With its logical interior, standout looks and best-in-class driving dynamics, the Mazda 3 has been a longtime favorite of the Inside Line staff. We've recommended it to family and friends and even put our own money down on a few.
In a review of the 2010 Mazda 3 s Five-Door Grand Touring we let you in on a little slice of our personal lives. "Three chest-thumping, horsepower-hungry car guys who test-drive new cars for a living here at Inside Line all choose the economical Mazda 3 Five-Door hatch to park in their own driveways."
Unfortunately, not all is perfect in the land of the 3. Both the 2.5- and 2.0-liter engines made good power, but they were crude and returned substandard real-world fuel economy. The car's five-speed automatic wasn't helping anything either.
Mazda's solution to this problem is a new family of engines and transmissions it's calling Skyactiv. In our first drive of the 2012 Mazda 3 Skyactiv-G Grand Touring we wrote, "The fuel mileage is for real with the new drivetrains, and unlike most other approaches to maximizing mpg, they don't put a damper on the fun. Instead, it's quite the opposite. The Mazda 3 has never been better."
The fuel economy is real? The Mazda 3 has never been better? We knew right then we had to add one to our long-term fleet, and now we have in the form of a 2012 Mazda 3 i Five-Door Grand Touring.
What We Got
There are two engine options available for the 2012 Mazda 3 and for perhaps the first time, we didn't get the big one. A 2.5-liter, 167-horsepower inline-4 is available in the S trim and it is, admittedly, the one we want. It is not, however, the volume seller, nor is it the one that is set to take on the 40-mpg club head-on.
No, that motor is the 2.0-liter 155-hp inline-4 that currently sits in our Mazda 3 i. With the new six-speed automatic transmission (finally), this engine earned an EPA-estimated 39 highway and 28 city mpg. For comparison, that's 4 mpg better city fuel economy than the 2012 Mazda 2 with a manual transmission. This powertrain returns 40 mpg in the 2012 Mazda 3 sedan, but sedans are boring and less functional. We'll gladly give up 1 mpg for more cargo space and better looks.
Our 2012 Mazda 3 Grand Touring comes pretty loaded from the factory with a tilt-and-telescoping wheel, leather steering wheel, leather seats and door panel inserts, eight-way power driver seat, heated front seats, 16-inch wheels, 60/40-split folding seats, a 265-watt Bose stereo with 10 speakers, Bluetooth audio and phone and a full-color compact navigation system. Total price for all that plus the 2.0-liter Skyactiv-G engine and Skyactiv-Drive six-speed automatic came to $23,595.
Beyond that we opted for an interior lighting kit for $200, an auto-dim rearview mirror for $275 and the Technology package for $1,400. That last one lumps together blind-spot monitoring, Sirius Satellite Radio, adaptive automatic bi-xenon lights and rain-sensing front wipers. It's hardly a necessary option, but we figured we wanted to see how good a Mazda 3 can get.
All together, this 2012 Mazda 3 i Five-Door Grand Touring in Indigo Lights Metallic with Dune interior stickers for $25,520. Mazda provided us with the vehicle for this test.
Why We Got It
When recommending the Mazda 3 to friends, the conversation frequently ended with just one question. "Seems nice, but does it get good gas mileage?" Our response was always, "Sort of." Now we have a chance to see if that weak point has been fixed without neutering the Mazda 3's other more interesting features.
We expect it will get better mileage, but can the 2012 Mazda 3 with Skyactiv technology deliver on the near 40-mpg promise? That will be a tough number to hit, although our most recent long-term test of the Mazda 2 confirmed that it delivered exactly what the EPA rating said it would.
We'll be tracking that story over the next 12 months and 20,000 miles to find out. Follow along on our Long-Term Road Test blog.
Current Odometer: 1,148
Best Fuel Economy: 41.7
Worst Fuel Economy: 23
Average Fuel Economy (over the life of the vehicle): 33
The manufacturer provided Edmunds this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.
Add A Comment »
mazdahomer says:
09:08 AM, 02/19/2012
Just traded my 2010 2.5s hatch for this car specifically because of the 2.5's horrible fuel mileage. Bought a liquid silver iTouring hatch w/moonroof & Bose. I will be the first to admit I was very disappointed that the 6mt was not available except on the base model. The other regret I have is not getting a GT w/Tech that was available, but couldn't see putting out the same money as an sGT and not getting everything the sGT model has (iGT lacks LED taillights, dual zone climate control & push button start). On a side note, the many complaints about the "small" Nav system are from people that see 4.3" screen and think "damn that's little". But consider this - the majority of aftermarket navigation units are 4.3" or smaller, and the placement of the screen high in the dash makes it quick and easy to see as opposed to having to take your eyes all the way off the road and look down on the console (I test drove the iGT just to check out the maximum I could get for my money). But enough of that.
Fuel economy is exactly what I expected. My 2010 2.5s got about 23mpg on my daily commute of 23 miles (50% city/50% rural (40mph speed limit)). The new Skyactiv gets 34.5mpg over the same commute. The ride is a huge improvement over the 2.5, mostly due to the 16" wheels as opposed to the 17" wheels. NVH are far less noticable in the Skyactiv than in the 2.5. The ride, although still firm, is near library quiet compared to the 2.5. The suspension on both cars is the same, so handling is just as fun as in the 2.5. The two areas that are noticeably different between the 2.5 and the Skyactiv are in torque and braking. Althought the Skyactiv still has 4wheel disc, the rotors are an inch smaller than on the 2.5, and there is a minimal difference in feel. The big difference is on launch. The torque in the 2.5 is felt throughout acceleration, but not so much in the Skyactiv. The good thing is, acceleration performance between the 2.5 5AT and the Skyactiv 6AT is really negligible. All reviews I have found online put them at about the same 0-60 time of 7.9 sec, and that is exactly how it feels. Gearing in the Skyactiv is much taller than in the 2.5. I was able to manually shift the 2.5 into 4th and 5th at 25mph. With the Skyactiv, shifts are as follows: 4th-25mph, 5th-35mph, 6th-45mph.
And as far as comparing apples to apples, the Cruze Eco 6spd man is the only other car I test drove, as the dealer was a Mazda/Chevy dealer. The Cruze feels like a larger car, and first impressions of interior quality seem on par with the Mazda. But my past experiences with American cars and their quality after 3-4yrs has not been good. I would have liked to test driven the new Impreza, but the local dealer did not have any yet. And I will admit, I will never own a Ford. And as far as VW goes (@hooklyn), trying to find a diesel for less than $25K in my area (Baltimore/DC) is impossible. I really wanted to find one, but no dealer would budge on price.
On a side note, a couple years ago, Motorweek did a comparison test of all different high mpg vehicles - from Smart car to Ford Fusion. All the vehicles in the test hit their rated mpg's EXCEPT the Fusion which only managed 33mpg. So who is making wild claims now?
says:
08:51 PM, 01/15/2012
I don't think Mazda is hyping SkyActive as a new benchmark. Their ads basically say that it's not the first 40 mpg car... it's just the first one worth driving. Until I can afford my Lamborghini, a speed3 will suffice.
whobodym says:
09:11 AM, 12/29/2011
I'd appreciate seeing what the SkyActiv's gearing is. My 6MT 2010 2.5L isn't perfect for all conditions, hits 6200 rpm redline at about 30 / 50 / 75 / 105 mph in the first 4 gears and revs 2400 per mile in 6th which in my opinion is not a high-enough gear ratio for economy. I'd be happy with the lowest 5 gears for playing around in, and leaving 6th long-legged for level high speed cruising.
church123 says:
02:54 PM, 12/19/2011
Again you're missing the point. Inventory is only a big deal when someone says an item is "near impossible to get". You said that, right? You were proven wrong, so just stop. The SkyActiv cars make up less than half the 3 inventory in my area. Does that mean they aren't representative? Of course not. You're the only one making that sort of argument.
The whole point here is that hooklyn was questioning whether or not the hype for SkyActiv was justified and pointed out what other marques are doing fuel economy and performance wise in comparison. His point was, and justifiably so, that SkyActiv is not a leap ahead of the market, just a matter of catching up, which he ably demonstrated. Your immediate response to him was to classify the 3 as class leading by moving the goal posts to exclude the cars that beat it. You can keep trying to cloud the issue, but you started with a bad premise and continue to dig a deeper hole. Your whole argument is built on feet of clay and probably a misunderstanding of hooklyn's point to begin with.
aviboy97 says:
01:34 PM, 12/19/2011
church123-
Nice side step of the question I asked and trying to revert to available inventory. BTW, there are 50 Cruze ECO's, capable of 42mpg divided amongst 6 Chevy dealers in my area. Those 50 cars make up less than 10% of available Cruze inventory. So, making a blanket statement that the Cruze is a 42mpg car is a falicy with it represents 10% of the product. By your resoning, why don't we claim that the Fusion is a 40mpg car and the Camry is a 43 mpg car and benchmark those numbers against the Accord, Altima, Mazda6, Malibu. We don't, because those are special cars with special equipment to achieve their high MPG and are not the volume sellers, just like the Eco, HF and SFE. Instead, we use their normal counterparts to compare economy to the rest of the segment like I believe we should with the Civic, Focus and Cruze.
No sense arguing logic to someone who does not understand the principles of an argument.
church123 says:
11:24 AM, 12/19/2011
Oh jeez, I can see we have a Mazda fanboy here. You said they were "near impossible to actually buy". That simply isn't the case. Hence, your theory is invalid. BTW, I noticed that there are more of the low power/low mpg 5-spd base Mazda 3's within 50 miles of me then there are i-Tourings and i-Grand Tourings combined. Wouldn't that model be more representative? (Of course not, I'm just showing you the fallacy of your argument). Heck there are more Civic HF's within 50 miles of me than there are i-Grand Tourings.
The whole point being that you were trying to move the goalposts to benefit the brand you favor. You have to expect to get called on that here. And hooklyn made a good point that while there has been a lot of hype from Mazda about SkyActiv, it simply gets them onto a level playing field with the rest of the market. Good for them, but this isn't revolutionary, ground breaking stuff. It's simply Mazda catching up on powertrain technology. More choices for everyone. Huzzah! Why not just admit that it was a bad choice to try and eliminate the fuel economy packages from consideration in a discussion of powertrain tech and EPA ratings?
Finally, your dismissal of Mazda's documented history with overrating engines is weak. They did it. They admitted to it and they paid for it. You also seem to forget that in my post I said "I think they've moved past all that", but I'd like to see a dyno anyways. Trust but verify.
aviboy97 says:
07:08 PM, 12/18/2011
church123-
Using two examples from nearly 10 years ago does not constitute a "history" of power misrepresentation. I'm sure Ford and Chevy have had it happen to them in the past too, so should we doubt the claimed power output of the Cruze and Focus? You know, in the name of being fair....
The Mazda3 has never, ever been in question as to how much power is produces and has always been on the upper end of power for this segment. Until proven otherwise, I see no reason to doubt their power claims.
aviboy97 says:
07:00 PM, 12/18/2011
church123 says:
02:44 PM, 12/18/2011
Oh dear aviboy, it would have simply been better to just admit your error. First of all, you conveniently ignored that the Civic HF only comes with one transmission. Second, the simple numbers prove that there are plenty of Cruze ECOs available. Regardless, your rationale for eliminating the fuel economy packages from consideration was debunked - completely.
___
Debunked? I think not. I bring up an extremely valid point as to why using the 42mpg rated Cruze Eco (only available in a mtx) as the standard of economy the Cruze achieves as completely fallacious. The fact is the majority of all Cruze's get far below that and do not top 39, according to the EPA.
I have a valid argument for excluding these vehicles that require a special "economy" package to achieve higher mileage when these "special economy" package cars represent the minority of overall sales and vehicle availability. The fact remains that the majority of 2012 Civics are rates at 39mpg highway, Focus are rated at 37, Cruze at 38. All are below the Mazda3 sedan, rated at 40, and all have less (some far less power) than the Mazda3, with the lone exception on the Focus, but gets less economy.
Those are all facts, and my theory for excluding "special economy" packages that are available to the minority is valid. You can feel free to disagree, but you have to come up with more as to why. Simply showing available inventory means nothing. How about offering sales statistics? How many Cruze Eco's have been sold in ratio to non-Eco models? How about the Civic HF or Focus SFE? Those would be telling facts.
johnferinal says:
03:26 PM, 12/18/2011
This car is awesome. I just bought one with sunroof and 10 Bose speakers. It makes me love driving!!! The gas milage is excellent!
church123 says:
02:44 PM, 12/18/2011
Oh dear aviboy, it would have simply been better to just admit your error. First of all, you conveniently ignored that the Civic HF only comes with one transmission. Second, the simple numbers prove that there are plenty of Cruze ECOs available. Regardless, your rationale for eliminating the fuel economy packages from consideration was debunked - completely.
Now, as for the proof about Mazda and power ratings:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Mazda-RX8-Horsepower-Controversy&id=47018
You'll note that not only did Mazda rerate the car, they also offered to buy back the vehicle or provide free maintenance. And BTW, even 237 hp is extremely optimistic for the RX8. It's more like 220 hp based upon performance results and dyno testing. RX8 is still a good car, but Mazda got caught with their pants down.
You'll also note that article references a previous controversey with the Miata. Mazda added intake VVT to their Miata engine in 2001 and claimed a power gain, yet dyno testing and performance testing showed no difference. You can read about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/17/business/international-business-mazda-admits-error-on-power.html
As I said, I think Mazda has learned their lesson - if you're not accurate on power ratings you better make sure its on the underrating side (much as Ford did with the DOHC Mustang Cobra rating controversy a decade ago), but I'm looking forward to the dyno testing and performance testing. Trust but verify.