2010 Mazda 3 Sport - Anyone have one?
Discussion
Hi,
I originally posted this in the general section, but hopefully this thread will attract the attention of other owners
Went looking for a new Mazda 3 for the misus today. Nice car and ticks all the boxes for her, loads of gadgets. We can't decide on which engine is best.
So 1.6 petrol is only 103bhp or so, felt pokey enough round town, no slower than the car she has now. Says it does 44mpg.
2.0 petrol has much more power and 6 speed. Says it does 41mpg.
2.2 TD (same engine in my mondeo) with 150bhp and 51mpg.
So, 2.0 petrol would be great, but I suspect the difference of 3mpg is due to the 6 speed which only makes a difference on the motorway and boosts the average fuel consumption figure up. So I suspect in daily use, commuting, in and out of town etc it's most likely to be 8mpg worse or so. Anyone know?
2.2 diesel is probably the quickest and best for fuel consumption, but more expensive to buy. On the plus side savings in fuel on longer journeys and it will be worth more in 36 months time.
I favour the diesel, she prefers the petrol. So I guess my question is, is the real life mpg between the 1.6 and 2.0 really only 3mpg, it's only about £1200 more.
G
I originally posted this in the general section, but hopefully this thread will attract the attention of other owners
Went looking for a new Mazda 3 for the misus today. Nice car and ticks all the boxes for her, loads of gadgets. We can't decide on which engine is best.
So 1.6 petrol is only 103bhp or so, felt pokey enough round town, no slower than the car she has now. Says it does 44mpg.
2.0 petrol has much more power and 6 speed. Says it does 41mpg.
2.2 TD (same engine in my mondeo) with 150bhp and 51mpg.
So, 2.0 petrol would be great, but I suspect the difference of 3mpg is due to the 6 speed which only makes a difference on the motorway and boosts the average fuel consumption figure up. So I suspect in daily use, commuting, in and out of town etc it's most likely to be 8mpg worse or so. Anyone know?
2.2 diesel is probably the quickest and best for fuel consumption, but more expensive to buy. On the plus side savings in fuel on longer journeys and it will be worth more in 36 months time.
I favour the diesel, she prefers the petrol. So I guess my question is, is the real life mpg between the 1.6 and 2.0 really only 3mpg, it's only about £1200 more.
G
scz4 said:
Hi,
I originally posted this in the general section, but hopefully this thread will attract the attention of other owners
Went looking for a new Mazda 3 for the misus today. Nice car and ticks all the boxes for her, loads of gadgets. We can't decide on which engine is best.
So 1.6 petrol is only 103bhp or so, felt pokey enough round town, no slower than the car she has now. Says it does 44mpg.
2.0 petrol has much more power and 6 speed. Says it does 41mpg.
2.2 TD (same engine in my mondeo) with 150bhp and 51mpg.
So, 2.0 petrol would be great, but I suspect the difference of 3mpg is due to the 6 speed which only makes a difference on the motorway and boosts the average fuel consumption figure up. So I suspect in daily use, commuting, in and out of town etc it's most likely to be 8mpg worse or so. Anyone know?
2.2 diesel is probably the quickest and best for fuel consumption, but more expensive to buy. On the plus side savings in fuel on longer journeys and it will be worth more in 36 months time.
I favour the diesel, she prefers the petrol. So I guess my question is, is the real life mpg between the 1.6 and 2.0 really only 3mpg, it's only about £1200 more.
G
Can only help with one aspect of this - my friend had (He just replaced it with an Octavia) a company 1.6 Mazda 3 - the quoted fuel economy is 'optimistic' to say the least... He was seeing 36mpg combined and constantly cursing it's lack of power, so would advise checking the reality of it's quoted consumption! HTH I originally posted this in the general section, but hopefully this thread will attract the attention of other owners
Went looking for a new Mazda 3 for the misus today. Nice car and ticks all the boxes for her, loads of gadgets. We can't decide on which engine is best.
So 1.6 petrol is only 103bhp or so, felt pokey enough round town, no slower than the car she has now. Says it does 44mpg.
2.0 petrol has much more power and 6 speed. Says it does 41mpg.
2.2 TD (same engine in my mondeo) with 150bhp and 51mpg.
So, 2.0 petrol would be great, but I suspect the difference of 3mpg is due to the 6 speed which only makes a difference on the motorway and boosts the average fuel consumption figure up. So I suspect in daily use, commuting, in and out of town etc it's most likely to be 8mpg worse or so. Anyone know?
2.2 diesel is probably the quickest and best for fuel consumption, but more expensive to buy. On the plus side savings in fuel on longer journeys and it will be worth more in 36 months time.
I favour the diesel, she prefers the petrol. So I guess my question is, is the real life mpg between the 1.6 and 2.0 really only 3mpg, it's only about £1200 more.
G
Go for the 2.2TD.. Its brilliant!
Such a lovely engine, 6 speed so when your doing the motorways your basically idling in top gear.
They also do a 185 Sport rather than 150, if you wanted more power but I've driven both and the 150 would do for everyday. I managed to get 45+MPG which is nice on the wallet, and they do look very good too!
Such a lovely engine, 6 speed so when your doing the motorways your basically idling in top gear.
They also do a 185 Sport rather than 150, if you wanted more power but I've driven both and the 150 would do for everyday. I managed to get 45+MPG which is nice on the wallet, and they do look very good too!
Thanks for the comments..
Not keen on the 1.6 anymore. Problem is you need to rev the nuts off to make it move, which probably explains why your friend gets poor fuel consumption.
She only does 8000 miles a year, so hard to justify a diesel but on the other hand it's only £800 more than the 2.0, so the additional expense would probably be covered by fuel savings and lower depreciation. But the 2.0 comes with Sat Nav and rear parking sensors as standard.
She much prefers driving a petrol though, still misses her 1.7 Puma to this day.
Not keen on the 1.6 anymore. Problem is you need to rev the nuts off to make it move, which probably explains why your friend gets poor fuel consumption.
She only does 8000 miles a year, so hard to justify a diesel but on the other hand it's only £800 more than the 2.0, so the additional expense would probably be covered by fuel savings and lower depreciation. But the 2.0 comes with Sat Nav and rear parking sensors as standard.
She much prefers driving a petrol though, still misses her 1.7 Puma to this day.
Pearlescent White. Not my choice, but she loves it. I liked the Aluminium (I think) silver, something like that.
Maybe in a few months we'll powder coat the wheels a graphite colour. There was a stunning pearlescent white RX8 with wheels like that, did look very nice.
Maybe in a few months we'll powder coat the wheels a graphite colour. There was a stunning pearlescent white RX8 with wheels like that, did look very nice.
Edited by scz4 on Monday 31st May 13:28
Jonny671 said:
The white is my favorite colour too, specially as the sport has the black details/grille too.
Agreed, tinted windows too give a nice contrast with the white. Have to admit, quite looking forward to driving it next Monday. 1.6 felt very solid and seemed to handle well, but it was slowwwwwwwwww!
Gassing Station | Mazda MX5/Roadster/Miata | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff