Actual Mazda3 MPG numbers (between 2.0 and 2.3)

Started out looking for an inexpensive Mazda3 hatch (2004 or so) to haul the bikes to track days. Found out it only comes with a 2.3, and the 2.0 sedans get somewhat better fuel economy. I hear that some are hitting 40+ mpg on the highway instead of the claimed 31 or 32, so I don't trust the mileage claims. Not concerned about city driving - I drive less than 10 miles a day.

It's going to be one of those negligible financial differences that won't be worth not picking the body style I prefer, isn't it...

How far away is the track? How many miles per year do you foresee driving?

I'd personally get the hatch. They get similar mileage, and if they are anything like the 2010+ cars, the 2.3 hatch cars get bigger brakes and a larger fuel tank. Also, they look better. That is a car design that has held up very well over the past 10 years.

My 2012 with the 2.5L gets pretty close to what my wife's 2010 2.0L gets mileage wise. I've seen as high as 32 out of it, but usually get around 27-28mpg. The wife's car gets anywhere from 27-32 as well.

Make sure that people aren't comparing new Skyactiv fuel figures with that of the older cars. 40+ MPG on the older cars seems unrealistic. With relaxed driving I could get 30 MPG highway with a 2005 5 speed hatch. My sister-in-law has a 2.0 automatic, and she sees about the same figures.

The auto transmissions changed from a 4 speed to a 5 speed in 2006 or so- at least with the 2.3 engine. Maybe that is making a bigger difference than I thought.

I tracked mileage on a '04 Mazda3 hatchback 5-speed for about 40k on fuelly.com before I sold it. My fuelly average was around 30mpg overall, but my commute was very mileage friendly at 55-65 mph with few stops. My best tanks were 35-37mpg anomalies on a trip to California. Worst tanks were in the 24-25mpg range.

My research led me to believe the 2.0 cars tend to get significantly better mileage than the 2.3 cars. It seems like mid to high 30's was not uncommon on the 2.0 cars (in ideal highway conditions).

FWIW - I loved that car. Sold it at 200k and regret that decision sometimes. I think I'd still rather have the hatch, more power, and bigger brakes than the 2.0 efficiency. Also - I think Canada got 2.0 hatches with the pre-Skyactiv motors, if that helps.

I thought the choice was 2.0 or 2.5, the 2.3 being the turbo motor?

In reply to z31maniac:

Engine choice and size depends on the year. The 2.5 were the second generation N/A cars with the Joker face.

ebonyandivory wrote: How far away is the track? How many miles per year do you foresee driving?

Tracks range from 2-4 hours away. I'd like to do one or two track days a month.

The girlfriend is also 1.5 hours away, so it'd be nice to lessen the blow if I decide to go up on a weeknight in addition to the weekends.

As of right now, I drive about 1000 miles a month. I feel like I would be more inclined to take road trips in a more comfortable car (not the Miata), especially if it was more fuel efficient.

I've got a 2007 hatch with 2.3 and 5 speed manual. I average about 26-27 mpg in a mix of city & highway driving (60-40, respectively). I've seen up to 36 on the highway during road trips with reasonable consistency.

I had a 2007 3i 2.0 5 speed manual sedan. Average over the 11000 miles I had it was 35.4 mpg. Best tank ever was 41.8 mpg, worst tank was 31.6 mpg. My 2004 vibe base automatic gets 29 mpg in the same commute of 50% city/50% highway.

Not particularly relevant, but I'll chime in anyway. My wife's 2010 Mazda 3 sport had the 2.5 and a 6-speed manual trans. Her commute is 90% highway. She averaged maybe 30 mpg. More like 29. That was significantly lower than we expected. I very much enjoyed the driving dynamics of the car, but the HUGE amount of road noise and the sub-par mileage made the car's stay in our garage a fairly short one. My wife was sick of it after about a year.

I understand Mazda's desire to keep the car "sporty" but honestly, I think 6th gear was too close to fifth. Nice if you wanted to get from 110 MPH to 120 MPH quickly, but honestly who needs that? They would have been better served by making 6th taller and having the engine rev lower at highway speeds. The 2.5 is plenty torque-ey and feels very relaxed in a car as small as the 3. Pulling hills in 6th at under 45 MPH was a piece of cake.

1988RedT2 wrote: Not particularly relevant, but I'll chime in anyway. My wife's 2010 Mazda 3 sport had the 2.5 and a 6-speed manual trans. Her commute is 90% highway. She averaged maybe 30 mpg. More like 29. That was significantly lower than we expected. I very much enjoyed the driving dynamics of the car, but the HUGE amount of road noise and the sub-par mileage made the car's stay in our garage a fairly short one. My wife was sick of it after about a year. I understand Mazda's desire to keep the car "sporty" but honestly, I think 6th gear was too close to fifth. Nice if you wanted to get from 110 MPH to 120 MPH quickly, but honestly who needs that? They would have been better served by making 6th taller and having the engine rev lower at highway speeds. The 2.5 is plenty torque-ey and feels very relaxed in a car as small as the 3. Pulling hills in 6th at under 45 MPH was a piece of cake.

What is it with Mazda and the super short 6th? I have a 10ae Miata... Now explain to me why the 6 speed gets worse gas mileage than the 5 speed? Why not give us the same 5 speeds, but add in a super tall highway gear like the Corvette has? And on that notion, why the hell does a V8 American muscle car get better gas mileage than a Japanese 4 cylinder that weighs 800 lbs less?

Also, they look better.

I felt the same way before i owned a sedan. Now i feel the sedan looks better.

Just to get this started off with the strongest point, if you drive 10 miles a day, IT REALLY DOES NOT MATTER.

Having said that, the 2.0 gets SIGNIFICANTLY better mileage than the 2.3. We had an 04 2.0/auto sedan that averaged 29-30 consistently (consistently as in i never saw less than that and the 24-25mpg being quoted here for the 2.3 was unthinkable).

It didn't take 'ideal' highway conditions to hit mid 30s highway. 35mpg was the lowest highway number we ever got. that's 75+ with the a/c on. With the a/c off, 37 was the minimum. With the a/c off, flat land, and 60-65 mph, 40-42mpg was possible.

The 2.0 gets WAY better gas mileage numbers than the 2.3. All the people saying the difference is not huge, are 2.3 owners who can't wrap their minds around it. It's a pretty damn big difference.