Fuel Economy

Well, after 2.5 months and nearly 8,000 km, here are my fuel economy numbers:

Date | L/100km | mpg (US) | mpg (UK)
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
10/17/04 | 10.98 | 21.42 | 25.72
10/24/04 | 09.06 | 25.95 | 31.16
10/27/04 | 10.42 | 22.57 | 27.10
10/27/04 | 10.45 | 22.50 | 27.02
10/31/04 | 08.94 | 26.31 | 31.59
11/07/04 | 10.29 | 22.87 | 27.46
11/14/04 | 10.77 | 21.85 | 26.24
11/16/04 | 09.41 | 24.99 | 30.02
11/21/04 | 09.17 | 25.65 | 30.80
11/22/04 | 09.06 | 25.97 | 31.19
12/06/04 | 09.82 | 23.96 | 28.78
12/09/04 | 09.72 | 24.19 | 29.05
12/11/04 | 10.46 | 22.48 | 27.00
12/13/04 | 10.27 | 22.91 | 27.52
12/16/04 | 10.21 | 23.03 | 27.66
12/20/04 | 10.78 | 21.82 | 26.21
12/23/04 | 10.49 | 22.43 | 26.93
12/31/04 | 10.16 | 23.14 | 27.80
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Average | 10.03 | 23.56 | 28.29


Now, I do about 70% highway driving, and another 30% of city driving. This includes reving the engine to it\\\'s redline from time to time, and regular shifting around 3,500 RPM. Canadian EPA state the following numbers (www.mazda.ca):

City: 9.2L/100km
Highway: 6.7L/100km

And the USA equivalent (www.mazdausa.com):

City: 25 MPG
Highway: 32 MPG

So for both cases, I am not even close to the CITY rating for the Canadian and USA ratings. I personally don\'t think that I will get anything better than 9L/100km or 25 MPG even if it\'s pure highway driving (as it is in some of the examples above). Perhaps I should really test this out and drive approximately 100 km/h (in the right lane, of course) and see if I can get within 25% of these numbers that EPA is claiming. BTW, I\'m WAY past my so-called break-in period. Should I bring this up to the Mazda dealer? Or simply live with the bad fuel economy?

Cheers,

PiCASSO

All I know is that I get about 450kms on a full tank with my 3GTS.

Sucks actually. I got 424km on a full tank with my Probe GT (2.5L V6).

I\'ve updated the chart to include some distances travelled with litres used:

Date | Distance (km) | Fuel Used (L) | L/100km | mpg (US) | mpg (UK) | Fuel Left (L) | Distance Left | Total Range
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
10/17/04 | 400.0 | 43.93 | 10.98 | 21.42 | 25.72 | 11.07 | 121.56 | 521.56
10/24/04 | 468.7 | 42.48 | 9.06 | 25.95 | 31.16 | 12.52 | 113.45 | 582.15
10/31/04 | 518.4 | 46.35 | 8.94 | 26.31 | 31.59 | 8.65 | 77.31 | 595.71
11/07/04 | 397.4 | 40.87 | 10.29 | 22.87 | 27.46 | 14.13 | 145.29 | 542.69
11/21/04 | 500.0 | 45.86 | 9.17 | 25.65 | 30.80 | 9.15 | 83.87 | 583.87
11/22/04 | 515.0 | 46.64 | 9.06 | 25.97 | 31.19 | 8.36 | 75.72 | 590.72
12/11/04 | 378.5 | 39.60 | 10.46 | 22.48 | 27.00 | 15.40 | 161.09 | 539.59
12/20/04 | 397.5 | 42.85 | 10.78 | 21.82 | 26.21 | 12.15 | 131.01 | 528.51
12/31/04 | 387.1 | 39.34 | 10.16 | 23.14 | 27.80 | 15.66 | 159.15 | 546.25
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Average | 440.29 | 43.10 | 9.88 | 23.96 | 28.77 | 11.90 | 118.72 | 559.01

I\'ve removed all the entries that had less than 39L (or 14L before fully empty). You can see that I\'m averaging approximately 440km per tankful. Theoretical range (based on fuel economy and 55L tank) is averaging approximately 560km.

As a comparison, my 2002 Honda Civic Si coupe did average: 7.71 L/100km or 30.51 MPG (US), and a maximum theoretical range of 652.16 km (with a 50L tank). Now, I\'ve been driving that Civic for 3-years, just as hard as the Mazda3. But to consume another 2.29 Litres for every 100km with a 0.5L larger engine? That doesn\'t really make any sense, or simply the fact that Mazda hasn\'t figured out fuel economy with their engines like Honda has.

