Disappointing fuel economy plus fuel tank size

LandyAndy

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

You do not need to start with an empty tank, but the lower it is, the more accurate the result. Note the mileage, brim it, drive, when nearly empty do the same again and use the fuel used to brim it a second time to work out for used for your driven mileage:eek:, I've just realised you might just be winding us all up.

Forget the Goddam guage, :T

Occured to me as well.

Still it might help someone else.:)

indigobarbie

Hi Thor, just wanted to say that I have a 6month old mazda 3 1.6 petrol and I am consistently getting around 34 mpg and this is a mix between town and motorway driving. I would be very interested to know what your actual mpg is once you follow the brim method to see what's really going on. This is the most accurate way to tell your mpg.

I am very disappointed with my new car considering the quoted mpg should be roughly 44ish. My husband gets 44ish easy in his 1.8 petrol mx5, and it's obviously a bigger engine, and is driven less conservatively than the 3. On the mazda owners forums it appears that there are many disgruntled owners, I too am one of them.
Maybe I've been wasted as my old 1.5dci clio would get 50mpg anywhere, and up to 65mpg on longer runs. Think it's time I traded up.....But as someone said on the mazda forum - do you want performance or economy, and tbh I don't see why I shouldn't have both. The mazda 3 sits at 3k revs at 70mph and feels as if it needs a 6th gear..

vikingaero

indigobarbie wrote: »

Hi Thor, just wanted to say that I have a 6month old mazda 3 1.6 petrol and I am consistently getting around 34 mpg and this is a mix between town and motorway driving. I would be very interested to know what your actual mpg is once you follow the brim method to see what's really going on. This is the most accurate way to tell your mpg.

I am very disappointed with my new car considering the quoted mpg should be roughly 44ish. My husband gets 44ish easy in his 1.8 petrol mx5, and it's obviously a bigger engine, and is driven less conservatively than the 3. On the mazda owners forums it appears that there are many disgruntled owners, I too am one of them.
Maybe I've been wasted as my old 1.5dci clio would get 50mpg anywhere, and up to 65mpg on longer runs. Think it's time I traded up.....But as someone said on the mazda forum - do you want performance or economy, and tbh I don't see why I shouldn't have both. The mazda 3 sits at 3k revs at 70mph and feels as if it needs a 6th gear..

A new diesel engine can take up to 20,000 miles to fully loosen up and provide optimum fuel economy. Whenever I buy a new car I take the manufacturers quoted mpg figures with a pinch of salt - with a petrol car I take off a minimum of 5mpg from the quoted combined figure and for a diesel I deduct 10mpg to arrive at a realistic real world figure.

Also you are not comparing like with like. The Clio is a small old generation car and your Mazda 3 is size or two up in class and loaded with safety features and crumple zones for pedestrians. Unfortunately safety = weight.

Inactive

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I've just realised you might just be winding us all up.

That or we are all banging our heads against a brick wall..

indigobarbie

viking, thanks, I know I might just be being a tad unrealistic about all of this, and the mazda3 is a lovely car so I think I just have to suck it up and get on with it!

maninthestreet

One other thing to check - tyre pressures!

LandyAndy

indigobarbie wrote: »

Hi Thor, just wanted to say that I have a 6month old mazda 3 1.6 petrol and I am consistently getting around 34 mpg and this is a mix between town and motorway driving. I would be very interested to know what your actual mpg is once you follow the brim method to see what's really going on. This is the most accurate way to tell your mpg.

I am very disappointed with my new car considering the quoted mpg should be roughly 44ish. My husband gets 44ish easy in his 1.8 petrol mx5, and it's obviously a bigger engine, and is driven less conservatively than the 3. On the mazda owners forums it appears that there are many disgruntled owners, I too am one of them.
Maybe I've been wasted as my old 1.5dci clio would get 50mpg anywhere, and up to 65mpg on longer runs. Think it's time I traded up.....But as someone said on the mazda forum - do you want performance or economy, and tbh I don't see why I shouldn't have both. The mazda 3 sits at 3k revs at 70mph and feels as if it needs a 6th gear..

I have a 9 month old Mazda2 1.3 petrol. It is mostly used for local trips (2 - 15 miles) and returns 45-47 mpg. Yesterday I took it on a long drive (400+ miles) at moderate speeds (55-65mph) and it did just over 56 mpg.

cyclonebri1

Inactive wrote: »

That or we are all banging our heads against a brick wall..

I think the brick wall has it actually, sophisticated wind up? nah

skiddlydiddly

forgotmyname wrote: »

Depends if the engine has enough power and torque to maintain 40mph at 2000rpm.

Yes it does, and as they are hypothetical numbers and I said "Well if you can drive at say 3k rpm in 4th gear doing 40 mph but can just as easily drive at 2k rpm in 6th gear doing 40mph without labouring the engine and using the same throttle, which do you think is going to use the most fuel?" I think I covered that.

thor

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

You do not need to start with an empty tank, but the lower it is, the more accurate the result. Note the mileage, brim it, drive, when nearly empty do the same again and use the fuel used to brim it a second time to work out for used for your driven mileage:eek:, I've just realised you might just be winding us all up.

Forget the Goddam guage, :T

It is not a wind up, honest.
I am being told to forget the gauge but then also to fill up when the meter is showing empty. Are you all saying the reading at zero is more accurate than at 1/4 full? Why would one be more accurate than the other whether standing on a slope or whatever?
I'm not even saying that one method would give a different value. I'm sure if I used the empty mark and filled to the brim I would have got the exact same 36 mpg. Circumstances dictated that due to this long journey I had a reason to fill up 3 times more than I usually do.