
21-Jul 41.65 42.12 607.0 376.3 6.94 33.89 40.47
23-Jul 35.72 39.87 554.0 343.5 7.20 32.68 39.03
30-Jul 41.40 45.95 667.2 413.7 6.89 34.15 40.78
4-Aug 41.00 42.31 647.0 401.1 6.54 35.97 42.95
6-Aug 38.44 41.89 670.7 415.8 6.25 37.66 44.97
11-Aug 30.00 31.28 449.9 278.9 6.95 33.83 40.39
13-Aug 33.00 34.10 478.0 296.4 7.13 32.97 39.37
19-Aug 33.18 35.11 500.4 310.2 7.02 33.52 40.03
29-Aug 37.01 37.42 553.6 343.2 6.76 34.80 41.55
20-Sep 61.00 60.73 832.4 516.1 7.30 32.24 38.50
1-Oct 37.72 34.79 482.6 299.2 7.21 32.62 38.96
14-Oct 35.00 37.51 551.0 341.6 6.81 34.55 41.25
18-Oct 14.30 15.93 216.0 133.9 7.37 31.89 38.08
22-Oct 23.00 25.90 354.2 219.6 7.31 32.16 38.41
27-Oct 41.00 45.45 597.7 370.6 7.60 30.93 36.93
31-Oct 38.00 41.80 577.7 358.2 7.24 32.51 38.82

Average 1862.5 2197.8 29614.0 18360.7 7.42 31.69 37.84


Again, most of my driving is done on the highway at ~95kmh. I rarely redline the car and drive with fuel economy in mind (read: don\'t goose the car from stops) I make every attempt to avoid driving in areas with stop signs, traffic lights, idiot drivers, etc as I get rather aggravated in any urban/semi urban area for a number of reasons.

Wow, those are some impressive numbers, though at the expense of \'spirited\' driving from the sounds of it.

Well, You guys are talking about Highway driving but I donno if you drive in a busy highway? everyday I take 401 and drive 24.8 KM (One Way) to work (almost 85% Highway) from Yonge Street to Explorer Drive (Mississauga) and as you know 401 is busy like hell and sometimes it\'s worse than city driving. Saying that, I\'m almost 9.0L /100 KM with 2.0 engine. I assume it\'s OK and I do not complain.
:sarc :zzz

Quote:

---

Originally posted by akherad
I\'m almost 9.0L /100 KM with 2.0 engine. I assume it\'s OK and I do not complain.
:sarc :zzz

---

25 MPG... Sounds like you drive a Mustang GT.... not a Mazda3 GT.. and a 2L to boot

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SABIO

Quote:

---

Originally posted by akherad
I\'m almost 9.0L /100 KM with 2.0 engine. I assume it\'s OK and I do not complain.
:sarc :zzz

---

25 MPG... Sounds like you drive a Mustang GT.... not a Mazda3 GT.. and a 2L to boot

---

although 9L/100km is a bit high, but as he mention driving on busy highway, still a stop and go traffic, it should consider at city driving mileage.

hi guys. i drive a 2.3L and get roughly 8.5-9L / 100KM. major factor is stop and go on highway traffic. i drive about 60% City / 40% Highway.

i remember i was able to get 600km out of 45L with about 25% city / 75% highway. it was a little traffic on the highway that day too coz of a concert in Barrie so could probably have gotten more out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by billyfo

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SABIO

Quote:

---

Originally posted by akherad
I\'m almost 9.0L /100 KM with 2.0 engine. I assume it\'s OK and I do not complain.
:sarc :zzz

---

25 MPG... Sounds like you drive a Mustang GT.... not a Mazda3 GT.. and a 2L to boot

---

although 9L/100km is a bit high, but as he mention driving on busy highway, still a stop and go traffic, it should consider at city driving mileage.

---

That\'s right, it\'s like a city driving. Although I have a question. My Trip Computer reports 8.2 L/100KM as an average (I always reset it immediately after I refule the car). However I believe the real number should be 8.9 L/ 100KM. Any idea why Trip Computer reports wrong?:hoho

Quote:

---

Originally posted by akherad

My Trip Computer reports 8.2 L/100KM as an average (I always reset it immediately after I refule the car). However I believe the real number should be 8.9 L/ 100KM. Any idea why Trip Computer reports wrong?:hoho

---

well, why would it be accurate? Mazda said the 3 GT would get 32 city and 41 hwy. Why would they program the trip to tell you your actual correct milage.

Stop yer whining kids.

12.5 L/100 kms with my Mazda6 V6. It\'s like I\'m in SUV territory. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SABIO

Quote:

---

Originally posted by akherad

My Trip Computer reports 8.2 L/100KM as an average (I always reset it immediately after I refule the car). However I believe the real number should be 8.9 L/ 100KM. Any idea why Trip Computer reports wrong?:hoho

---

well, why would it be accurate? Mazda said the 3 GT would get 32 city and 41 hwy. Why would they program the trip to tell you your actual correct milage.