My 2-cents,

PiCASSO

YYYY | MMM | DD | FILL | ODOM | TRIP| L/100 | mpg | STATION| ($/L) | Cost
2004 | Nov | 28 | 43.95 | 462 | 448 | 9.81 | 23.98 | CT | $0.739 | $32.48
2004 | Dec | 01 | 42.04 | 842 | 380 | 11.06 | 21.26 | Shell | $0.718 | $30.18
2004 | Dec | 06 | 47.55 | 1335 | 493 | 9.64 | 24.39 | Esso | $0.717 | $34.09
2004 | Dec | 10 | 49.32 | 1836 | 501 | 9.85 | 23.89 | CT | $0.669 | $33.00
2004 | Dec | 15 | 51.36 | 2361 | 525 | 9.78 | 24.04 | Sunoco | $0.662 | $34.00
2004 | Dec | 19 | 45.77 | 2832 | 471 | 9.72 | 24.20 | Esso | $0.679 | $31.08
2004 | Dec | 23 | 50.07 | 3319 | 487 | 10.28 | 22.88 | Esso | $0.699 | $35.00
2004 | Dec | 28 | 48.28 | 3839 | 520 | 9.29 | 25.33 | Esso | $0.744 | $35.92
2005 | Jan | 01 | 44.35 | 4342 | 503 | 8.82 | 26.68 | Esso | $0.699 | $31.00*

* this is the best mileage to date. I was a bit dissapointed with the results i was getting thus far :( I used to drive to work every day so it would be stop and go traffic all the time, pretty much city driving. but that last one (bold) everyone was on holidays and i drove at hwy speeds 100-120.. the numbers are approximately 75% city 25% hwy (speed and gear shifting wise)

now i USUALLY set the cruise at 110kph and shift roughly at 3000RPM but OFTEN (even on that last tank) i like to redline 1,2 and 3 :D

i guess you could try shifting earlier 2500-3000 and set cruise when you can at 100-110kph and see if it helps at all. but for me.. it\'s back to the GO train.. much more relaxin than getting stuck in traffic

Quote:

---

Originally posted by majic

* this is the best mileage to date. I was a bit dissapointed with the results i was getting thus far :( I used to drive to work every day so it would be stop and go traffic all the time, pretty much city driving. but that last one (bold) everyone was on holidays and i drove at hwy speeds 100-120.. the numbers are approximately 75% city 25% hwy (speed and gear shifting wise)

now i USUALLY set the cruise at 110kph and shift roughly at 3000RPM but OFTEN (even on that last tank) i like to redline 1,2 and 3 :D

i guess you could try shifting earlier 2500-3000 and set cruise when you can at 100-110kph and see if it helps at all. but for me.. it\'s back to the GO train.. much more relaxin than getting stuck in traffic

---

Hey Maciej,

I initially thought that the 8.82 L/100km was an outlier, but you are hovering in the mid-9\'s with your fuel economy. I would wait until you get your next few fill-ups before dismissing or accepting that last 8.82 figure.

As for shifting, I guess it\'s all dependent on the mood and time I\'ve in. If I\'m in a hurry, I will certainly not granny shift. Same thing for the mood, as recently with some of the stresses of moving (recently got myself out of Windsor and into Toronto), I use my Mazda3 as my escape goat. :D

GO train? I found a place that is exactly 6.7km away from my work, so all I have to do is drive on Carville/Rutherford from Richmond Hill to Concord and I\'m at work within 10-minutes. Hehehe... :)

I\'m looking forward to seeing other people\'s figures... assuming that they are as anal about entering the numbers as you and I in an excel spreadsheet. Yes, I also include amount of money spent, cost for fuel, etc. This way I can see the trend of the fluctuations in pricing, along the amount of money used for ownership for the Mazda3.

Cheers,

PiCASSO

Pawel, i assure you my last 8.82L/100 has to do with MUCH less stop and go traffic. so there _IS_ hope.. and yah.. i live in oakville and commute 50km to work (downtown) sux but oh well..

now, as for the mileage.. i am really hoping that 1) car will get better with time 2) come summer i will see better results as the engine will have an easier time..

and i doubt you\'ll see anyone else\'s numbers to this level of anality (is that even a word?) :p but yah, it does help to see how much you spend each month and helps you plan pit stops during trips and all that.. anyway.. till the next fill

Majic and Picasso...what are you driving???
I have 3S GT auto...bot Dec11/03..built Oct/\'03
I don\'t think you are anal...it\'s nice to see some precise numbers. Cars before the 3 I didn\'t pay much attention to gas mileage. Bot the 3 because of the promise of good mileage. I try to drive in a way to get optimum gas mileage except for a bit of fast highway driving. Here\'s my numbers...not as detailed as yours. All US MPG. SHOULD GET 32 HWY/ 24 TOWN/ 28 50/50
Below #\'s are Mixed City/Hwy unless noted.

WINTER-DEC03JANFEBMAR\'04.../ 18.125/ 21.95/ 20.05/ 16/ 21.7/ 23.88-85%hwy driving fast/ 26.63-all hwy driving 100kmhr/ 18.32/ 14.9-MY WORST all town,around 0C, 1-15 minute idle/ 20.72
SPRING/SUMMER\'04..19.89/ 20.36/ 21.24/ 22.57/ 29.55...MY BEST..99%hwy beautiful weather no A/C most at around 100KM HR/ 21.89/ 24.81 mostly hwy/ 22.75 mostly highway-fast
FALL-NOW 28.89-all highway 100-110KMHR/ 22.75-40% hwy/ 22.35-44% hwy/ 24.09-mostly hwy/26.42-all highway moderate speeds/ 25.42-85%hwy slow to moderate sppeds/ my last one-Dec14 fill-up..16.76MPusGAL-32%hwy.

One of the reasons I bot this car was because of my expectation of good gas mileage. I\'ve been disappointed. My 2 best highway mpg were 29.55 and 28.89 (not bad) but both in perfect weather at slowish highway speeds. My guess is that you would have to drive this 2.3 auto at 90KM hour or slower in order to get anything near 32 mpgUS on the highway. Not exactly ZOOM ZOOM. I perceive my 2.3 auto to be a real gas pig at above 115km hr highway speeds and particularly around town. Since buying the 3 I\'ve been watching mpg on my 225HP Acura 3.2 TL and it sort of pisses me off I usually getter better hwy mileage with the Acura than the 3. What gives with this?

Right now I am doing a 100% around town mileage check on my 3. It\'s been very cold here in NWONT
some snow, I don\'t have winter tires...the way it\'s looking so far I\'ll be surprised if I get 12mpUS gal. I\'ll report back on this thread when completed.

To be honest...2 things...First, if most people did exact and precise mileage checks like Majic and Picasso have done plus keep track of %hwy/city driving I feel they wouldn\'t be as happy as they seem to be about their mpg especially when compared to what they should be getting...BTW I consistently use 20%-30% and up to as high as 53% more gas than should be needed to travel a certain distance based on %hwy/city km\'s driven. 2nd...I have an Oct03 build date and just get the feeling something is not right with my car-engine wise-it runs good and sounds good but it just seems something is not right. From posts I read on different forums I get the feeling that more recently build 3\'s do get better gas mileage than early builds and that 2.3 5spds get closer to EPA #\'s than the auto does. I have no proof of this..just a perception.

Anyway..I\'ll be watching this thread with interest. Hope there are more \"anal\"ytical people out there.

everfeb

This is normal for the 2.3 engine, especially w/MT and driven on the highway.

My 2.0 gets 8.5 with shifts around 3500RPMs too...

Enjoy the car! It\'s very sweet w/the 2.3!!!

Everfeb,

Very nice to get a 3rd opinion on the fuel economy, and I\'m glad to see your numbers in the same ballpark as ours (you know what they say... \"misery loves company\"). Although I\'d like to \"take it easy\" on my Mazda, I feel that it\'s not worth it to save a few dollars on gas and simply drive the car the way it was meant to.

As for the tires, I still have my OEM Goodyear all-seasons, but I\'m thinking of purchasing a set of winter rims/tires. That may happen when I have some money in the bank account in the next month or two.

Cheers,

PiCASSO :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dinu01


This is normal for the 2.3 engine, especially w/MT and driven on the highway.

My 2.0 gets 8.5 with shifts around 3500RPMs too...

Enjoy the car! It\'s very sweet w/the 2.3!!!

---

Yes, I have to admit that I\'m enjoying the 2.3L engine compared to my sister\'s 2.0L in her 2002 Protege. I haven\'t driven the 2.0L Mazda3, but I\'m assuming that it\'s not as refined as the 2.3L? My sister\'s 2.0L sounds like a diesel, regardless of how much time it had to warm up. This was one of the deciding factors of purchasing my \'02 Civic Si instead of a \'02 Protege.

And I am certainly enjoying the with sweet reving 2.3L engine. ;)

I\'ve driven both and I find the 2.0l somewhat smoother than the 2.3.

I\'ve got the 2.0L and it\'s plenty smooth and quiet at idle. Actually there are times I can\'t even tell if it\'s running. When I do push the motor is has a nice little growl and never feels like it\'s being strained. The best is my mileage is a nice consistent 30mpg...

Now I must admit when the car is full with me, my wife and two kids...Then the 2.0l does show a slight lack of acceleration, but honestly at that time I don\'t care. I\'ve got the whole family with me and I\'m not out to race anyone.

Rich

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rbart4506


I\'ve got the 2.0L and it\'s plenty smooth and quiet at idle. Actually there are times I can\'t even tell if it\'s running. When I do push the motor is has a nice little growl and never feels like it\'s being strained. The best is my mileage is a nice consistent 30mpg...

Now I must admit when the car is full with me, my wife and two kids...Then the 2.0l does show a slight lack of acceleration, but honestly at that time I don\'t care. I\'ve got the whole family with me and I\'m not out to race anyone.

Rich

---

I second that except without the wife and kids since I don\'t have any.:D

I currently have 3000km on my M3 (2.0L Auto). When I first got the car, I got around 11L per 100km, which I guess is not bad considering it is brand spanking new. After a couple of fill ups, I still continued to receive the same mileage, if anything, a bit lower. All this time I was filling up at Esso stations since I receive Aeroplan miles, then I heard from a couple of folks that Esso\'s gas is the dirtiest in Canada, and Petro Canadas gasoline is the cleanest. I thought all gasolines were pretty much the same, since they go through the same government regulations. Nevertheless, I decided to try Petro Canada gas and surprisingly, I have so far gotten 475KM with about another 25-30Km before the gas light comes on. Say I get 500KM with the gas light coming on, with about 10L in reserve, I can get around 600km on a tank if the full 55L is utilized. That is a drastic improvement since the gas light would usually come on around 400km. I don\'t know if it is the Petro gas, or the car has passed the break in period, I am leaning towards the gas. I dont know if it helps, but try using Petros gas instead of the other providers and see what kind of mileage you get.

Consistently get 8.5L/100kms

Here was my response to a similar thread in the Drivetrain forum regarding fuel economy.
http://torontomazda3.com/forum/read.php?TID=651&page=3

:Here are my November and December numbers thus far. As you can see, the fuel economy begins to suffer with a drop in temperature. I\'m sure having to drive through snow and slush that we\'ve had quite a bit of here in North/Central Ontario doesn\'t help either:


Oct. 18 634km 45.14L 7.12 L/100km
23 349km 24.6L 7.05 best to date


Nov. 3 577km 41.389L 7.17
13 240 25.8 10.75 (father visited and I left him the car, just goes to show what short trips and inefficient driving results in)
17 297km 22.7L 7.64 L/100km
21 463 34.53 7.50
25 418 22.4 7.84
28 548 42.25 7.71
Dec. 2 417km 33.4L 8.01 L/100km
5 491 38.1 7.75

The car is a 2.3L Sport GT, mtx (5 speed), no mods, regular gas (Sunoco whenever possible), shift mostly just before 3k rpm. I rarely travel the 400 series highways since most drivers don\'t know how to use it accordingly and it frustrates the hell out of me. On 80km/h posted roads I tend to drive 92-95km/h... yes that is slow... but that is probaly why many of you may be complaining about your fuel economy. The extra ~4 minutes I would save in my travel isn\'t worth it. I may switch over to an aftermarket air filter in the spring, it will interesting to see if that makes a noticeable difference in either power or economy.
Getting close to advertised fuel economy rating is possible, decide whether or not you will need to change your driving habits if you want to achieve that.
\"



I have yet to add my December figures but I have had a decrease in mileage, most likely attributed to the colder weather. I am pleased with the returns and continue to drive conservatively, particularily with the road conditions here in central Ontario. One interesting note, I did travel down the 400 from Coldwater onto the 401 to Milton one fine day in December and despite the higher car speed (115km/h) I did get 640km to that tank without the low fuel light turning on. I will try to post my December fuel log as soon as I calculate it from gas receipts.

Chris

The 2.0 in the PRO is a diesel compared to the 2.0 in teh 3 - they\'re different engines all together!

Today I just got my 2nd lowest reading EVER - 8.06L/100kms - city and hwy

Best was 7.9L/100kms on highway-only in the summer.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cstraw



Here was my response to a similar thread in the Drivetrain forum regarding fuel economy.
http://torontomazda3.com/forum/read.php?TID=651&page=3

:Here are my November and December numbers thus far. As you can see, the fuel economy begins to suffer with a drop in temperature. I\'m sure having to drive through snow and slush that we\'ve had quite a bit of here in North/Central Ontario doesn\'t help either:


Oct. 18 634km 45.14L 7.12 L/100km
23 349km 24.6L 7.05 best to date


Nov. 3 577km 41.389L 7.17
13 240 25.8 10.75 (father visited and I left him the car, just goes to show what short trips and inefficient driving results in)
17 297km 22.7L 7.64 L/100km
21 463 34.53 7.50
25 418 22.4 7.84
28 548 42.25 7.71
Dec. 2 417km 33.4L 8.01 L/100km
5 491 38.1 7.75

The car is a 2.3L Sport GT, mtx (5 speed), no mods, regular gas (Sunoco whenever possible), shift mostly just before 3k rpm. I rarely travel the 400 series highways since most drivers don\'t know how to use it accordingly and it frustrates the hell out of me. On 80km/h posted roads I tend to drive 92-95km/h... yes that is slow... but that is probaly why many of you may be complaining about your fuel economy. The extra ~4 minutes I would save in my travel isn\'t worth it. I may switch over to an aftermarket air filter in the spring, it will interesting to see if that makes a noticeable difference in either power or economy.
Getting close to advertised fuel economy rating is possible, decide whether or not you will need to change your driving habits if you want to achieve that.
\"



I have yet to add my December figures but I have had a decrease in mileage, most likely attributed to the colder weather. I am pleased with the returns and continue to drive conservatively, particularily with the road conditions here in central Ontario. One interesting note, I did travel down the 400 from Coldwater onto the 401 to Milton one fine day in December and despite the higher car speed (115km/h) I did get 640km to that tank without the low fuel light turning on. I will try to post my December fuel log as soon as I calculate it from gas receipts.

Chris

---

Wow. I think that I\'ve been spoiled from using a 1.7L to a 2.3L engine, so I\'m capitaling on using every band of power that I can from the 2.3L. It will be difficult to change my habits to shift under 3,000 RPM because there so so much bandwidth available, it seems cruel to allow the engine to shift so early. I dunno, I\'ll try it for a week... but I know that from time to time, I will forget and eat a few litres along the way when pulling up beside another rice rocket.

A few more thoughts about the 1.7L VTEC Civic to the 2.3L Mazda3 engines:

2.3L - 1.7L = 0.5L
0.5L/1.7L = 0.294 or 29.4% increase
7.7L/100km - 10.0L/100km = 2.3L/100km
2.3/7.7 = 0.299 or 29.9% increase

So in theory... all the numbers add up. As you increase your displacement, you increase your consumption. But I\'m not sure if that will work in other cases.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dinu01


The 2.0 in the PRO is a diesel compared to the 2.0 in teh 3 - they\'re different engines all together!

Today I just got my 2nd lowest reading EVER - 8.06L/100kms - city and hwy

Best was 7.9L/100kms on highway-only in the summer.

---

Funny, I should have tried to drive the 2.0L on the Mazda3 before leasing my 2005 MY. But then again, I wanted the 5-door hatch, and it wasn\'t available, so it makes no difference.

For my sister, on the other hand, who\'s lease on her 2002 Protege runs out in August of 2005, she\'ll have the decision to make between the 2.0 and 2.3L if she decideds for the 4-door (although she appears to be leaning towards the hatch).

The 2.3L feels \"stronger\" and pulls better than the 2.0 - I drove both in MT

Since I wanted a sunroof but the insurance Co. wanted roughly $40+/mth for the 2.3L, I had to get the 2.0L. It would have cost me too much(car+ins+maintenance+gas, etc), plus I don\'t like the GFX package AT ALL.

So the 2.0L GS w/Sport Package was it, although sometimes I think that the 2.3L would have been nice...

If could only gove me the 2.3L w/sunroof and no plastic running boards, I probably would have forked over the extra $ and get the GT.

I never try 2.0L one cause I went straight to Sport model.

for mine 5MT, I drive usually 50:50 city/hwy, sometimes drive 140km/h on hwy, and now get 8.69L/100km. Although not sure, but if our cars got 6MT, it would get better mileage, when I drive at 120km/h, it revs at 3200rpm, which seems quite high, my old CRV rev only 3000rpm at the same speed.

Alright.. time for an update

today I drove from Oakville to Pickering to Collingwood (Blue Mountain) to downtown (Danforth) and back to Oakville. I took 400 series/DVP/Gardiner/80kmh roads.

on the major highways i drove 100kph using cruise control. on the 80kph roads, i drove 92-95kph (cruise as well). I had 3 stop and go traffic situations + some city driving that accounted for < 5% of the entire trip. *drumroll*

distance 520km, gas used 39.189L 7.54L/100 YAY!!! finally

YYYY | MMM | DD | FILL | ODOM | TRIP| L/100 | mpg | STATION| ($/L) | Cost
2005 | JAN | 08 | 39.19 | 5385 | 520 | 7.54 | 31.21 | Esso | $0.689 | $27.00

7.54L/100km - this is with 3 adults weighing in at about 450lbs total + 3 snowboards and other equipment, I was finally satisfied to see those numbers.

it was a bit tough not racing the engine and it was nice to get a contsant speed going without shuffling through gears or idling

Oh funny thing, my range would have been much longer BUT as i was driving into collingwood gas was 66.9 so i figured i\'ll fill up on the way home so that i can enjoy boarding now. on the way home, this jumped to 75.8. I had plenty left so i said \'screw it\' and drove home. I got off the hwy in oakville and saw petro canada at 68.9 I thought it was a mistake, I drove past esso and baaam 79.1 so i decided to pay shell a visit around the corner. 68.9 - nice but i wanna see sunoco or esso that are just 2 blocks away. I drove there and they were both 68.9 This is when I figured i wanted my airmiles and a dollar off at dominion so i went back to shell just to see the price jump to 79.1 (literally 2min later!!!) so i drove back to esso and sunoco, esso: 79.1 sunoco: 68.9 I quickly filled up at sunoco, got home, took my mom\'s car and filled her up too.

ugh.. this is what you get for being cheap. yeah yeah.. i wasted gas by driving around. literally the whole \'loop\' was done in 5 min and my decision making process wasn\'t so good (obviously) due to a long day of boarding :D now time for sleep.. l8r

Quote:

---

Originally posted by majic


Alright.. time for an update

today I drove from Oakville to Pickering to Collingwood (Blue Mountain) to downtown (Danforth) and back to Oakville. I took 400 series/DVP/Gardiner/80kmh roads.

on the major highways i drove 100kph using cruise control. on the 80kph roads, i drove 92-95kph (cruise as well). I had 3 stop and go traffic situations + some city driving that accounted for < 5% of the entire trip. *drumroll*

distance 520km, gas used 39.189L 7.54L/100 YAY!!! finally

YYYY | MMM | DD | FILL | ODOM | TRIP| L/100 | mpg | STATION| ($/L) | Cost
2005 | JAN | 08 | 39.19 | 5385 | 520 | 7.54 | 31.21 | Esso | $0.689 | $27.00

7.54L/100km - this is with 3 adults weighing in at about 450lbs total + 3 snowboards and other equipment, I was finally satisfied to see those numbers.

it was a bit tough not racing the engine and it was nice to get a contsant speed going without shuffling through gears or idling

Oh funny thing, my range would have been much longer BUT as i was driving into collingwood gas was 66.9 so i figured i\'ll fill up on the way home so that i can enjoy boarding now. on the way home, this jumped to 75.8. I had plenty left so i said \'screw it\' and drove home. I got off the hwy in oakville and saw petro canada at 68.9 I thought it was a mistake, I drove past esso and baaam 79.1 so i decided to pay shell a visit around the corner. 68.9 - nice but i wanna see sunoco or esso that are just 2 blocks away. I drove there and they were both 68.9 This is when I figured i wanted my airmiles and a dollar off at dominion so i went back to shell just to see the price jump to 79.1 (literally 2min later!!!) so i drove back to esso and sunoco, esso: 79.1 sunoco: 68.9 I quickly filled up at sunoco, got home, took my mom\'s car and filled her up too.

ugh.. this is what you get for being cheap. yeah yeah.. i wasted gas by driving around. literally the whole \'loop\' was done in 5 min and my decision making process wasn\'t so good (obviously) due to a long day of boarding :D now time for sleep.. l8r

---

First off, nice figures. Secondly... don\'t get too excited. There is a chance that the machine that you used to fill-up gas in Collingwood didn\'t fill-up exactly like the ones in Toronto. The only way to prove that is to see your following figures. You should, in theory, get better numbers if you continued to drive as you did and had less loads on the car.

