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 reluctantly had to part ways. 

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

I'm this || close to just grabbing a 2.0 Sedan.  I have a deposit on a 2.0 hatch from Carvana.  Its in the "reconditioning and detailing phase".  I dont love the sound of that, but given that its a single owner with no accident history and low miles, I'm hoping its just in line to get detailed.  However... the average wait time for this phase is 18 days!  Wtf.  They must do a lot of volume.

There are a few others listed, but either have accident history or they are from up north.  Mazda + salt = no bueno.

There is a 2.0 sedan locally at Carmax that's single owner, spent its whole life in NC, and (relatively) inexpensive that is starting to catch my eye.

 

Other hatches I've looked at are Civic Sport and Mk7 GTI.  The Civic sport seems to be made of gold.  The Mk7 scares me*.  I know its "the best GTI", but every generation was "the best GTI" at some point.  That statement has strong "Subaru fixed the EJ headgaskets after year xxxx" vibes.

*It wouldn't scare me if I had a garage or backup car.  I really like them and I'd love to own one.
 

For some reason it almost seems like Mazda sold more sedans than hatches. My dad's 2015 is the sedan. I like the sedan for two reasons: rear visibility is better, and the huge trunk. The downsides are, as you know, less ability to fit odd shaped items in the sedan vs the hatch. The hatch also gets exposed exhaust tips, that look a little bit cooler than the sedans hidden tips. Just a niggle. 

It's also possible the sedan is a stiffer chassis. That thought is based on the first gen 3 though. I remember hearing the first gen sedan was stiffer/more rigid than the first gen hatch, so it's possible that has carried over, but that's not based on any real data. 

Of note, the sedan is longer by a almost 5 inches, which may be a factor to consider if you live in a city and parallel park a bunch. 

I think the sedan looks much better lowered slightly, I think it's sits a little to high on the OE springs. I've seen people lower them and then I almost prefer the looks of the sedan over the hatch. At OE height, I prefer the hatch looks.

I don't recall exact numbers, but the hatchback fits in my garage and the other one wouldn't.

One nice thing about having a trunk vs. hatch is there is less road noise echoing forward to your ears, and the presence of a parcel shelf can allow much better sound staging from the stereo if you care for such things.  Maybe that's two things.

The hatch has a floating package shelf like most modern hatches - I suspect the noise difference is not that big anymore.  

Sound... well I'm an old man and I only listen to audiobooks and podcasts

The length difference is not huge.  Prior to 2024 I used to parallel park all the time and it would have been a larger factor.

Another wildcard popped up on Carvana though, one of these:

I had a 2019 Veloster R spec, and I always thought if it had 4 doors it would be a fantastic car.  This is about as close as one can get. 

Is that an Elantra GT Sport? 

I'd like to drive one. More power and a little more tire than a 2.5 Mazda 3. I think someone was in the trophies with one in HS at solo nationals last year, so I imagine they have some sporting potential.

My concern about them is the intake valves needing cleaning with those Hyundai/Kia DI engines. And longevity is probably not there compared to the 3, but who knows really. I like the older Elantra I drove, and the Forte EX too.

CyberEric said:

Is that an Elantra GT Sport? 

I'd like to drive one. More power and a little more tire than a 2.5 Mazda 3. I think someone was in the trophies with one in HS at solo nationals last year, so I imagine they have some sporting potential.

That would surprise me.  The stability control on them cannot fully be defeated.  Several people have given up on them (and anything non-N Kia/Hyundai) for autox for that reason.

Oh really, didn't know that about the stability control. Yeah I remember JG or someone posting about it in the nationals thread. Maybe it was a different Hyundai, I get the names messed up.

Hmm.  Mazda 5 manual popped up down the street from me.  Could be the middle ground between the nightmare van and the Mazda 3.  Genetically and structurally it is also.

Oh damn! I love Mazda 5s. And a manual too. Sweet. I'd be all over that. 

Drove it, it drives great.  It definitely some older car issues (2012).  Like scratches here or there, a small dent in the rear hatch.  Seems like the washer pump isn't working. 
 

Clutch is stiff but works fine.  From what I can recall the 2.5L gen 2 Mazda 3 also has an oddly stiff clutch.
 

Im picking it up Monday morning unless my research this weekend comes up with some sort of red flag.

Nice! I didn't even know you could get the second gen 5 with a manual, wow. 

Hope it works out. How many miles?

You said Monday morning.

In reply to DarkMonohue :

Sorry.

I'll be updating my van thread tonight when I get a chance.

Update this thread Vanna White DD/Campervan| Builds and Project Cars forum |

nice find!