Real world Mazda 2 experience?

Based on th grm review I got my brother to check out the new Mazda 2. So far he likes it, just wondered if anyone here has some real life experience with one?

Tom Heath, staff member of what is hopefully your favorite magazine should chime in soon enough. He has had one since sometime this spring. Brought it to the Mitty.

I subscribe to only 1 magazine, and that one for the next 8 years or so ;). Of course it will be 2 soon, when I add classic .

My real world mazda2 experience is that from looking at it and sitting in it, i prefer it to it's ford fiesta brother.

Are these selling less well than I thought?

I saw one on the road for the first time yesterday.. honestly, I Hate the styling. I would take the fiesta over it any day

I don't think the Mazda2 is selling too well. The big problem is the EPA official 27mpg city/33mpg highway mileage ratings (with a slushbox, manuals are rated 29mpg city/35mpg highway) are scaring off customers, since most other cars in this class are rated in the 38-40mpg highway range.

That's not to say you can't get better mileage in real world driving, but those numbers do make a difference when it comes to marketing. Mazda actually has a 1.3L Skyactiv that gets 58.8mpg on the Japanese cycle, but it's only sold in Japan. The 1.3L's hp/tq ratings are in the double digits, which most Americans will find unacceptable, so don't expect it here anytime soon.

Well as a Mazda technician I can say they are great cars and we don't see many problems out of them. Since we don't sell a whole lot. As a 300 lb black man I can say they cramp my style a little bit but I do love the way they handle. Like a Miata with some extra height. Another car I don't fit in well.

huggybear626 wrote: As a 300 lb black man I can say they cramp my style a little bit but I do love the way they handle. Like a Miata with some extra height. Another car I don't fit in well.

As Jay Leno says when he's in any of his little cars, "I look like a circus bear."

Fiat 124 Spyders were always a decision for me- slouch and look under the windshield header, or sit up straight and look overtop?

To the original- I've got a friend with one, he seems pretty happy with it. He came out of a V6 4th gen Camaro, but I don't know what that contributes to the conversation...

We replaced our Caravan with one in May and love it. I have been using it for my 30 mile daily commute and have been around 37mpg. It is definitely a fun little car that can fit two large car seats in the back.

Bought a 5-speed touring model for my wife's around-town driver at the end of September to take advantage of the 0% financing (of course they ended up extending that into October). As Keith mentioned, it's real-world mileage is stellar. We are also getting around 37 mpg in mixed driving. It's got just the right amount of back seat room for our needs transporting a couple of babies now through the age when they will be in school full-time and won't need grandparent day care. Cargo room is also good--6 grocery bags (old school paper) w/o folding down the rear seats.

The quick steering that is well weighted reminds me a lot of my previous Mazdaspeed Protege (a good thing) and the transmission is also very smooth--clutch especially. I'd consider the steering the single best feature and probably the 2300 lb. curb weight and its contribution to nimble handling as number two. Seats are well bolstered given the purpose of the car, although I can understand them being an issue for bigger folks. Power of course isn't a highlight, but the engine likes to rev and has enough go for city driving.

I'd recommend looking at a manual transmission 2012 Mazda3 with the Sky-Active engine since the mileage is now acceptable for the first time in that model. But, for the cheaper price of the 2, we'd still make the same decision since it meets our needs size-wise.

Mazda3 with the Sky-Active engine since the mileage is now acceptable for the first time in that model.

I find it funny that you just noted the difference between the real world and the EPA numbers and then went on to belittle the non-skyactiv 3 for it's EPA ratings?

I had a first-year mazda3 with the auto (fiancee bought it, and i didnt get the mpg benefit of the 5spd) and that thing got 30mpg in all city, 35-37 in normal highway driving, and 42 mpg in ideal highway driving. If you drove a lot of highway it would average around 33-35. Considering how much bigger and faster it was than the 2, i find this perfectly reasonable..

So i wouldnt say it's now acceptable for the first time. Id say it was acceptable from day 1, 7 years ago..

I LOVE my mazda2. I'm lucky enough to have driven just about everything in the segment, and the 2 is the "driver's car" of the bunch for me.

My worst tank delivered 32 mpg, but I'm typically at 34 or better.

There are good arguments for other cars on the class; the Fiesta is noticeably nicer in terms of interior appointments and makes a bit more power but weighs more. The Fit has a much more useful shape that moves objects better than most SUVs. I wouldn't blame anyone for picking something else because there are a lot of good ones.

It was the price tag that really sealed the deal. I was under 13k out the door with the 2, so it seems that they are pushing for sales.

http://m.grassrootsmotorsports.com/project-cars/2011-107-mazda2/

Vigo wrote:

Mazda3 with the Sky-Active engine since the mileage is now acceptable for the first time in that model.

So i wouldnt say it's now acceptable for the first time. Id say it was acceptable from day 1, 7 years ago..

I've read elsewhere that owners are disappointed in their real world mileage (perhaps with the 2.5?) in the Mazda3 so you are right that I don't have first-hand knowledge. If the extra size (and thus weight) along with power are more a priority to a buyer than mileage and less weight, then certainly the Mazda3 is a great choice (other than the too prominent smiley grille, I'll add that the styling of the Mazda3 hatch is also nicer than the 2). Now with the Sky-Active engine though, there may be almost no mileage penalty and thus you get the extra size/space for just the initial difference in purchase price (until the 2 also gets a Sky-Active option in the U.S.).

I will say that Mazda has been behind the curve for piston engine technology for many years (my Mazdaspeed Protege 2.0 was nothing to write home about and the limited boost of the turbo was evidence that Mazda knew that). Sky-Active finally is a real technological improvement and hopefully that signals that Mazda has caught up with engines and will lead the industry just like they already do in terms of the rest of the driving experience.

In regards to those who prefer the Fiesta to the Mazda2, I'd like to add that in addition to the steering and overall handling not being as sharp in the Fiesta (due to the added weight, softer suspension setup and slower steering ratio), the Fiesta manual transmission is not nearly as nice as the Mazda unit. But, for those forced to choose a slushbox, the Mazda version is old technology and the Fiesta has a much better DCT. So, those wanting a manual should first be looking at the Mazda2 and those wanting an automatic should first be looking at a Fiesta. Of course, the upcoming Fiesta ST will likely change this equation, but then again an ST won't be a $13K car like a 5-speed Mazda2 Sport (in the northwest I was getting quotes on the those for $14K with no effort).

Here's another GRM thread from a few weeks back with Mazda2 content along with the competition: What car and its gotta be new

13k for a Mazda 2? Dang...

Shame I don't make a few dollars more or I'd be all over that.

Vigo wrote:

Mazda3 with the Sky-Active engine since the mileage is now acceptable for the first time in that model.

I find it funny that you just noted the difference between the real world and the EPA numbers and then went on to belittle the non-skyactiv 3 for it's EPA ratings?

I've known several people with them that do not get favorable mileage. Averages in the mid-upper 20s seem common.

755 users on Fuelly seem to confirm this: http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/3

Maybe yours is an oddball?

Fuelly represents the 2011 models with the older 2.3L, not the SkyActive engine (1 User) that is getting 29 average.

PHeller wrote: Fuelly represents the 2011 models with the older 2.3L, not the SkyActive engine (1 User) that is getting 29 average.

2010-2011 models have either a 2.0L or 2.5L engine. Non-turbo 2.3L production ended in 2009. And yes, all three of those engines get sub-par mileage compared to the Mazda3's competitors. Mazda didn't even want to put the SkyActiv into the Mazda3 yet, but given how important the Mazda3 is to Mazda's bottom line and how everyone else is hitting that magical 40mpg rating, it didn't have a choice.

Maybe yours is an oddball?

Sort of... it was a sedan with a 2.0.

MOST 1g mazda3s seem to have been the hatchbacks, which admittedly looked cooler but added weight and only came with the 2.3, so the majority of 1g mazda3s that were actually sold.. were a little impaired compared to mine. At least as far as mpg.

The numbers on fuelly seem right-on for a population that is majority 2.3 and hatchback. You can filter for body style, and when you select sedan it does bump the numbers up slightly, but you cant filter by engine displacement, and since the 2.3 was still a common option in the sedan body style, you cant really use fuelly to get a good reading on the 2.0s.