As for the gas pricing, yeah, I\'m the same way. Not cheap... but simply want to get the bang for my buck. Especially when the pricing of fuel is so temperamental by 10 to 15-cents within a few kilometers. I\'ve been finding that there exists a station that is always more competitive than the others. Some say that it\'s the corporate parent companies that set the pricing. Sure, I\'ll believe that, but to a certain extent. Because there are probably another 10-15 margins that the operators can play with, and if they want to see more business, they are willing to loose a few cents. That would explain why in Mississauga, for example, you can go from 72-cents to 65-cents per litre from the SAME company in the SAME time frame of the day. I am, by the way, surprised that the Collingwood region would have gas at such a low rate, compared to the GTA. I guess that operators in the Toronto area are simply GREEDY. It\'s money that makes the world go round...

Oh well.

As I said in an earlier post, I was mostly using Esso gas and got horrible fuel economy. Two days ago, I decided to use Sunoco, and for some odd reason, the car is much more smoother and does not vibrate at all. It is a noticeable difference, even when reving the car, it just sounds much better. Now only have to see what kind of fuel economy I can get.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PiCASSO

don\'t get too excited. There is a chance that the machine that you used to fill-up gas in Collingwood didn\'t fill-up exactly like the ones in Toronto. The only way to prove that is to see your following figures. You should, in theory, get better numbers if you continued to drive as you did and had less loads on the car.

---

Quote:

---

I initially thought that the 8.82 L/100km was an outlier, but you are hovering in the mid-9\'s with your fuel economy. I would wait until you get your next few fill-ups before dismissing or accepting that last 8.82 figure.

---

man.. you keep bashing my good numbers :p

1st of all, it\'s called law of averages. each machine has its own cutoff point and will dispense only X amount of fuel. 2nd, i didn\'t fill up in collingwood, it was in oakville :p so in theory i would have to fill up at the SAME _PUMP_ each time, stopping after the first \'click\' Then again, there are all these variables you can\'t control (temperature for example) but anyway, what\'s important is that i can get closer to the \'ideal\' fuel consumption numbers with granny/hwy driving.

On this tank of gas, i\'m driving \'with the flow\' on the highway and when the flow is too fast i cruise at 110kph. Hopefully not too much city driving will take place and i\'ll come back to report on it and next fill ups. cheers,

--maciej

Hey, I have also been keeping tack of fuel consumption figures for the past year on my 3 sedan gs auto. During the summer I can get 7.1-7.5L/100km, and for the winter it is about 7.5-7.8L/100km. 60-70% of my driving is on the highway, and I have been putting regular gas from shell. I am fairly satisifed with the fuel consumption of this car, considering I was driving a jetta before.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ken


Hey, I have also been keeping tack of fuel consumption figures for the past year on my 3 sedan gs auto. During the summer I can get 7.1-7.5L/100km, and for the winter it is about 7.5-7.8L/100km. 60-70% of my driving is on the highway, and I have been putting regular gas from shell. I am fairly satisifed with the fuel consumption of this car, considering I was driving a jetta before.

---

your numbers will be lower b/c you have a 2.0L whereas PiCASSO and I have the 2.3L (0.5L/100km worse results in theory)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by majic

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ken


Hey, I have also been keeping tack of fuel consumption figures for the past year on my 3 sedan gs auto. During the summer I can get 7.1-7.5L/100km, and for the winter it is about 7.5-7.8L/100km. 60-70% of my driving is on the highway, and I have been putting regular gas from shell. I am fairly satisifed with the fuel consumption of this car, considering I was driving a jetta before.

---

your numbers will be lower b/c you have a 2.0L whereas PiCASSO and I have the 2.3L (0.5L/100km worse results in theory)

---

If only I was getting 0.5L/100km worse... I would be very happy. If I averaged 8.5L/100km with my current driving style, I wouldn\'t be complaining. But anything higher really puts a down the ownership experience in a worse perspective.

By the way, I appreciate you keeping my name spelled with the appropriate capitalization. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by majic


man.. you keep bashing my good numbers :p

--maciej

---

Nie nie... I\'m just a little jealous when you have a few good numbers. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PiCASSO

If only I was getting 0.5L/100km worse... I would be very happy. If I averaged 8.5L/100km with my current driving style, I wouldn\'t be complaining. But anything higher really puts a down the ownership experience in a worse perspective.

