HIGHWAY MPG thread for both 2.0 and 2.5 w/poll!! - Page 39 - 2004 to 2016 Mazda 3 Forum and Mazdaspeed 3 Forums
View Poll Results: Highway MPG 2.0/2.5L
2.0 <34 Highway MPG 75 8.76%
2.0 34-36 Highway MPG 81 9.46%
2.0 37-39 Highway MPG 128 14.95%
2.0 40-42 Highway MPG 135 15.77%
2.0 43+ Highway MPG 71 8.29%
2.5 <30 Highway MPG 47 5.49%
2.5 30-32 Highway MPG 86 10.05%
2.5 33-35 Highway MPG 118 13.79%
2.5 36-38 Highway MPG 77 9.00%
2.5 39+ Highway MPG 38 4.44%
Voters: 856. You may not vote on this poll

User Tag List

 47Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #381 of 398 (permalink) Old 03-06-2017, 03:39 PM
jdmorris
Junior Member
Points: 153, Level: 3
Points: 153, Level: 3 Points: 153, Level: 3 Points: 153, Level: 3
Activity: 10%
Activity: 10% Activity: 10% Activity: 10%
 
jdmorris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 3
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by M3MX5M3 View Post
A couple things to ask. Are your trips long or short? And generally what temps have you been driving in? My MPG's go from extremely low to extremely high depending on distance of trip, and temps. My work commute is 1.5 miles and generally I see less than 20mpg because my car never warms up. But once warm and freeway cruising I can get 45mpg. If you have a lot of short trips with cold temps itll drastically bring your mileage down.
I'm located in mild California and the temps on any longer trips have been between 45* and 65*. I can live with bad city mileage and there are plenty of factors that could cause it. The Mazda roof rack is the big unknown and I may find the same thing that GANC3 mentioned, above. I haven't had any pure highway driving without the rack to compare, yet. Everything else on the car is exactly how it should be. Thanks for your thoughts!
jdmorris is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #382 of 398 (permalink) Old 03-08-2017, 04:03 PM
Moval
Junior Member
Points: 646, Level: 12
Points: 646, Level: 12 Points: 646, Level: 12 Points: 646, Level: 12
Activity: 41%
Activity: 41% Activity: 41% Activity: 41%
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Riverside
Posts: 15
Thanks: 31
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
 
Garage
HIGHWAY MPG thread for both 2.0 and 2.5 w/poll!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by car0800 View Post
Really impressed with the numbers so far, here are my stats:

#1 : City driving around OC, California: 29.45mpg

#2 : Drive to Vegas, 1.5 hrs of stop and go: 32.45mpg

#3 : Drive back from Vegas, no slowdowns: 37.38mpg

Calculated from the gas pump and trip odo not using the cars reading. FYI, I have the 2.5 + 6 spd, cruised around 80-90mph on trip 3 and still got 37mpg, wow!


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


I'm in Southern California as well. Riverside to be exact.
My last trip to Vegas I got 33mpg to there and got 36.7 on my way back. Cruise control on 80mph

On a trip to Salt Lake City, Utah . I averaged 37.8mpg for the round trip. Cruise control set on 80.

As far as daily driving I usually get 33mpg with spirited driving. If I baby the car I get 36mpg.

Either way I love it .
I drive 2016 m3 hatch 2.0

Just took a trip to Phoenix/Tucson, Arizona and got 37.2 mpg round trip. 80/85mph cruise control


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by Moval; 03-14-2017 at 02:21 PM.
Moval is offline  
post #383 of 398 (permalink) Old 03-12-2017, 11:40 PM
Martin2000GTS
Junior Member
Points: 398, Level: 7
Points: 398, Level: 7 Points: 398, Level: 7 Points: 398, Level: 7
Activity: 6%
Activity: 6% Activity: 6% Activity: 6%
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 21
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
 
I can still pull 40+ mpg's in my 2014 as long as i shift like an old lady and keep it at 65mph or under on the highway. Over 65 and ill get it down to 33mpg at 80/85 mph
Martin2000GTS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #384 of 398 (permalink) Old 03-13-2017, 10:47 AM
hpclayto
Junior Member
Points: 357, Level: 7
Points: 357, Level: 7 Points: 357, Level: 7 Points: 357, Level: 7
Activity: 20%
Activity: 20% Activity: 20% Activity: 20%
 
hpclayto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 21
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
 
Got 31.5 and 32 on average on a trip to Chicago I just took with my 2.5. Cruise on 80 mostly.
hpclayto is offline  
post #385 of 398 (permalink) Old 03-19-2017, 01:39 PM
Road Trip
Experienced Gearhead
Points: 3,813, Level: 39
Points: 3,813, Level: 39 Points: 3,813, Level: 39 Points: 3,813, Level: 39
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
 
Road Trip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 866
Thanks: 45
Thanked 73 Times in 67 Posts
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
   
Garage
With every manufacturer fighting to get better mileage for three reasons (happy customers, bragging rights in ads, meeting gov't fuel requirements in most countries), every new car, even SUV's, are aero tested, refined, retested in the company's wind tunnels, computer modeling, etc. As one example the latest GM SUV is 12% more aero efficient than its last generation version; to get it that way, GM spent over 500 hours in their wind tunnel and computer modeling.

Every vehicle is most aero/fuel efficient in its base exterior model. Everything we add onto a car deducts from our fuel mileage. I know that by adding the Appearance Package, I will be reducing its fuel mileage and I am still happy with my decision to do that. [An aero package on a new Corvette, even though that package had been tested/modified/changed, re-tested in excess 1,000 hours, increased its aero coefficient from .35 to .37 -- where the lower the number the better.]

Those who carry a kayak, a bike on a rack in the back, and especially those who mount a general roof rack yet use it only five-ten times a year, need to realize that these latter adds on are fuel mileage killers.

And each of us gets to choose which, if any, fuel mile deductors were are going to live with.
BrianU likes this.

Jan. 25th ordered Mazda 3 GT hatch; Feb. 3rd allocation awarded; Feb. 8th official options/color confirmed; Feb. 27th assembly completed; April 2nd left Japan on transport ship; April 17th arrived at Port of Tacoma; April 26th arrived at dealer. HOORAY!

Below picture thanks and credit to Skagerstrom, for that is his beauty below, the inspiration for what our car will look like.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Road Trip is offline  
post #386 of 398 (permalink) Old 03-19-2017, 03:48 PM
dradernh
Senior Member
Points: 2,629, Level: 31
Points: 2,629, Level: 31 Points: 2,629, Level: 31 Points: 2,629, Level: 31
Activity: 14%
Activity: 14% Activity: 14% Activity: 14%
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: So. NH
Posts: 209
Thanks: 23
Thanked 29 Times in 25 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Road Trip View Post
With every manufacturer fighting to get better mileage for three reasons (happy customers, bragging rights in ads, meeting gov't fuel requirements in most countries), every new car, even SUV's, are aero tested, refined, retested in the company's wind tunnels, computer modeling, etc. As one example the latest GM SUV is 12% more aero efficient than its last generation version; to get it that way, GM spent over 500 hours in their wind tunnel and computer modeling.

Every vehicle is most aero/fuel efficient in its base exterior model. Everything we add onto a car deducts from our fuel mileage. I know that by adding the Appearance Package, I will be reducing its fuel mileage and I am still happy with my decision to do that. [An aero package on a new Corvette, even though that package had been tested/modified/changed, re-tested in excess 1,000 hours, increased its aero coefficient from .35 to .37 -- where the lower the number the better.]

Those who carry a kayak, a bike on a rack in the back, and especially those who mount a general roof rack yet use it only five-ten times a year, need to realize that these latter adds on are fuel mileage killers.

And each of us gets to choose which, if any, fuel mile deductors were are going to live with.
Good points. There's no question appearance/aero packages are generally just for looks unless they're going on a genuine performance car like the C7 Corvette.

The C7 aero package's relatively high drag coefficient showed up in the time it took to go from 100-150 MPH when compared to the Ferrari 458. The 458 just drove away from the C7 after 100 MPH. However, if I was taking that Corvette to the track, I'd definitely want the aero package on it.
Road Trip likes this.

