2012 5 fuel economy reports

[dieseldriver]

I'm sure it is but here's my take on this particular car; the Mazda5. I am somewhat disappointed as the U.S. consumers have been somewhat shortchanged as Mazda did not bring here the same fuel efficient powertrain platform as the European and Asian markets (I guess my point of who makes the engine is sort of a moot point now then); especially the 2L engine with iStop. Also, why didn't they think of putting in the powered sliding the doors; this is no biggie to be honest. This is a big mistake on Mazda's part as we all know, U.S. consumers would have love to have seen this option at least offered and my opinion is that this would have been a big selling point for Mazda. And another thing, although very simple, why didn't they put in a cup holders on the sliding doors? Simple things like these would have carved away a nice niche for Mazda when all people know is the overbloated Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna here in the U.S. When I took apart the sliding door panels, it's just a single motor unit with cables that will run through the existing cable loom.

I am not defending Ford by any means, in the past their cars especially had poor reliability, my whole point to that was that the MZR's inline 4's aren't Ford designs at all, and neither did Ford really have a joint venture in the making of it. They basically let Mazda's engineers design the engines and then since about 2002-2003 has used them in their cars. Ford had little to no effort in the engineering of these motors. The reliability of the MZR's motors over the last decade are really good.

 

[cburrell]

I agree that Mazda short changed the american market with the 5, but it isn't the top priority on Mazda's agenda because of the low volume of sales compared to their other vehicles. It is the law of supply and demand, right now the demand isn't that high for the 5, so Mazda's has chosen to not put as much time or money in the 5. It sucks for the consumers that buy the 5, but I can't fault them, because if is just the way business works. Just not enough people in the states buying them to warrant Mazda spending more money and options on the 5.

 

[dieseldriver]

If I was Mazda right now, I'd be thinking Lee Iacocca, the brainchild of the original Dodge Caravan (created a whole new segment called 'minivan'). Chrysler created the market and subsequently the demand where other auto makers did not foresee and had to play catch up while Chrysler saw landfall profits. Mazda right now has the momentum, and they can do well with the Mazda5. Provide better fuel economy; somewhere in the mid to upper 30's; then give what the U.S. consumers want, powered middle sliding doors with navigation and backup display. Now these techs are now dime a dozen as technology became mainstream. Offer better warranty and there you have a knock out sales that will be off the charts. Not everyone needs Honda Odyssey or Toyota Sienna. Just to think that my family of 5 (two 11 year boys an one 9 year old girl) would not fit two years ago (while driving a Honday Odyssey Touring) is just a vague memory now with the Mazda5. We're quite content with the 5 for family of 5; and would have been even better with powered sliding doors that Mazda marketing thought "we" did not need it.

I agree that Mazda short changed the american market with the 5, but it isn't the top priority on Mazda's agenda because of the low volume of sales compared to their other vehicles. It is the law of supply and demand, right now the demand isn't that high for the 5, so Mazda's has chosen to not put as much time or money in the 5. It sucks for the consumers that buy the 5, but I can't fault them, because if is just the way business works. Just not enough people in the states buying them to warrant Mazda spending more money and options on the 5.

 

[cburrell]

It gets better for the 5, from what I've read, Mazda doesn't plan on doing a redesign on the 5 until 2015 and hasn't indicated to what extent skyactiv will play in the redesign.

 

[metalfab]

If you use Premium (93 octane), you will get better mileage. There's a MazdaForum.com member Shippo that vehemently oppose to this concept, however, I've owned more than 20 different cars since I've been driving since 1985 and never had engine issue(s) as a result. I would say you will get instant 1 to 2 mpg improvement over regular unleaded.

Despite what I said earlier, I'm going to try this for curiosity sake. Most of the gas here, at least the 87 octane, has Ethanol. There are only 2 places to get gas without it; Chevron 94 and Shell 91 ...going to try the 91 during the next 2 fill ups and compare the fuel economy vs the $0.12 per litre difference.

 

[ZoomZoom604Van]

Despite what I said earlier, I'm going to try this for curiosity sake. Most of the gas here, at least the 87 octane, has Ethanol. There are only 2 places to get gas without it; Chevron 94 and Shell 91 ...going to try the 91 during the next 2 fill ups and compare the fuel economy vs the $0.12 per litre difference.

Please do let us know sir.

 

[metalfab]

Please do let us know sir.

Have to wait a bit; still 1/3 of 87 left in the tank and I'll probably do 3 tanks of 94 to be fair. (drive)

 

[DKaz]

You're going to see 2% at most for being ethanol free, not worth it. Your engine is not going to benefit from running higher octane.

According to pure-gas.org, 76 sells ethanol free gasoline in all grades. The closest automotive 76 station is in Ferndale, the Blaine location is a marine station.

Keep in mind that gas stations have winter blend gasoline right now.

 

[metalfab]

You're going to see 2% at most for being ethanol free, not worth it. Your engine is not going to benefit from running higher octane.

According to pure-gas.org, 76 sells ethanol free gasoline in all grades. The closest automotive 76 station is in Ferndale, the Blaine location is a marine station.

Keep in mind that gas stations have winter blend gasoline right now.

I'm not expecting miracles, just going to see the "my-world" experience and test it out. 50L will cost about $6 more for Chevron 94.

 

[metalfab]

Alright, did a lot of driving yesterday and today, the 1/3rd tank didn't last long. This last tank got me 492KM on 51L, about 10.3L/100KM or 27MPG.

7 tanks on 87 octane since we bought the 5. Just put in 51L of Chevron 94 in today and we'll see how it goes.

 

[Orangutan]

Put 7 tanks of 94 octane through it under similar driving conditions and then see how they compare.

 

[metalfab]

Put 7 tanks of 94 octane through it under similar driving conditions and then see how they compare.

My driving is the same Mon to Fri and on weekends there is very little difference as well. I'll give it 3 tanks of 94, by that point I'll know or not whether to continue.

 

[eyeballs]

I go two consecutive tanks with 33 and 34mpg on a recent trip from NGA to SFL. 87 octane.

 

[metalfab]

Just a quick update. 1 bar past the halfway mark and I've done 362KM on my first tank of Chevron 94. Been sick for a while so not much driving since Dec. 1st when I filled up.

 

[DKaz]

Let us know how many litres when you fill up. What's your driving style and conditions? That's decent so far.

eyeballs, very nice.

 

[metalfab]

DKaz, the driving conditions, you'll understand this as you are live near me. Burnaby to PoCo Mon through Thurs. I take the #1 at about 3pm going there and the Lougheed at 2am coming back (that time of day #1 has random closures to on and off ramps so I don't bother at this time . Fridays I drive to Surrey and back to pick up my better half. Sat and Sun take the kids to their sports events, groceries and misc short drives.

 

[ukulele]

FYI, the main difference in octane ratings (i.e., R+M/2) is the antiknock index, in other words, what additives are in there that will prevent engine knock. The premium fuels have enough of the additives to make the fuel more stable and to prevent it from igniting the mixture at the wrong time (detonation), usually too soon OR in multiple places within the chamber itself. If the engine is designed for regular fuel and the engineers say to use regular, I would use regular. I owned a new 2005 Chrysler T&C, in the manual it actually states something to this effect: "Use of premium fuels may damage the engine or engine components and is not recommended." Strangely, I have read the opposite from Toyota manuals. Comparing fuel economy from one tank of fuel to the next in real world driving is really not fair if you are testing out different octanes, your 1 to 2mpg increase could be attributed to so many variables, maybe you didn't drive into any headwinds during the time you were using premium fuel and that could have bumped up your mpgs. It really isn't scientific enough to say that premium fuel will get you better fuel economy because the whole octane rating system has nothing to do with fuel economy, has to do with stabilizing the fuel and getting it into the chamber at the right time without igniting the mixture at the wrong time.

This is where you get engine knock, and eventually you will bend valves & stems if not addressed right away. There is "normal" engine knock that occurs with certain types of engines and the manuals will tell you this, certain engines are designed in a way that, if driving up a hill, you may get light knocking or pinging and that might be normal for that engine. It's weird, but it's internal combustion science.

SIDE NOTE: Our winter beater is an Acura TL with about 160k on the odo. I just had our mechanic do the timing belt, he also did the brakes all around and some other stuff. Considering this engine has overheated so many times in the past (it belonged to my idiot 22 year old brother in college) the car runs pretty good. Acuras are supposed to get premium fuel only, I haven't read the manual for this engine (it's the Honda 3.2L) but since my brother used to own/drive it he only could afford regular gas. Now that I drive it, it runs fine on regular, it doesn't ping or knock, and I have filled it with premium and haven noticed no difference in performance or MPGs. Could be that this 3.2L is designed for regular?? I'm not a Honda fanatic. Also, ignitions systems are self-adjusting anyway, the computer compensates for bad/incorrect fuel.

 

[metalfab]

While all good points I like simple numbers ;-)

I'm driving the same routes and times during the week and pretty consistent schedules on the weekends. My avgs since I got the 5 have been about 450-480KM using 47L to 51L of 87. This is from the first 7 tanks + the full tank off the lot. If my test of 94 suddenly increases my mileage (going to try 3-4 tanks of 94) to offset the extra cost, I'll stick with it. If not, I'll drop back down to 87.

 

[metalfab]

OK, first tank of 94 (51L) got me 491KM. That's right on my average of about 27MPG or 10.3L/100KM since I got the 5 in Oct. Almost 4000KM now.

Filled up with 94 again today for $1.38 a Litre. I like to try things out for myself so if the next 2 tanks are about the same, which they probably will be, then I'll drop back down to 87.

 

[ukulele]

Yeah, I left out (because the post was so long) if your getting CONSISTENT numbers, fill after fill, and again, we are human and there are many variables we don't even feel when driving, it IS possible a higher octane is getting you a slight MPG boost. If so, then based on what I know, that would indicate that your engine firing is more "on target" with the higher octane and your losing less fuel, so your fuel is ignited more efficiently. I am assuming your filling at the same station with the same brand. Kudos. I just filled my 5 with PREMIUM at Sam's Club at $3.39/gallon which works out to be..... dunno how much per liter. They had regular at $3.19/gallon, but I never used premium fuel and I always fill at Sam's Club so we will see how it feels on the accel and how much I can wring out of a tank. I don't get much fuel economy, so far I'm averaging about 19 MPG. I knew this was going to happen before I bought it so i'm not surprised.