---

Yeah.. what i meant that the theoretical differences are about .5L but anyway.. i\'d be happy to keep it in the low 8s for mixed driving.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PiCASSO
By the way, I appreciate you keeping my name spelled with the appropriate capitalization. :D

---

I know what you mean, it\'s a nick name, so it\'s not like i would get offended if someone wrote \'majic\' i hate the way \'Majic\' look like and i prefer all lowercase

Quote:

---

Originally posted by majic

I know what you mean, it\'s a nick name, so it\'s not like i would get offended if someone wrote \'majic\' i hate the way \'Majic\' look like and i prefer all lowercase

---

Does this include your first real name, \"maciej\"?

Here\'s a quick update. With mainly 80% city driving, and the remaining 20% of highway driving, I\'ve averaged my WORST fuel economy to date: 12.724 L/100km. I couldn\'t even get close to 400km before the low-fuel light came on. With this fuel economy, I have a pathetic theoretical range of 463.92 km. Mind you, the past 381.1 km I managed to travel using 48.491 L of fuel wasn\'t on the race track or anything. Sure, there were times when I floored it, but I\'m being more and more disappointed in the fuel economy. If things don\'t shape up for spring, I\'m going to bring this to the dealership and if necessary to Mazda of Canada. :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PiCASSO


Here\'s a quick update. With mainly 80% city driving, and the remaining 20% of highway driving, I\'ve averaged my WORST fuel economy to date: 12.724 L/100km. I couldn\'t even get close to 400km before the low-fuel light came on. With this fuel economy, I have a pathetic theoretical range of 463.92 km. Mind you, the past 381.1 km I managed to travel using 48.491 L of fuel wasn\'t on the race track or anything. Sure, there were times when I floored it, but I\'m being more and more disappointed in the fuel economy. If things don\'t shape up for spring, I\'m going to bring this to the dealership and if necessary to Mazda of Canada. :(

---

wow that does suck.. have you tried shifting at say 2-2.5K? it\'s really weir b/c my worst mileage in pretty much all stop and go traffic was 11L and i was almost crying then..

my last 2 fillups (with much less - 50/50 maybe - city driving are ginging me low 9s) once again i tend to cruise at 110kph

YYYY | MMM | DD | FILL | ODOM | TRIP| L/100 | mpg | STATION| ($/L) | Cost
2005 | Jan | 10 | 38.63 | 5799 | 414 | 9.33 | 25.21 | Sunoco | $0.699 | $27.00
2005 | Jan | 15 | 49.39 | 6340 | 541 | 9.13 | 25.76 | Esso | $0.689 | $34.03

keep us posted and i wish others would contirbute to this thread

Quote:

---

Originally posted by majic


wow that does suck.. have you tried shifting at say 2-2.5K? it\'s really weir b/c my worst mileage in pretty much all stop and go traffic was 11L and i was almost crying then..

---

Hehehe... I think I will have to begin shifting BEFORE 3,000 RPM. Problem is that I\'m usually late for everything. I dunno why, but I tend to have something hold me back till the last second. Always in a rush...

Well, folks... here are my updated numbers for my fuel economy battle with my Mazda3:

--- | Date | Distance | Fuel | -------- | mpg | Fuel Left | Distance | Total Range
--- | -------- | (km) | (L) | L/100km | (US) | (L) | Left (km) | (km)
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
01 | 10/17/04 | 400.0 | 43.932 | 10.983 | 21.416 | 11.068 | 100.774 | 500.774
02 | 10/24/04 | 468.7 | 42.484 | 09.064 | 25.950 | 12.516 | 138.086 | 606.786
03 | 10/27/04 | 257.8 | 26.870 | 10.423 | 22.567 | 28.130 | 269.889 | 527.689
04 | 10/27/04 | 271.4 | 28.370 | 10.453 | 22.502 | 26.630 | 254.754 | 526.154
05 | 10/31/04 | 518.4 | 46.354 | 08.942 | 26.305 | 08.646 | 096.693 | 615.093
06 | 11/07/04 | 397.4 | 40.874 | 10.285 | 22.869 | 14.126 | 137.341 | 534.741
07 | 11/14/04 | 214.6 | 23.105 | 10.767 | 21.847 | 31.895 | 296.242 | 510.842
08 | 11/16/04 | 199.5 | 18.775 | 09.411 | 24.994 | 36.225 | 384.930 | 584.430
09 | 11/21/04 | 500.0 | 45.855 | 09.171 | 25.648 | 09.145 | 099.716 | 599.716
10 | 11/22/04 | 515.0 | 46.639 | 09.056 | 25.973 | 08.361 | 092.324 | 607.324
11 | 12/06/04 | 379.3 | 37.234 | 09.817 | 23.961 | 17.766 | 180.981 | 560.281
12 | 12/09/04 | 141.7 | 13.777 | 09.723 | 24.192 | 41.223 | 423.989 | 565.689
13 | 12/11/04 | 378.5 | 39.604 | 10.463 | 22.480 | 15.396 | 147.141 | 525.641
14 | 12/13/04 | 161.8 | 16.611 | 10.266 | 22.911 | 38.389 | 373.929 | 535.729
15 | 12/16/04 | 275.0 | 28.081 | 10.211 | 23.035 | 26.919 | 263.620 | 538.620
16 | 12/20/04 | 397.5 | 42.846 | 10.779 | 21.822 | 12.154 | 112.758 | 510.258
17 | 12/23/04 | 278.7 | 29.231 | 10.488 | 22.426 | 25.769 | 245.692 | 524.392
18 | 12/31/04 | 387.1 | 39.340 | 10.163 | 23.145 | 15.660 | 154.092 | 541.192
19 | 01/17/05 | 381.1 | 48.491 | 12.724 | 18.486 | 06.509 | 051.155 | 432.255
20 | 01/27/05 | 200.6 | 29.372 | 14.642 | 16.064 | 25.628 | 175.030 | 375.630
21 | 01/31/05 | 448.2 | 47.829 | 10.671 | 22.042 | 07.171 | 076.520 | 524.724
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
--- | ------ | ------ | Average | 10.405 | 22.887 | ------ | ------ | 535.617


