Enlighten me: Mazda 3

Friends with the Civic sport tell me they regularly get >40MPG.  I have no idea what the city/highway mix is.

I believe a similar year Golf will get close to 40MPG too, but with less power.

I get 32-36 in my Mazda.  Cold weather really drags it down.

I owned a 2014 sport hatchback with 2.0 and 6 speed manual. Loved it for the 40mpg on 87 octane gas and Mazda zoom zoom.

Could never get comfortable in the driver's seat (I'm 6'5" and 210) and we had to part ways, sadly. 

CyberEric said:

Hmmm, I got different results with Edmunds putting the sedan at 32 and the hatch at 31 combined. But it wasn't the EPA website, so maybe that's it.

My understanding is that turbo cars do well in the EPA tests, but that it doesn't always translate to real world mileage.

Im pretty sure my dad told me he gets better than 29mpg combined in his 2.5. I'll ask him.

I believe volvoclearinghouse who has the 3 on here (I remembered his name) was here talking about low 40s with his MT 2.0.

It was curious to me that C&D reported 24mpg, same as EPA, for the turbo AWD 3, but others report 30s.

Driver plays a role, to be sure.  I'm not even sure engine type matters, as I can generally blow EPA numbers out of the water no matter what.

z31maniac said:

CyberEric said:

In reply to pushrod36 :

Yeah the Grand Touring gives you a big tach right in the middle, without that trim the tach is tiny and to the left. 

I'm curious about what competition gets better MPGs? EPA rates the Civic sport at basically the same in combined mileage.

I always wonder about EPA ratings. I think my '15 BRZ was rated 29/30 on the highway. But it lowered with big sticky tires would knock down like 34/35 at 85 mph when going to see my fiance at her old place. That was calucalted from the mileage on the dash on gas put in. 

Whats crazy about this is my former 2017 mazda6 is the same powerplant with the 2.5 NA with 3 pedals and I got almost 40mpg on the way back from Baltimore to Detroit when I did my fly and drive. its a not that much heavier than a 3 hatch but still pretty wild with a basic sedan and 6 speed manual to hit upper 30s all day long. If I drove slow I bet 40mpg is achievable in a 60mph steady state in kansas or something... 

Mazda likes to have smaller gas tanks it seems compared to their competition in that class too for whatever reasons.

For another anecdotal but ultimately useless datapoint, my Veloster R Spec would knock down 40-42 at 80mph, and was probably significantly quicker than a 2.5L 3.  They typically dyno ~190-195 at the wheels, so probably more powerful also.

In reply to TravisTheHuman :

its crazy how good cars are these days. Not THAT long ago we were amazed that a non european v8 could have over 280hp

In reply to fidelity101 :

And my S40 could knock down 42mpg with its turbo four.  When I had the intake manifold off for PCV trap service, I could see why (and I wished that I took photos to horrify oldskewltoy)  because the ports bad no short side radius at all.  In fact there was a negative rake at the valve seat.

This makes for a righteous amount of tumble as the airflow is directed across the valve to the back of the cylinder, and tumble is good for combustion efficiency at the expense of flow.  But there's a little turbo there to manually create flow, while also recouping otherwise wasted exhaust heat and energy.  Downside is that at base boost it only made a measured 120hp, which is pathetic for a 2l DOHC turbo four, but it was built to be efficient, not take on SR20DETs and 4G63s.

And this was with an automatic, and its lossy design relative to a manual.

Even my "high pressure boost" 5cyl has ports like that, which is probably why it needs so much boost to make about as much power as a 2l of the same specs.  But it's efficient when it's just plodding along.

Now look at how far engines have come by paying attention to combustion efficiency!  Direct injection has done wonders for focusing attention on in-cylinder airflow and combustion shaping, and we're benefiting a lot from that.

fidelity101 said:

In reply to TravisTheHuman :

its crazy how good cars are these days. Not THAT long ago we were amazed that a non european v8 could have over 280hp

Ive been renting a lot for the past month (see nightmare van mentioned earlier), and I am utterly horrified when I get a car that returns less than 30mpg (CX-5 today is ~29.xx), and pretty surprised if its less than 35mpg.  And that includes SUVs.  Off the top of my head (all of these driven on the same hwy commute)

Sentra: 44mpg
Camry: 38mpg
Rogue: 36mpg
Tuscon: 34mpg
Malibu: 33mpg
CX-5: 29mpg