Official US EPA mileage on 2.5L sucks
- Thread starter Rustlers
- Start date
npaladin2000
Member
It's possible i-ELOOP doesn't make much of a measurable difference in the EPA test. WOuldn't surprise me if they're being cautious anyway, given how some hybrid systems' real world benefits haven't matched up to their EPA tests.
Looks like the 2.5L by itself is doing fine though. 28/39/32 in the sedan with or without i-ELOOP, which is exactly what Mazda estimated. The hatch is interesting, 28/38/32 without i-ELOOP is better than Mazda's 28/37 estimate, and I'm guessing the 28/39/32 is with the i-ELOOP system, which Mazda estimated at 29/39. In the grand scheme of things, 1 MPG is more a rounding error that few notice rather than a Gaspocalypse.
Full set of hatch numbers:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...r2=2014&make=Mazda&model=3 5-Door&srchtyp=ymm
Sedan numbers:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...r2=2014&make=Mazda&model=3 4-Door&srchtyp=ymm
Looks like the 2.5L by itself is doing fine though. 28/39/32 in the sedan with or without i-ELOOP, which is exactly what Mazda estimated. The hatch is interesting, 28/38/32 without i-ELOOP is better than Mazda's 28/37 estimate, and I'm guessing the 28/39/32 is with the i-ELOOP system, which Mazda estimated at 29/39. In the grand scheme of things, 1 MPG is more a rounding error that few notice rather than a Gaspocalypse.
Full set of hatch numbers:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...r2=2014&make=Mazda&model=3 5-Door&srchtyp=ymm
Sedan numbers:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...r2=2014&make=Mazda&model=3 4-Door&srchtyp=ymm
I think your subject title is a little harsh, no? saying the "2.5L economy sucks". With 184hp and 185ft-lbs what were you expecting? At 39mpg highway and 32 combined, it's better then many engines with 30 less horsepower and 30 less ft-lbs. Get real...
I think 27city/37hwy with 31 combined is pretty good for the hatch. I currently have a 2009 pontiac vibe gt which has the 2.4L toyota camry engine producing 158hp/162tq and is rated at 21city/29hwy or something like that. I drive mix city and highway and I'm only averaging 22-23mpg with best being around 26'ish mpg when I drove over 200 miles mostly highway from LA to Fresno. With more hp/tq while getting better mileage than what I'm getting in my car is pretty darn good and I'll be very happy if I average 30mpg 
npaladin2000
Member
I think 27city/37hwy with 31 combined is pretty good for the hatch. ...I'll be very happy if I average 30mpg
Well then you should be absolutely ecstatic since the 2.5L (automatic) hatch gets 28/38, and a combined rating of 32. In fact, you might even have a thrill run up your leg, haha.
When you compare the 3 to 6, especially w/iLoop, it is definitely disappointing.
The 6 gets a 2mpg city/hwy bump from iloop but the 3 sedan is zilch.
Given that the 2.5L is the exact same one in the 6 and the 3 sedan has better aerodynamics and 200 lbs reduction, natural to expect a mpg increase.
Mazda claimed it was certified at 40 highway with iEloop. I don't know if the EPA site is correct or not.
But, lets be serious, do you want to continue with "2.5L economy sucks" when in light of today's news about the 132hp/128tq Toyota Corolla is rated at 28/37 compared to the 184hp/185tq 28/38 of the Mazda3 2.5L???
Put things in perspecitve, no manufacturer comes close to what Mazda can do with power and efficiency. In all honesty, I think the EPA site might be wrong. Mazda is pretty firm on 40mpg with iEloop.
From what I've read about iEloop, I would expect a bit more real world benefit than what is reflected in the EPA test. It recovers energy during coasting, which I don't believe is a part of the EPA test cycle. How much benefit you get depends on the terrain where you drive and your driving style.
Speaking of driving style, don't overreact to a 5% difference on the EPA test cycle. Your mileage may vary and all that.
Speaking of driving style, don't overreact to a 5% difference on the EPA test cycle. Your mileage may vary and all that.
Honestly, having owned a 2003 P5 that averaged about 23 mpg, and had WAY less power, I think 28/39 in a car with more than 180 hp is terrific. From what I've read, hatchbacks are naturally slightly less aerodynamically efficient than sedans. I think people saying these mileage figures "suck" are only saying that in relation to the new 6 with i-Eloop, which is rated at 40 highway.
I am specifically comparing the 3s sedan (no interest in hatch) vs 6 sedan
Both have identical 2.5 motors.
Obviously when you just compare the 3s vs. other older cars the mileage is quite good.
But logical to compare its sibling, the 6, against whom it has 200lb and cd advantages, yet incomprehensibly gets lower mileage when both equipped with iloop.
Weird, no?
Also, Mazda should have included iStop in US, even if there is no bump from EPA testing.
Goes to show without regulations car oems will not add particular kinds of tech.
Both have identical 2.5 motors.
Obviously when you just compare the 3s vs. other older cars the mileage is quite good.
But logical to compare its sibling, the 6, against whom it has 200lb and cd advantages, yet incomprehensibly gets lower mileage when both equipped with iloop.
Weird, no?
Also, Mazda should have included iStop in US, even if there is no bump from EPA testing.
Goes to show without regulations car oems will not add particular kinds of tech.
npaladin2000
Member
No, not weird. In fact the 6 has aerodynamic advantages over the 3, which is why it gets better highway MPG. Even though they both have the same drag coefficient, the Mazda6 has more surface area and length to take advantage of aerodynamics. Aero = highway MPGs. Weight = city MPGs.
npaladin2000
Member
Drag coefficient is only a function of total drag, you have to pultiply it by the total frontal area to get the total drag area of a vehicle.
