Doing some back of the napkin calculations based on these values, that would come out to about 34 city/42 highway for FWD and about 31 city/39 highway for AWD. It's rough, but is a decent ballpark. Actual values will probably be a little under that.From what I was reading from the Australian and UK (p)reviews, FWD is rated at 6.1L/100km and AWD is rated at 6.7L/100km. So that sounds pretty close to the rating. Those translate to averages of 38MPG and 35MPG respectively. The UK preview I came across (don't have the link at the moment) said the FWD should get up to 50 MPG (Imperial) highway, which would translate to about 42 MPG US highway and fit in line with the 38MPG average.
Don't forget different engine sizes and outputs, but I see your point. I figured it was probably overly optimistic.Australian methods of computing mileage vary from the EPA. The Australian rating for the Mazda 3 2.5l 5door is also 6.1l/100km. Its EPA numbers are 27/31/37. I would expect with inferior drag numbers and lighter weight the EPA numbers for the CX-3 will be around 28/32/36. (fwd)
From what I've been reading the shorter length of the CX-3 prevented them from using the full 4-2-1 exhaust system from the 3 and CX-5. So they had to decrease the output of the engine. It's probably running at a lower compression too. After reading about the decrease in power from Australian reviews, I had an initial suspicion that this may be the case.The numbers are disappointing, The CX-3 has a later developed, supposedly more efficient direct injection engine. It has less frontal area and lighter weight than HRV and it results in only marginally better(if any) mpg. Also disappointed with 146 hp. Where did the other 9 go? I was counting on that 155 hp found in the 3 with much the same engine.:crying:
You are being optimistic but with some reason. The Australian rating you mentioned gives the CX-3 an 8% advantage. I was basing high hopes on that.You know, it may just be optimistic thinking, but I still think that the estimates that Mazda gave out are on the conservative side. Considering those values match the Honda HR-V in the US, but in Australia the CX-3 is better both in its rated value and real world results according to the comparison reviews I've read. So it would not surprise me if the EPA ratings came out to be slightly better than those estimates (even if by only 1 MPG more).