---

Good point. It would make the car look worse.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Whos ur dadd


Stop yer whining kids.

12.5 L/100 kms with my Mazda6 V6. It\'s like I\'m in SUV territory. :(

---

That\'s not that far off from my 10.3L/100km with my lighter car/smaller engine Mazda3. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PSIVIC


Wow, those are some impressive numbers, though at the expense of \'spirited\' driving from the sounds of it.

---

Oh I don\'t miss out on too much spirited driving as I don\'t slow down that much for corners... which in turn helps out on fuel efficiency...:p

Chris

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PiCASSO

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Whos ur dadd


Stop yer whining kids.

12.5 L/100 kms with my Mazda6 V6. It\'s like I\'m in SUV territory. :(

---

That\'s not that far off from my 10.3L/100km with my lighter car/smaller engine Mazda3. :(

---

Fack. 13.5 L/100 kms on the last tank.

But I digress, this is a Mazda3 thread...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Whos ur dadd



Fack. 13.5 L/100 kms on the last tank.

But I digress, this is a Mazda3 thread...

---

welcome to the 3.0L DOHC V6 autotragic world.

12L-14L/100km is what I used to get in my maxima. both stock (227hp/168hp crank/wheels) and modded (255hp/196hp crank/wheels) with a leadfoot.

believe me...$60+ (70L tank) fillups of 91, 92, or 94 octane wasn\'t fun.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MajesticBlueN

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Whos ur dadd



Fack. 13.5 L/100 kms on the last tank.

But I digress, this is a Mazda3 thread...

---

welcome to the 3.0L DOHC V6 autotragic world.

12L-14L/100km is what I used to get in my maxima. both stock (227hp/168hp crank/wheels) and modded (255hp/196hp crank/wheels) with a leadfoot.

believe me...$60+ (70L tank) fillups of 91, 92, or 94 octane wasn\'t fun.

---

Thanks, MBN. I kinda feel better.

The car I bought was a 2004 model. 2 years old and only 6,000 km. Owner was a student from overseas. Given the low kms, car must\'ve sat idle for good chunks of time. I understand that gas goes bad after a month or so, so wonder if the engine\'s all gummed up inside. Gonna change the spark plugs to see if I get a little better fuel economy.

Here\'s why real world drivers will NEVER see EPA fuel economy results - from Car and Driver by Csaba Csere

highlights:

Quote:

---

* The mileage shortfall is caused by EPA fuel-economy test cycles that bear no more relation to real-world driving conditions than a Sunday afternoon bicycle ride does to the Tour de France.

* And because we all drive differently, on a variety of roads, in many different climates, no single test can possibly predict the fuel economy every driver will achieve.

* The current city and highway test cycles, however, underestimate the mileage that almost everyone gets. And how could they not? The highway test crawls along at an average speed of 48.3 mph and never exceeds 60.

---

Quote:

---

* The current city and highway test cycles, however, underestimate the mileage that almost everyone gets. And how could they not? The highway test crawls along at an average speed of 48.3 mph and never exceeds 60.

---

That is nonsense. They should have an OPP officer on the highway while they do that test ... between 78km/h and 96km/h? False marketing.

Not that I care anymore about mileage. :p

I am not sure what exactly the Canadian Testing Standards are... but they are way off compared to the US testing.

I was walking around the HCM yard up in Alliston a cpl weeks ago and I made a point to compare the US spec. cars vs. the CDN spec cars in terms of fuel milage.
A US 2006 Civic window sticker says 30Mpg / 40MPG
A CDN 2006 Civic window sticker says 40Mpg / 50Mpg (converted)

Same goes for the Honda Truck.. The best US MPG is 19 HWY.. The CDN sticker says 21 City ??

So the CDN testing is even more inaccurate

Hey guys,

There must be a lot more new 2006s on the road now. Can some people chime in and share their fuel economy numbers for their cars?

I am approaching 1500kms and I am gettng pretty crappy numbers. Just curious what other 06s are getting.

I have filled 3 tanks and all are in the 11.4l/100kms range. Mixed driving of 60% city 40% hwy. I have not been driving it hard.

Just curious if everyone else with a 06 is around the same.

thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jobes


Hey guys,

There must be a lot more new 2006s on the road now. Can some people chime in and share their fuel economy numbers for their cars?

I am approaching 1500kms and I am gettng pretty crappy numbers. Just curious what other 06s are getting.

I have filled 3 tanks and all are in the 11.4l/100kms range. Mixed driving of 60% city 40% hwy. I have not been driving it hard.

Just curious if everyone else with a 06 is around the same.

thanks!

---

Well, My average numbers are about 9.2L/100 KM. (from September). it\'s a 2.0 though.