Why Do Mazda 6 Petrols Have Such Poor MPG ?
Discussion
I bought a Mazda 6 2.3 Sport for my wife.
Unlike me she usually manages to at least achieve the "combined" mpg figure in her daily drive (20 miles each way avoiding most of the rush hour as she starts work at 8am)
In the Mazda she's getting 27mpg (combined is given as 31mpg) - no fault codes, recently serviced etc
I've been on the Mazda forums and it seems that everyone gets similarly poor figures.
My old BMW 328 which was a 6 cylinder and a substantially faster car had better economy so why would a much more modern 4 cylnder car give less ?
Unlike me she usually manages to at least achieve the "combined" mpg figure in her daily drive (20 miles each way avoiding most of the rush hour as she starts work at 8am)
In the Mazda she's getting 27mpg (combined is given as 31mpg) - no fault codes, recently serviced etc
I've been on the Mazda forums and it seems that everyone gets similarly poor figures.
My old BMW 328 which was a 6 cylinder and a substantially faster car had better economy so why would a much more modern 4 cylnder car give less ?
Fire99 said:
Mystic Slippers said:
My old MK1 mazda Eunos (MX5) only did mid 20`s MPG which is pretty poor for a 1.6 115bhp car.
Completely unrelated to the '6' The Mk1 MX5 is renowned for bad mpg. 1.6 Engine is old tech and for large parts of its running, it runs 'open loop'.
Old-tech ECU and engine design, plus roofless aero and barn-door popup lights. My 250rwhp turbo MX5 was more economical cruising than a standard one. That said, mid-20s is much thirstier than my standard one, which would usually do 35 on a run. Track days had it into the teens though.Edited by GravelBen on Sunday 18th March 09:56
GravelBen said:
Old-tech ECU and engine design. My 250rwhp turbo MX5 was more economical cruising than a standard one. That said, mid-20s is much thirstier than my standard one, which would usually do 35 on a run. Track days had it into the teens though.Fire99 said:
On a complete side drift (excuse the pun), what was the MX5 like on track days, once it was running the Turbo? Had a standard Mk1 some time ago and was tempted running a Turbo as a track car.
To drive it was absolutely brilliant, not as reliable as a standard one though - never had a major failure just required more tinkering to keep it working nicely and you couldn't run it hard for as long. A bit more detail in the build and ongoing development would have sorted that, but I ended up selling it as it didn't get used enough.Edited by GravelBen on Sunday 18th March 10:03
GravelBen said:
To drive it was absolutely brilliant, not as reliable as a standard one though - never had a major failure just required more tinkering to keep it working nicely and you couldn't run it hard for as long. A bit more detail in the build and ongoing development would have sorted that, but I ended up selling it as it didn't get used enough.
Blinding, Cheers. I'll keep it as a possibility then 
underphil said:
I would disagree, I've got a 2009 2.5 and on my 10 mile rush hour commute I average 29mpg which includes flooring it when the opportunity presents itself.
On longer journeys I'll get 40mpg if I keep to sensible speeds.
Isn't that a different engine with, I suspect, direct injection.On longer journeys I'll get 40mpg if I keep to sensible speeds.
redgriff500 said:
So if we agree they have poor mpg - the question is why ?
Do they have poor aero, poor injectors, run massively rich as std.... ?
It'll just be because it's more closely tweaked to the EU cycle for measuring the economy. As cars get more closely optimised to the test, it becomes harder to match the figures in normal driving. Do they have poor aero, poor injectors, run massively rich as std.... ?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff