[AussiePete]

Just filled up for the second time. CX3 used 7.39 litres per 100 kms (mpg?).
That was for 444 kms over metro, country and freeway roads. I have the awd, auto petrol CX3.
See if it improves as more kms driven.

 

[okhick]

31.79mpg. Thanks Pete. I think that figure is great for any awd vehicle, and with a tight engine to boot.

And for you guys who, like me, are more interested in the FWD, The Mazda Aussie website indicates there is about a 3mpg penalty for awd.

Pardon me for inferring too much based on too little to create my fantasy here. I think it reasonable for your (Pete's) mileage to improve by 1mpg to bring it to about 33. Now add 3 mpg for fwd and I'm getting 36 in mixed driving, vs 30 in my CX-5. Cool.

 

[CXIII]

Hopefully it improves with more mileage racked on.

Have you been reporting your MPG's on Fuelly? If not, it will be a good idea as others should too.

 

[Volta]

32 mpg sounds like it is about average for this segment. Not stellar but also not disappointing by any means. Kia Soul averages around 25-27, Honda HRV is about 29 mpg.

Maybe the CX3 is actually outperforming most of its competitors on second thought...

 

[okhick]

You guys sound disappointed. That 29 for the Hrv comes closer than any other awd cuv and that is 10% percent inferior. What were you guys expecting? I think that 32 (if it proves representative) combined puts it in class of one for awd vehicles.

 

[Moe1972]

I will take 29mpg anyway for an AWD vehicle.

 

[CXIII]

I will take 29mpg anyway for an AWD vehicle.

Good point.

Unless it's electric or a hybrid, it's going to be tough getting any more MPG's out of an AWD powertrain

 

[Jay]

Over the years they should be able to push that MPG number up at least 5 points, but that might take some years, all depending on what the competition does, they do want to stay within rank after all, don't want to get left behind.

 

[Frank]

It's a great fuel economy for a AWD vehicle. You really can't complain too much, and Mazda makes great fuel efficient engines so I always had confidence it would be up to standard.

 

[MechaBouncer]

That's better than my FWD 2009 Pontiac Vibe GT. I'm averaging 22-25MPG for not much more power. This would be a welcome change.

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.

Nothing else in this class touches these numbers.

 

[MechaBouncer]

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.

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.

 

[okhick]

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)

 

[MechaBouncer]

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)

Don't forget different engine sizes and outputs, but I see your point. I figured it was probably overly optimistic.

 

[MechaBouncer]

Samsonite! I was way off! Initial reviews are in including estimated fuel economy and are listing Mazda expects city/hwy at 29/35-36 FWD and 27/32 AWD. That's much lower than I was expecting, although you were pretty spot on with the FWD estimate, okhick. It also matches the HR-V for AWD while possibly besting it on the FWD.

 

[okhick]

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:

 

[MechaBouncer]

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:

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.

 

[okhick]

Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense. The short nose and overall length is why I favored the look CX-3 over the 3 in the first place. Always a compromise to be be made. Wonder if that cost some fuel economy as well? On paper it has the specs to beat the HRV handily but doesn't.

 

[MechaBouncer]

I'm thinking it might. I've been reading up on the Skyactiv engines. The high compression is a big part of what leads to the better fuel economy like a diesel engine. The 4-2-1 exhaust system helps it quickly evacuate the extra hot exhaust and cool the cylinder to avoid early detonation from the higher compression.

They had a similar issue with the Skyactiv Mazda3 originally and they reduced the compression that it ran with when it first came out. Makes me wonder if that's why it's on the same platform as the CX-5 now?

 

[MechaBouncer]

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).

 

[okhick]

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).

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.

That would give the CX-3 a 31 combined number vs the HRV's29 and A sparking 38 on the highway rating vs the HRV's 35.

Maybe Mazda is low balling so they can announce the better official numbers with their initial advertising blitz to better effect. That is mostly wishful thinking. We'll have to wait to see.

35mpg is just dang disappointing. That is the Highway rating of the 500lb porkier CX-5 manual that has to deal with 1 ft or 2 extra sq ft of frontal area.:crying:


Later: some figures in error.

HRV CVT fwd 28/31/35

Those figures plus 8% ; 30/33.5/38

For CX-5 manual 26/29/35
For HRV manual 25/28/34