You can see the cool 14.64 L/100km (16.06 MPG) that I got while driving mainly 90% in the city under -10 to 0 degree weather, where shifting took place at 3,000 +/- 200 RPM (as per Maciej\'s suggestion). \"WTF? \" I asked myself... so I brought the car into Avante Mazda (Richmond Hill, ON), where it was diagnosed left and right. And what did they find? Nothin. The car operated within the allowable specifications. My guess is that it\'s probably on the borderline of being acceptable, especially given my Hummer like fuel economy. So I\'ll continue to drive it and see just how bad it gets. Now, with approximately 8,500 km on the odometer, I am getting some 10.405 L/100km, or 22.887 MPG. Let\'s compare that to the ratings from Mazda:

Canadian EPA state the following numbers (www.mazda.ca):
City: 9.2L/100km (25.6 MPG)
Highway: 6.7L/100km (35.1 MPG)

And the USA equivalent (www.mazdausa.com, US gallons):
City: 25 MPG (9.4L/100km)
Highway: 32 MPG (7.3L/100km)

At the worst (USA) city rating of 9.4L/100km… I am off by 5.2L/100km or 56% from my #20 fill-up.
At the worst (USA) average rating 8.35L/100km… I am off by 2.042L/100km or 24.5% on my 3.5 month average.

Theoretical range by using every last litre in the (55L) tank has averaged 536.16 km. As a comparison, my 2002 Honda Civic Si coupe did average: 7.71 L/100km or 30.51 MPG (US), and a maximum theoretical range of 652.16 km (with a 50L tank). Now, I\'ve been driving that Civic for 3-years, just as hard as the Mazda3. But to consume another 2.68 Litres for every 100km with a 0.5L larger engine? That doesn\'t really make any sense! This extra 2.68L/100km works out to an extra 1929.6L for the 3-year 72,000km or $1,543.68 CDN in gasoline.

If this continues, I will be seriously reconsidering my first Mazda choice and might revert back to a Honda after my lease expires in October of 2007.

P.S. January 27th, 2005: Difficulties starting the car from time to time. Thursday, January 27th at 6:00pm, the car couldn\'t start after 3-4 seconds of cranking. The temperature was -15 degrees Celcuis and the tank was 1/2 full. Half-way mark on the fuel gauge came at approximately 150-km. Shifting was done carefuly on average around 3,000 RPM (normally it\'s 4,500 RPM). Fuel economy is the worst yet at 8,000 km. So how many more kilometer\'s required for a till the engine has \'broken\' in???

P.S.S. Formatting an Excel chart is a PAIN in the ass in these forums. I had to adjust the columns about 15-times before it came out the way it did (which I assume for most of your computers is looking okay).

lol don\'t feel so bad ;)
i get 12+litre/100km almost ALL the time from about 95% city driving
and i have a 2.3 litre AT

i don\'t even push my car that much

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SwooshICE


lol don\'t feel so bad ;)
i get 12+litre/100km almost ALL the time from about 95% city driving
and i have a 2.3 litre AT

i don\'t even push my car that much

---

Hehehe... well, you know what they say, \"Misery loves company\". :D

okay guys .. i have the CAI .. so far my consumtion is around 10L/100km .. but alot of stop and go driving tho .. i guess CAI helps abit ...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kl7402001


okay guys .. i have the CAI .. so far my consumtion is around 10L/100km .. but alot of stop and go driving tho .. i guess CAI helps abit ...

---

What kind of accelleration do you do (percentage of throttle) upon starting? And what RPM do you normally shift at?

Here are my recent figures (from my trip to London and back):

distance: 311.6 km
fuel: 32.044 L
economy: 10.284 L/100km
speed: 130 km/h (average on the 401, with another 20% city driving)

distance: 186.2 km
fuel: 14.460 L
economy: 7.766 L/100km
speed: 105 km/h (average on the 401, with all 100% highway driving)

This is my best fuel economy to date (which matches my Honda Civic\'s overall 3-year average)... which shows that you have to drive this Mazda in a vacuum (zero resistance) in order to get the claimed 6.7 L/100km through the Canadian EPA ratings.

Hi everyone!

I am new here. I have a 2005 Mazda 3 Sedan, GT, Leather, Auto.

My last two pumps were on:

1/26 ------- 25.5 Li ------- 180.3 km
1/31 -------25.787 Li ----- 183.7 km

Both averages a little bit over 14 Li / 100 km. Not that good.

My wife drives the car and never on the Highway. Her work is 6 km away from our place and she picks me up at night ( 10 km. one-way).

I appreciate your advise, Thanks.


Rene