Mazda 6 fuel economy, new model

Seweryn

jigsaw 2014 wrote: »

Yes the figures are a hard hit, but if u omit depreciation it is a lot better, and being honest I wanted to once in my life buy a NEW car, one of those bucket list things..And having saved for the day I would drive a car off the forecourt as a first owner , depreciation didnt come into it..now all I really want to know is this the mpg other mazda 6 owners are getting..thanks to all for your replies it has been an education..

To answer your question, the best way to check it is to ask a large audience of users of the same model of car what is their every day fuel economy (otherwise the figures from 2-3 users will be all over the shop).

Here is a database, where I selected your model and the results shown are from 78 users of Mazda 6 Diesel, post 2012. As you can see, the average real life fuel consumption from all users is just below 43 mpg (6.59 l/100km), so your figures are just there and will slightly improve in time.

All in all, nothing to worry about, your fuel economy is bang on where it shoud be.

And enjoy your new car! Seriously, as you can see from my breakdown, the fuel cost is less than 20% of your car ownership cost. 5 or 10 mpg one way or the other makes very little difference.

jigsaw 2014

Seweryn wrote: »

To answer your question, the best way to check it is to ask a large audience of users of the same model of car what is their every day fuel economy (otherwise the figures from 2-3 users will be all over the shop).

Here is a database, where I selected your model and the results shown are from 78 users of Mazda 6 Diesel, post 2012. As you can see, the average real life fuel consumption from all users is just below 43 mpg (6.59 l/100km), so your figures are just there and will slightly improve in time.

All in all, nothing to worry about, your fuel economy is bang on where it shoud be.

And enjoy your new car!

many thank for your reply and the trouble you went to, its nice to know its not my driving

mickdw

I figure if you checked your fuel consumption over a long distance cruise, you might get close to the claimed figure but an overall 45 mpg is pretty dam good.
When I was buying my Audi, I read all the crap about new engine tech etc leading to much improved economy and performance. Audi claimed 38 to 40 mpg (from the turbo petrol engine).
Best i ever managed as an experiment was 35 mpg driving as efficiently as I could. Realistic combined mpg is high 20s.

lomb

jigsaw 2014 wrote: »

Now I am really depressed, as I really never thought about depreciation...

You shouldn't be though. If you can afford it (and I assume you can) then you should enjoy what is a lovely new car. Not many people get to drive new cars and not too many times in their life so enjoy it for what it is. My point was you don't buy a new car for economy you buy it to spend money to enjoy it. Everyone aspires to that deep down even those who say they would never buy a new car.

lomb

mickdw wrote: »

I figure if you checked your fuel consumption over a long distance cruise, you might get close to the claimed figure but an overall 45 mpg is pretty dam good.
When I was buying my Audi, I read all the crap about new engine tech etc leading to much improved economy and performance. Audi claimed 38 to 40 mpg (from the turbo petrol engine).
Best i ever managed as an experiment was 35 mpg driving as efficiently as I could. Realistic combined mpg is high 20s.

Yes they are jokers. Same when my mum bought a new MK5 golf 1.6fsi auto. It was a long way short of official figures. The FSI engine was supposedly going to be the best thing since sliced bread but in reality it was a bad noisy engine that was neither economical nor powerful.

Dr_Kolossus

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/mazda/6-2013

50 mpg is average in uk according to this

Leonard Hofstadter

It's not just the 6, ALL new cars are hopeless for achieving their stated mpg.

It's all the fault of the EU and their stupid rules of forcing CO2 emissiosn down. Because the targets the EU set were so unrealistic, the manufacturers were forced to pull out all the stops to get them to look good on paper.

Stuff like auto start-stop makes no difference in the real world (unless you spend almost all your time in town) but because so much time in the official EU tests is devoted to the car doing nothing except going nowhere, having auto start-stop improves the quoted mpg dramatically. Then there are rules about when the gears have to be changed, so to get around that problem, the cars are totally overgeared, so in the real world you spend more time in a lower gear than you might otherwise do, which means you're using more fuel.

10 years ago a diesel family saloon would have a quoted mpg of about 48-52, and in the real world you'd get 45 without too much difficulty, and if you tried just a small bit you'd get the manufacturer's claimed mpg. These days they're claimed to do at least 60 mpg, the 1.6 TDI Passat is claimed to do over 66, the Mazda is claimed to do 67, the new Insignia is claimed to do 74.3 mpg :eek!

In the real world, the new generation of diesels do the same mpg as the ones from 10 years ago. I've driven almost brand new 1.6 TDI Passat and a 2.0 TDCi Mondeos over the past few months, mostly motorway driving in the case of the Mondeo (and well above 120 kph), and a mixture of motorway, 100 kph N roads and 80 kph back roads in the VW. The VW did just under 50 mpg (despite being claimed to do 66), the Mondeo did 45 (despite being claimed to do 57). If I got a 10 year old diesel Mondeo I would have got the same 45 mpg driving at 135-140 kph as I did with a 2013 Mondeo, and similarly if I had a 10 year old 1.9 TDI Passat I've no doubt it would have achieved the same 50 mpg the 2013 model I had did under the same type of driving.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the new generation petrol engines are any more fuel efficient than the old fashioned non-turbo models from 10 years ago, either.

moonship

What is main reason for engines like in mazda 6 (with closed flow dpf) to have poor mpg is short distances city driving. Engine and mainly exhaust (dpf) doesnt heat up to high enough temperature to burn soot (what happens about once per two tanks of diesel) and computer injects additional diesel into exhaust to "warm up" and force cleaning process.
Thats why modern diesels do not like city driving even more than old diesels. But, what do you buy in Ireland? Mainly Diesels...

Thats the hidden cost of having diesels. And dpf will have to be replaced at some stage. Other thing is driving in higher gears (6) to achieve better mpg which directly causes DMF (dual mass flywheels) failure.


Obviously the way manufacturers calculate mpg is unachievable in real world.

Seweryn

captainspeed wrote: »

For what it's worth, I don't believe the new generation petrol engines are any more fuel efficient than the old fashioned non-turbo models from 10 years ago, either.

True, and well said.

For comparison:

My 17-year old petrol engined Honda 1.5 does on average about 48.5 mpg
And my previous car, a 20-year old Mercedes Diesel 2.0 managed to do 49.5 mpg on average.

pburns

CAR magazine (Anthony Ffrench-Constant) has been running a Mazda6 in a long term test and he has mentioned the fuel economy being heavier than expected. Depends on the type of driving though. 45MPG isn't horrendous for a v big 150bhp car...

mickdw

I tried out a current A6 2.0tdi and it drank diesel.
I was driving it hard enough but I'd say low to miss 30s mpg

Jesus.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the new generation petrol engines are any more fuel efficient than the old fashioned non-turbo models from 10 years ago, either.

So if we've got to that stage now, where we've more or less maxed out on MPG, how will we compensate for the inevitable fuel price increase over the next few years? In the past, generally any fuel price increases have been offset by better MPG from new vehicles. If that's gone now then where do we turn when petrol/diesel becomes just too expensive?

Will we all just seamlessly move into electric cars or something?

galwaytt

jigsaw 2014 wrote: »

Yes I have done it per trip and worked it out and still 45 miles, it isa big 2.2 engine but I am annoyed that they sold me a dud,,, I had expected to get mid 50s given a 20%reduction on there figures..but the reaity is its 35% down on there figures and I have to say because all car makers do it does not make it right.thanks

My 05 Saab 9-5 2.2 TiD - automatic - gets 40/43mpg (commute/trip). Cost a fraction of what you spent- €4.5k - simply put, neither the tax nor the fuel economy would ever justifying me spending as much as you did on a car like that again.

Which is why my new-to-me car is None Of The Above - 3.6l petrol. Automatic. Cant' wait for Friday (collection day )

colm_mcm

Are you getting a Porsche or what?

galwaytt

colm_mcm wrote: »

Are you getting a Porsche or what?

I am

Idbatterim

You shouldn't be though. If you can afford it (and I assume you can) then you should enjoy what is a lovely new car. Not many people get to drive new cars and not too many times in their life so enjoy it for what it is. My point was you don't buy a new car for economy you buy it to spend money to enjoy it. Everyone aspires to that deep down even those who say they would never buy a new car.

I dont know, you dont even get a year out of a "New" car anymore, its 6 months now before the reg's change... Depreciation is a big one, if loan interest is applicable, its more money up in smoke...

corkgsxr

Idbatterim wrote: »

I dont know, you dont even get a year out of a "New" car anymore, its 6 months now before the reg's change... Depreciation is a big one, if loan interest is applicable, its more money up in smoke...

Having a new car isnt all about having a new reg driving around.

Tea 1000

Jesus. wrote: »

So if we've got to that stage now, where we've more or less maxed out on MPG, how will we compensate for the inevitable fuel price increase over the next few years? In the past, generally any fuel price increases have been offset by better MPG from new vehicles. If that's gone now then where do we turn when petrol/diesel becomes just too expensive?

Will we all just seamlessly move into electric cars or something?

What are you on about? When the Euro came in petrol was around 60c per litre. It's now almost 300% of that figure. MPG figures have in reality improved may be 10% in the same time. Figures on paper have become more optimistic but reality is reality.

HandsomeDan

'08 320d will do 60 MPG @ 120kmph on the dub to cork run.:P

45 from a cold engine on mostly short trips pulling a big car is actually very good.

Modern cars are extremely good on fuel compared to cars of a decade ago.

SpannerMonkey

you never get the stated mileage unless your on a motorway . my sister has one aswell and barely scrapes 50 mpg . 2 guys i work with have them aswell 1 estate and 1 saloon and they both average mid to high 40's

HandsomeDan

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

you never get the stated mileage unless your on a motorway . my sister has one aswell and barely scrapes 50 mpg . 2 guys i work with have them aswell 1 estate and 1 saloon and they both average mid to high 40's

The stated mileage is motorway mileage.

SpannerMonkey

tralee to limerick is far from motorway . i know that road .

you cant compare that to a smooth motorway with no braking or acceleration and using cruise control

and i should have phrased it you never get anywhere near the stated mileage .

jigsaw 2014

galwaytt wrote: »

My 05 Saab 9-5 2.2 TiD - automatic - gets 40/43mpg (commute/trip). Cost a fraction of what you spent- €4.5k - simply put, neither the tax nor the fuel economy would ever justifying me spending as much as you did on a car like that again.

Which is why my new-to-me car is None Of The Above - 3.6l petrol. Automatic. Cant' wait for Friday (collection day )

Best of luck with it ..

Leonard Hofstadter

SpannerMonkey wrote: »

you never get the stated mileage unless your on a motorway . my sister has one aswell and barely scrapes 50 mpg . 2 guys i work with have them aswell 1 estate and 1 saloon and they both average mid to high 40's

I've found motorways aren't that good for mpg. Best mpg is on main roads with 100 kph speed limit and very little traffic. If there's no hills and you're able to maintain a constant 100 kph it's easy enough to match the combined mpg, on older cars where the mpg figures were realistic. In fact, it is quite easy to beat the combined mpg figure. I've never managed to get the quoted extra urban figure on any car, even the ones from 10 years ago when the mpg figures were some way realistic.

colm_mcm

galwaytt wrote: »

I am

It's not a feckin tractor porsche is it?

lomb

I think the slightly older diesels without stop start and DPFs have higher economy in the real world than the new stuff. We have a 08 Passat 2l 140bhp Common Rail non DPF and it will do 55 mpg and 50 nailing it around. The DPFs burn fuel to recharge the filter and the stop start weighs the car down with more stuff. Just restarting an engine wastes some fuel anyway.

New cars are nice though, the day I picked up mine 10 years ago I still remember the 100 mile trip back home with it .

corkgsxr

lomb wrote: »

I think the slightly older diesels without stop start and DPFs have higher economy in the real world than the new stuff. We have a 08 Passat 2l 140bhp Common Rail non DPF and it will do 55 mpg and 50 nailing it around. The DPFs burn fuel to recharge the filter and the stop start weighs the car down with more stuff. Just restarting an engine wastes some fuel anyway.

New cars are nice though, the day I picked up mine 10 years ago I still remember the 100 mile trip back home with it .

If your stopped longer than 30 seconds it is beneficial. But im still not a fan.

Problem with dpfs is you dont get as much boost which is why its such a gain whe you remove them. Turbo is just so much more responsive