Mazda3 2.0vs2.5 Mileage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smoky14

Smoky14

Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
1,603
Location
Nowhere NM
Been shopping for new wheels and would like to know what the real world gas mileage is for the 2.0 vs the 2.5L engines.
I believe the EPA shows a 4MPG difference which if true could make a difference in which way I go.

Thanks for any help.
Smoky
 
For what it's worth, I think the EPA rating is going to be the most consistent rating. You might get 15 different replies, and everyone will get different MPG numbers, depending on how they drive, where they drive, when they drive, etc.

I've found that regardless of the actual VEHICLE I drive, HOW I drive pretty much defines my MPG...and that's right near 90% of the EPA highway mileage. Again, this is pretty consistent among my three vehicles.

Figure out what you typically get with your current car, and compare that with its EPA ratings, and see how your mileage compares. If it's pretty close to the city or highway rating, you can probably reasonably reckon that that's what you'd get with a different vehicle.
 
I would tend to agree that fuelly is going to give you the best amount of data. They have lacked features that allow you to sort based on engine size in the same platform. Just now, I noticed they allow you to sort based on engine type/style. Unfortunately many Mazda3 owners don't know what type of engine they have. Several have H4s and at least one thinks his has a W16!

Clark
 
The EPA combined rating is the number you want to look at. The city and highway numbers represent the extreme ends of the scale and the combined number is going to be closest to what most people average. Edmunds' Insideline has a long-term test fleet and from their chart, it is evident that the EPA combined number is closest to the lifetime MPG of most of their fleet:

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/2010/08/big-list-of-fuel-economy-july-2010.html#more

With that said, the 2.0's combined number is 27 and the 2.5's number is 25.

CR did testing, and their data came close as well.

CR Overall MPG: 28 for 2.0, 25 for 2.5
CR City/Highway MPG: 18/40 for 2.0, 17/34 for 2.5. These numbers represent the best and worst case scenarios.
CR 150-mile trip mpg: 35 for 2.0, 31 for 2.5.

The 2.5 also does a 0-60 in 8.3 seconds vs 9.4 seconds for the 2.0.

The 2.5 is definitely worth the extra money for the improved handling alone. Personally, I feel that cars with an ~8 second 0-60 time are the "sweet spot" when it comes to having a car that is powerful enough under all conditions for a daily driver. My friend has a 2010 3i Touring and the power is adequate, but the 2.5 would be a good upgrade. The 3s sport with the 2.5 engine comes with more features than the 3i and is actually cheaper than a loaded 3i Touring.
 
Originally Posted By: The Critic
The 2.5 also does a 0-60 in 8.3 seconds vs 9.4 seconds for the 2.0.


The 0-60 time for the 2.5 seems off. My Camry with the 2.5/6AT will do 0-60 in 8.4 seconds (essentially the same). I figured a "smaller" 3 would easily out-run my Camry, with a similarly-sized engine. Is the 3 not that light? The 3 also loses on fuel economy (25 combined vs. 26 combined). Is the number of speeds in the transmission the big factor here?

I do agree with you that ~8 seconds is the "sweet spot" in terms of balancing power and economy.
 
Gentlemen thank you so much for your imput. Critic your answer was especially thorough and much appreciated. Now I have the big job of steering the wife into what I think she needs vs what she wants....yes I know, Good Luck there.
Thanks Smoky
 
Mazda 3S hatch manual 0-60 in 7.3 --> 7.6 secs. Critic's #'s sound about right for automatics. Believe me, I wish my Focus had a 2.5 every time I need to pass someone with the A/C on. My 2.0 is somewhat weaker than Mazda's version though
frown.gif
.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: The Critic
The 2.5 also does a 0-60 in 8.3 seconds vs 9.4 seconds for the 2.0.


The 0-60 time for the 2.5 seems off. My Camry with the 2.5/6AT will do 0-60 in 8.4 seconds (essentially the same). I figured a "smaller" 3 would easily out-run my Camry, with a similarly-sized engine. Is the 3 not that light? The 3 also loses on fuel economy (25 combined vs. 26 combined). Is the number of speeds in the transmission the big factor here?

I do agree with you that ~8 seconds is the "sweet spot" in terms of balancing power and economy.


0-60 times are going to depend on the driver, equipment used to measure, climate, altitude, correction, any rollout, etc.

The best way to compare 0-60 times is to compare the times obtained by the same source.

Consumer Reports obtained a 9.4 second 0-60 time for a 2010 Camry LE with the six-speed automatic.
 
I think the curb weight is the factor...even the MT 3 weighs in at over 3,000 pounds. The Camry's not far off, at about 3,300 pounds as I recall. I guess I was thinking the 3 would be more in the 2,700-2,800 pound range.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
I think the curb weight is the factor...even the MT 3 weighs in at over 3,000 pounds. The Camry's not far off, at about 3,300 pounds as I recall. I guess I was thinking the 3 would be more in the 2,700-2,800 pound range.


I didn't know it had fattened up so much! The curb weight of my '04 GT Hatchback is 2820 lb.
 
Wow, I also thought the Corolla was a bit heavier. No wonder why they get better gas mileage than a Civic Sedan.
 
Yeah, the 9th gen Corollas were light. C&D ran an '04 LE 5-speed to 60 in 7.9 seconds. That's rather spritely in my opinion for a small 1.8L sedan. They also tested an '07 LE 5-speed and got 60 in 8.2 seconds. Pretty repeatable.

I had an '07 LE manual, and swapped the steel wheels (21 pounds each) with alloys (14 pounds each), for a weight savings of 28 pounds. I figured my car was right at 2500 pounds (mine didn't have the JBL system with amplified speakers, the moonroof, etc).
 
Originally Posted By: Smoky14
Been shopping for new wheels and would like to know what the real world gas mileage is for the 2.0 vs the 2.5L engines.
I believe the EPA shows a 4MPG difference which if true could make a difference in which way I go.

Thanks for any help.
Smoky


If fuel economy is an issue, buy a Civic or Corrloa. If the Mazda 3 is a must, get the 2.0L and a stick shift. You'll get the best of both worlds, quick with good MPG.

My daughter has an 06 Mazda 3 2.0L auto and gets great MPG and it's quick. We drove a NEW 2010 from AZ to CA with the same set up(2.0L auto) and got about the sams MPG as the 06. Not quite as good as the 06 but close, as the new generation Mazda 3 is heavier with the same power/torque rating in the 2.0L

I think the new gen 2.0L w/auto is a 5spd auto where the last gen 2.0L used a 4spd auto. And only the previous gen 2.3L got the 5spd auto. The new 2.5 Im sure will be OK but if MPG is important the 2.0 is the way to go. It also depends on how much power do you want? The 2.0 is plenty, the 2.5 is more!
 
I realize this isn't directly applicable but for what it's worth, my wife's 2.3l Mazda3 consistently gets about 15% worse gas mileage than my 1.8l Civic. That's about 30 mpg for the Mazda compared to about 35 for the Honda. Similar commute, it's pretty hilly around here and neither car is driven super lightly. Both have 5 speed manual transmissions.

IMO not too bad for a heavier car with a little more punch (difference is 10 hp and 20 ft*lbs torque). I'd imagine the 2.0 Mazda3 would fit somewhere in between the two.
 
Originally Posted By: Smoky14
Been shopping for new wheels and would like to know what the real world gas mileage is for the 2.0 vs the 2.5L engines.
I believe the EPA shows a 4MPG difference which if true could make a difference in which way I go.

Thanks for any help.
Smoky
Unless you want the extra performance or have the car heavily loaded all the time, better mpgs can't hurt in the long run.
 
Mazda 3 has bloated up past 3,000 pounds?

No wonder it needs a 2.5L engine to retain some zoom zoom.

I guess it's a good thing there is now a Mazda 2 to pick up the position. Though the 2 looks more like a Yaris to me... but those V-rated tires must add some zoom to the 100hp engine.
grin2.gif


Mazda 2 1.5L with output of 100hp and 98lb-ft torque -- that reads exactly like the 1.5L D15 engine of the fourth generation Honda Civic 1992-1995 which got 40mpg. Why doesn't a modern engine with VVT and all the technological improvements of nearly two decades do better?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
2024-2026 VW Atlas 2.0
2
Replies
20
Views
370
heavy260
G
New Mazda3.....first impressions
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
Patman
The Critic
Bought a 2025 TX 500h F Sport Performance Luxury
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
meep
pezzy84
Rental car review - 2025 VW Jetta 1.5T.
Replies
14
Views
1K
gregk24
svtrit
2023 F150 PowerBoost
Replies
7
Views
508
ctechbob
Back
Top Bottom