Author Topic: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread  (Read 235509 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline moboang

  • TS Class
  • **
  • Posts: 47
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2007, 10:18:03 PM »
MPS doing well, currently 32mpg and thats covering 1400 miles a week! Still looking for a diesal though!

Offline daiking

  • Senior Member
  • Ultimate Class
  • *
  • Posts: 2367
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2007, 10:33:59 PM »
MPS doing well, currently 32mpg and thats covering 1400 miles a week! Still looking for a diesal though!
That's 70,000 miles a year  :o

Offline moboang

  • TS Class
  • **
  • Posts: 47
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2007, 10:37:24 PM »
yep its only costs me £1000/month in petrol!

Offline hussein

  • Sports Class
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
  • Gender: Male
  • I am the stig
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2007, 12:28:29 AM »
That mileage in an MPS is nuts!

If you swapped that for a 2.0D Sport (141BHP @ 2000rpm, 266lb/ft - only 14lb/ft down on the MPS!  Fast relaxing car, that) and got say (conservatively) 42MPG...

1400 miles a week, thats 43.75 gallons @ 32MPG (MPS, really? I expected less. Must have a tall 6th)
1400 miles a week, thats 33.33 gallons @ 42MPG (2.0D, low estimate, Mazda says 47MPG Combined)

Say petrol & diesel are the same price, your £1000 a month comes to £760.  Saving £240 a month, £2880 a year on fuel alone.  Thats without taking into account £400 tax and the insurance on the hottest hatch there is.  Plus I reckon that mileage related depreciation on an MPS is a lot more than it is on a diesel.  People expect diesels to be high miles so its no shock.  Buyers for an MPS would definitely be more fussy.  I reckon it costs you at least a £15 a day premium to drive the MPS over a 2.0D, which is pretty shocking.

MPS is such an awesome car though!  Still, driving it a lot would kill your wallet.

Good luck with the search.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 09:33:33 AM by hussein »
Now: 2006 Honda Civic FK3 2.2 iCTDI EX Cosmic Grey Pearl / Mega Spec / iPod / Interior Lighting
Then: 2005 Mazda 3 1.6D TS Hatch Winning Blue Metallic / ICE / Bluetooth / HIDs / Nice Trim

Offline moboang

  • TS Class
  • **
  • Posts: 47
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2007, 03:45:20 PM »

1400 miles a week, thats 43.75 gallons @ 32MPG (MPS, really? I expected less. Must have a tall 6th)
1400 miles a week, thats 33.33 gallons @ 42MPG (2.0D, low estimate, Mazda says 47MPG Combined)



Good news I am now getting 34mpg with texaco excellium (spelling!), at least 160 miles are on m40.

Offline sk4tec

  • Ultimate Class
  • ******
  • Posts: 2145
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2007, 02:48:04 AM »
That mileage in an MPS is nuts!

If you swapped that for a 2.0D Sport (141BHP @ 2000rpm, 266lb/ft - only 14lb/ft down on the MPS!  Fast relaxing car, that) and got say (conservatively) 42MPG...

1400 miles a week, thats 43.75 gallons @ 32MPG (MPS, really? I expected less. Must have a tall 6th)
1400 miles a week, thats 33.33 gallons @ 42MPG (2.0D, low estimate, Mazda says 47MPG Combined)

Say petrol & diesel are the same price, your £1000 a month comes to £760.  Saving £240 a month, £2880 a year on fuel alone.  Thats without taking into account £400 tax and the insurance on the hottest hatch there is.  Plus I reckon that mileage related depreciation on an MPS is a lot more than it is on a diesel.  People expect diesels to be high miles so its no shock.  Buyers for an MPS would definitely be more fussy.  I reckon it costs you at least a £15 a day premium to drive the MPS over a 2.0D, which is pretty shocking.

MPS is such an awesome car though!  Still, driving it a lot would kill your wallet.

Good luck with the search.

I think its a fair estimate on MPG I get 10 less than my Golf diesel on the same route.

I agree with your post, for that kind of mileage I'd go diesel. The value of the MPS will be on the floor.

Sporty diesels can be fun but not in the same way as a petrol. Having said that, I'm talking coming from a 2.0 16v petrol to a Sports diesel - the low down torque is massive and it feels like a step up.

Perhaps coming from a MPS any diesel (except for the BMW 335d etc) would be a step down, but you'd only notice the lack of power in the top of the rev range. There's no way a diesel of sensible engine size can make that kind of BHP.

The only downside is that they are a lot more complex than petrols (ironic ehh?) and in my experience less reliable.

1998 Peugeot 306 XSi 16v
1999 VW Passat 1.8 Sport
2002 Golf Mk IV GT TDi 150
2005 Mazda 3 Sport 2.0 (Petrol)
Current: Seat Leon MK II FR 2.0 TFSi DSG

Offline Mica_MPS

  • TS2 Class
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #36 on: December 12, 2007, 12:36:36 PM »
I initially thought about getting rid of the MPS when my daily commute increased from 25 miles to 80 miles a couple of months back, but it's really no gas guzzler on long journeys (6th is geared to about 26.5mph/1000rpm, which helps), and the benefits of something slower and more frugal would take a long time to realise when all the costs-to-change are accounted for. An ordinary 2.0 petrol would probably only be around 5mpg more economical (35mpg vs 30mpg).

I don't agree that the massive power disparity between the MPS and even the 2.0D would only be noticeable at the top of the rev range (the MPS has already done its best work by about 5500rpm), but there's no doubt the 2.0D would be much the better tool for a 400 mile/week commute. Hire cars aside, I don't and never will do diesel though! 
Black Mica '56 Mazda 3 MPS

Offline sk4tec

  • Ultimate Class
  • ******
  • Posts: 2145
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #37 on: December 12, 2007, 12:52:04 PM »
I initially thought about getting rid of the MPS when my daily commute increased from 25 miles to 80 miles a couple of months back, but it's really no gas guzzler on long journeys (6th is geared to about 26.5mph/1000rpm, which helps), and the benefits of something slower and more frugal would take a long time to realise when all the costs-to-change are accounted for. An ordinary 2.0 petrol would probably only be around 5mpg more economical (35mpg vs 30mpg).

I don't agree that the massive power disparity between the MPS and even the 2.0D would only be noticeable at the top of the rev range (the MPS has already done its best work by about 5500rpm), but there's no doubt the 2.0D would be much the better tool for a 400 mile/week commute. Hire cars aside, I don't and never will do diesel though! 


I think u'd like a diesel if you drove a 330cd. Autocar rated it better than the 330ci, but ironically its not that economical.

True if you drive it off boost then its more like a 2.3 n\a. But driving a diesel off boost is also like a SDi, so its all relative. Things like your car's direct injection should help.

The killer cost at the moment is road fund licence. My mates 330ci is in the same tax bracket as my 2.0 Sport. His must be in the middle and mine is 2 away from the lower bracket ???

Incedentially for the 1.4 and 1.6 for the face lifted version they dropped enough to move these engines down a bracket.

1998 Peugeot 306 XSi 16v
1999 VW Passat 1.8 Sport
2002 Golf Mk IV GT TDi 150
2005 Mazda 3 Sport 2.0 (Petrol)
Current: Seat Leon MK II FR 2.0 TFSi DSG

Offline underworld

  • MPS Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Gender: Male
  • i Dnt dRivE fAst ---> i fLy LoW!!!
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #38 on: December 14, 2007, 07:44:37 PM »
 filled up twice and both times, I got about 300 ish miles both times... i did about 60 miles at 80 - 100 mph both times and the rest was either 60 on the motorway or town driving.....

It would possibly be more than 350 miles if i didnt floor it on the mway...

I filled up today and goin to blackpool tomorrow, ill see how it goes.. hoping to reach there and still have some fuel left in t ;D ;D ;Dhe tank
IF EverythinG SeemS UndeR ControL ---> U R JusT NoT GoinG FasT EnougH

Now driving a Classic Impreza WRX Type RA

Offline mazda3-mike

  • Sports Class
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Gender: Male
  • went 'somewhere back in time' with eddie the 'ed
    • pro wedding videographer..!
  • Body: Hatchback
  • Colour: Aluminium Silver (38P) Metallic
  • Engine: 1.6L
  • Fuel: Petrol
  • Model: Mazda 3
  • Transmission: Manual
  • Trim: TS
  • Year: 2010
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #39 on: December 15, 2007, 12:24:50 PM »
....hey underworld i see you are a 'bow wing' techie? where bouts you working.....

I'm at Stansted?

btw my 1.4 is giving me 410 to 420 miles per tank?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 12:26:40 PM by mazda3-mike »
1979 Datsun160j Met Green
1996 Ford Escort 1.4GL Grey
1998 Rover 214 Red
2000 Rover 414 silver
2002 Toyota Corolla 'Pink'
2003 Nissan Almera 1.5s Sky Blue
2004 Mazda3 TS 1.4 Met Grey
2010 Mazda3 TS 1.6 Aluminium (current car)

Offline the_rangdo

  • Takara Class
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #40 on: December 15, 2007, 02:00:28 PM »
Getting 46mpg average on my 1.6D TS2, that's pure town driving.   :)

Got a trip down to London next week, that'll be my first decent m-way trip and I'm intrigued to see what I can squeeze out of a tank so I'm going to try and be good  ;)

My 323 would do 28 round town, 36 at best on a m-way so things are already better.
Mazda 3 TS2 1.6D 2007/57 - Sunlight Silver - Front Fogs
Mazda 2 1.4 Antares 2006/06 - Titanium Grey

Offline underworld

  • MPS Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 726
  • Gender: Male
  • i Dnt dRivE fAst ---> i fLy LoW!!!
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #41 on: December 16, 2007, 07:17:56 PM »
....hey underworld i see you are a 'bow wing' techie? where bouts you working.....

I'm at Stansted?

btw my 1.4 is giving me 410 to 420 miles per tank?

loll not what u think  ;D ;D ;D I work in essex..  410?? thats 100 miles more.. i did 310 miles today from a full tank and there's just above 1/4 of a tank left... only motorway driving...
IF EverythinG SeemS UndeR ControL ---> U R JusT NoT GoinG FasT EnougH

Now driving a Classic Impreza WRX Type RA

Offline Stu17

  • Takara Class
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #42 on: December 22, 2007, 12:45:44 PM »
The following figures are what i'm currently getting. All my driving is usualy about the houses but during test had about 60 motorway miles which was on cruise at 80mph. According to computer my average speed is 19mph  :-[. In my defence the wife never speeds and very rarely gets into 4th gear.

new 2007 2.0 sport hatchback , tank topped up run for 247 miles and topped up again 26.56mpg. computer was saying 27.2 mpg. :(
My old 2005 2.0 sport used to get 29.7 mpg.

i'm with Mica don't want to go the deisel route but who knows with the price of fuel these days. Wish i had not checked now.

Ps don't tell the wife or she may want smaller engine
57  2.0 Sport   hatch      carbon grey mica     standard

Offline sk4tec

  • Ultimate Class
  • ******
  • Posts: 2145
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #43 on: December 22, 2007, 02:53:45 PM »
The following figures are what i'm currently getting. All my driving is usualy about the houses but during test had about 60 motorway miles which was on cruise at 80mph. According to computer my average speed is 19mph  :-[. In my defence the wife never speeds and very rarely gets into 4th gear.

new 2007 2.0 sport hatchback , tank topped up run for 247 miles and topped up again 26.56mpg. computer was saying 27.2 mpg. :(
My old 2005 2.0 sport used to get 29.7 mpg.

i'm with Mica don't want to go the deisel route but who knows with the price of fuel these days. Wish i had not checked now.

Ps don't tell the wife or she may want smaller engine

Hi Stu

Interesting that your getting less with your '07 - as its meant to about 1.5 mpg better than the pre-facelifted one. Its a shame they didn't drop the Co2 a few more so it would drop down a tax bracket we're in the same band as a 330ci BMW >:(

I get more MPG with BP regular then I do with Shell regular. I think it's cos generally speaking BP tends to burn better at low speed the opposite to Shell. Which is more useful in traffic.

Also I've got a bit of a flat spot at 1,900 rpm (light throttle in 4th). Its much worse with Shell. Have you noticed one?

1998 Peugeot 306 XSi 16v
1999 VW Passat 1.8 Sport
2002 Golf Mk IV GT TDi 150
2005 Mazda 3 Sport 2.0 (Petrol)
Current: Seat Leon MK II FR 2.0 TFSi DSG

Offline Stu17

  • Takara Class
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #44 on: December 22, 2007, 06:00:29 PM »
hi sk44tec
i've only done 446 miles so far with the new one (still waiting to open it up) i will check for flat spot.  I may get more once the engine eases a little. Only using supermarket petrol as the the BP stuff is 4p/litre dearer. Do you think the gearbox could be making the difference.

Stu
57  2.0 Sport   hatch      carbon grey mica     standard

Mazda 3 Forums UK

Re: The Mazda 3 Fuel Economy Thread
« Reply #44 on: December 22, 2007, 06:00:29 PM »