'15 Soul Red Mazda3 MT s Touring Hatchback

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dradernh is offline  
post #387 of 398 (permalink) Old 03-19-2017, 04:14 PM
Road Trip
Experienced Gearhead
Points: 3,813, Level: 39
Points: 3,813, Level: 39 Points: 3,813, Level: 39 Points: 3,813, Level: 39
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
 
Road Trip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 866
Thanks: 45
Thanked 73 Times in 67 Posts
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
   
Garage
When I take my C7 Z06 to the track, I sure would not be cornering at 1.1+G without my full aero pkg. GM estimates that for the Z06, that the stage 2/3 aero packages costs up to 2 MPG for highway driving, more than that when tracking. Did not buy my Z for mileage LOL.

For our '14+ 3's, a wild guess without any facts to back it up, I believe that having the aero package costs less than 1 MPG.

A Mazda 3 with roof rack of any kind, again a pure guess, will downside mileage by 2 MPG. Anyone ever do close-to-identical runs on their '14+ 3 with a roof rack and without, who could add factual info here?

Jan. 25th ordered Mazda 3 GT hatch; Feb. 3rd allocation awarded; Feb. 8th official options/color confirmed; Feb. 27th assembly completed; April 2nd left Japan on transport ship; April 17th arrived at Port of Tacoma; April 26th arrived at dealer. HOORAY!

Below picture thanks and credit to Skagerstrom, for that is his beauty below, the inspiration for what our car will look like.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Road Trip is offline  
post #388 of 398 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 04:00 AM
sc489
Senior Member
Points: 1,646, Level: 23
Points: 1,646, Level: 23 Points: 1,646, Level: 23 Points: 1,646, Level: 23
Activity: 50%
Activity: 50% Activity: 50% Activity: 50%
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 128
Thanks: 40
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
 
Long distance 300 mile drive at 70mph mostly on cruise control on brand new Mazda 3 2.0 petrol gave 48 UK mpg / 40 US mpg. I was quite impressed by the low engine revs c. 2300 rpm with the 6 speed man gearbox. Engine & wind noise was OK but I'm unimpressed by the tyre noise on rough roads from the 18" wheels & Dunlop Sport Max TT tyres. No oil used in first 500 miles.
sc489 is offline  
post #389 of 398 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 05:15 AM
Rdrokit
Senior Member
Points: 12,957, Level: 74
Points: 12,957, Level: 74 Points: 12,957, Level: 74 Points: 12,957, Level: 74
Activity: 99%
Activity: 99% Activity: 99% Activity: 99%
 
Rdrokit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Korat, Thailand
Posts: 2,230
Thanks: 230
Thanked 134 Times in 127 Posts
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
     
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc489 View Post
Long distance 300 mile drive at 70mph mostly on cruise control on brand new Mazda 3 2.0 petrol gave 48 UK mpg / 40 US mpg. I was quite impressed by the low engine revs c. 2300 rpm with the 6 speed man gearbox. Engine & wind noise was OK but I'm unimpressed by the tyre noise on rough roads from the 18" wheels & Dunlop Sport Max TT tyres. No oil used in first 500 miles.
The Dunlops have to be one of the noisiest tires. I have 25,000km on mine and they seem to be getting quieter or maybe I am just getting use to the noise.

My Red Rocket (Rdrokit) I sure do miss her.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Rdrokit is offline  
post #390 of 398 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 09:40 AM
sc489
Senior Member
Points: 1,646, Level: 23
Points: 1,646, Level: 23 Points: 1,646, Level: 23 Points: 1,646, Level: 23
Activity: 50%
Activity: 50% Activity: 50% Activity: 50%
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 128
Thanks: 40
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rdrokit View Post
The Dunlops have to be one of the noisiest tires. I have 25,000km on mine and they seem to be getting quieter or maybe I am just getting use to the noise.
Those Dunlop Sport Max TT tyres actually have a quiet 68db EU rating. We have a somewhat limited supply of tyres for the 18" tyres in the UK and I haven't yet found a tyre with a quieter EU noise rating.However, the EU noise rating is a pass by external rating. I would like to know the best tyre for internal noise!
sc489 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Tags
highway , mpg , thread , w or poll

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the 2004 to 2016 Mazda 3 Forum and Mazdaspeed 3 Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome