dannymazda
Member
Why does the rating in Canada and i suppose the USA state that the mileage in canada is 27/35 city highway for a 2006 5 speed, but 29/40 for a 2008 5 speed even though they have the same gear ratios?
Mazda5 Fuel economy 2006-2008
- Thread starter dannymazda
- Start date
dannymazda
Member
Those are the canadian numbers, in the usa, for a 5 speed are once again with the exact same gear ratios:
2006 19/25
2008 22/28
any ideas what changed?
2006 19/25
2008 22/28
any ideas what changed?
Canada uses the Imperial gallon which is 20% more than the US.
Canada probably changed the formula they use to assess Est Milieage between 2006 & 2008... like the US.
Canada probably changed the formula they use to assess Est Milieage between 2006 & 2008... like the US.
dannymazda
Member
correct, the gallon is 3.8l compared to 4.5l for canada. So is that to say that the 2006 achieves the same fuel economy as the 2008, but has not been updated online, or did they change something on the motor interms of the computer or injection?
They changed the formula for calculating the EPA ratings in 2008.
The 2008 is actually heavier, but looks better under the new formula.
These are only estimates. Your mileage may vary.(drive)
The 2008 is actually heavier, but looks better under the new formula.
These are only estimates. Your mileage may vary.(drive)
dannymazda
Member
Yes but if you look at the fueleconomy.gov site, the 2008 does better than the 2006 and 2007 under the new ratings?
- :
- 2008 Mazda5 5MT Sport w/ Popular Package
That is my guess, possibly some ECU fine-tuning after 3+ years of experience and feedback...
was98strat
Member
hmmm. last time I checked the "gallon" in canada was considered to be 3.8l I've never seen a gallon of anything in canada measure out to 4.5l It's always 3.78l
The US EPA changed the method for determinig fuel economy for 2008, but their website also shows 2008 fuel economy ratings using the old methodology. The 2008 "old methodolgy" EPA rating is higher than the 2007 rating for a five-speed manual transmission Mazda5. I contacted Mazda several months ago asking what changes were made for 2008 -- I never received an answer.
To was98strat - an imperial (Canadian) gallon is roughly 4.5 litres. What you must have seen were items measured in US gallons.
To was98strat - an imperial (Canadian) gallon is roughly 4.5 litres. What you must have seen were items measured in US gallons.
From a Canadian site...
Volume
Canadian gallon to litres: Multiply number of Canadian imperial gallons by 4.5.
Litres to Canadian gallon: Multiply number of litres by 0.22 The Canadian gallon is based on the imperial quart, which is one quarter larger than the U.S. quart (four Canadian gallons = five U.S. gallons)
Note: Measurements are approximate for easy conversion.
Volume
Canadian gallon to litres: Multiply number of Canadian imperial gallons by 4.5.
Litres to Canadian gallon: Multiply number of litres by 0.22 The Canadian gallon is based on the imperial quart, which is one quarter larger than the U.S. quart (four Canadian gallons = five U.S. gallons)
Note: Measurements are approximate for easy conversion.
The 2007 and 2008 models are basically the same. They get the same EPA MPG. The standards changed, so the advertised MPG for each is listed differently.
paging_drburgos
Member
- :
- 2017 Mazda CX5 GT - Premium
i dunno but for the first time in two years i was able to average 27MPG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Damn i didnt realize just how bad my driving habits were. Im gonna try to reach for the 30's but i dont know if its possible on these damn LA/OC freeways
I've also seen bits of info that engine tuning was responsible for the change in EPA mileage. When you compare '06-'07 with '08 using the same EPA calculations, '08 is higher. I've never seen anything official stating this, though.
Given that we routinely meet or beat EPA estimates, I still think driving style and conditions are most influential no matter what.
Given that we routinely meet or beat EPA estimates, I still think driving style and conditions are most influential no matter what.
twentysixtwo
Member
07 and 08 are not the same
Given that '08 had a lot of freshening actions I would have expected a decent increase in FE from things like improved water pumps, lower viscosity oil, tire RR, better calibration, etc. etc. In particular the 5 speed AT is a big step in ratio from the 4 speed.
I looked at Fueleconomy.gov for the official numbers and there is a new test in 2008 which should have resulted in lower FE numbers. Here is an apples to apples comparison showing the "Adjusted" FE numbers alongside what the original stickers said.
'06 MT 19/25 adjusted (Sticker said 22/27)
'06 AT 19/24 adjusted (Sticker said 21/26)
'07 MT 19/25 adjusted (Sticker said 22/27)
'07 AT 19/24 adjusted (Sticker said 21/26)
So no change between '06 and '07, BUT
'08 MT 22/28
'08 AT 21/27
which shows a BIG jump in FE for both the MT and AT. Almost head scratchingly high on the MT since I'm not aware of any big powertrain change there.
I hope the EPA website is correct - I'm sure a government website would never post erroneous information </sarcasm>
Given that '08 had a lot of freshening actions I would have expected a decent increase in FE from things like improved water pumps, lower viscosity oil, tire RR, better calibration, etc. etc. In particular the 5 speed AT is a big step in ratio from the 4 speed.
I looked at Fueleconomy.gov for the official numbers and there is a new test in 2008 which should have resulted in lower FE numbers. Here is an apples to apples comparison showing the "Adjusted" FE numbers alongside what the original stickers said.
'06 MT 19/25 adjusted (Sticker said 22/27)
'06 AT 19/24 adjusted (Sticker said 21/26)
'07 MT 19/25 adjusted (Sticker said 22/27)
'07 AT 19/24 adjusted (Sticker said 21/26)
So no change between '06 and '07, BUT
'08 MT 22/28
'08 AT 21/27
which shows a BIG jump in FE for both the MT and AT. Almost head scratchingly high on the MT since I'm not aware of any big powertrain change there.
I hope the EPA website is correct - I'm sure a government website would never post erroneous information </sarcasm>
Apparently my point is getting lost...
The new standards will generally show worse numbers for the US built vehicles. Since the 5 already gets great gas mileage, and is designed to perform better based on the new 2008 standards, it "looks" like there is an improvement.
While most vehicles will show a decrease in EPA estimates, a very small number will show better MPG. The 5AT may contribute to a better MPG, but I don't think it will be enough to show up in an EPA rating.
If you look up a 2007 or earlier model Mazda5 on the fueleconomy.gov site, you will see a New EPA MPG estimate. As far as I can tell, this is not data from an actual test. This is based on extrapolation of what they believe it would be. There is no economic way the EPA would be able to go get these cars again. So... when they did test the '08, guess what? It actually does better.
If they did change the axle ratio on the '08, then you would see a more significant increase in MPG. This is typically done in cars with AT and a new tranny set-up.
I don't think Drag CoE has changed either.
These new 2008 numbers are mythical in my guestimation. In my opinion, the Mazda5 merely performs better under the new formula. Something I am sure makes Japanese auto industry happy, and the US AI sad.
So the website is correct. They are reporting numbers based upon new criteria. I just don't think the numbers they show for pre-2008 models are entirely accurate.
Hopefully, this gets my point across. (burp)
The new standards will generally show worse numbers for the US built vehicles. Since the 5 already gets great gas mileage, and is designed to perform better based on the new 2008 standards, it "looks" like there is an improvement.
While most vehicles will show a decrease in EPA estimates, a very small number will show better MPG. The 5AT may contribute to a better MPG, but I don't think it will be enough to show up in an EPA rating.
If you look up a 2007 or earlier model Mazda5 on the fueleconomy.gov site, you will see a New EPA MPG estimate. As far as I can tell, this is not data from an actual test. This is based on extrapolation of what they believe it would be. There is no economic way the EPA would be able to go get these cars again. So... when they did test the '08, guess what? It actually does better.
If they did change the axle ratio on the '08, then you would see a more significant increase in MPG. This is typically done in cars with AT and a new tranny set-up.
I don't think Drag CoE has changed either.
These new 2008 numbers are mythical in my guestimation. In my opinion, the Mazda5 merely performs better under the new formula. Something I am sure makes Japanese auto industry happy, and the US AI sad.
So the website is correct. They are reporting numbers based upon new criteria. I just don't think the numbers they show for pre-2008 models are entirely accurate.
Hopefully, this gets my point across. (burp)
- :
- 2008 Mazda5 5MT Sport w/ Popular Package
^^ Yeah, I read that somewhere a couple of months ago.
But now, interestingly enough, I swapped cars with wife about 1 month ago and the 06 is now my daily commuter car. When I fill the tank I have noted that in average I'm getting 10-15 miles less per tank than the 08. I initially thought it was wife's different drive style but now is the same driver and the same commute. If we make numbers, that is around 1mpg more, give or take (I fill-up around 12-13 gallons usually), so that is why my theory of the ECU tuning after 3 years of experience. Both are 5MT (scratch)
But now, interestingly enough, I swapped cars with wife about 1 month ago and the 06 is now my daily commuter car. When I fill the tank I have noted that in average I'm getting 10-15 miles less per tank than the 08. I initially thought it was wife's different drive style but now is the same driver and the same commute. If we make numbers, that is around 1mpg more, give or take (I fill-up around 12-13 gallons usually), so that is why my theory of the ECU tuning after 3 years of experience. Both are 5MT (scratch)
TNX for the real world MPG report.
Now I know why '08 MT models have better MPG even with new EPA method.
