Mazda 6 Forums UK
General Category => Mazda 6 => Topic started by: nheather on August 09, 2014, 01:55:32 pm
-
Hi,
Thinking of getting a Mazda 6 2.2D 150PS Sport as my next company car.
The brochure lists the fuel economy as
60.1 mpg - Urban
83.1 mpg - Motorway
72.4 mpg - Combined
Now I appreciate well that manufacturers tend to exaggerate fuel economy and that the actual economy you experience is somewhat less but even so these figures seem very high.
For example I currently have a VW Golf 2.0 TDI 140PS and the current equivalent is marketed as
56.5 mpg - Urban
78.3 mpg - Motorway
68.9 mpg - Combined
So on paper Mazda claim the Mazda 6 has a better fuel economy then a VW Golf which I find hard to believe given the Mazda is larger and heavier.
Now I did have a Mazda 6 demonstrator for a couple of days but, silly me, I only remembered to check the fuel economy just before I handed it back. It was showing 42 mpg - okay its a demonstrator so it probably gets a lot of short journeys and driven hard to see what the performance is like but that way different to the published numbers.
By comparison my Golf has averaged 53 mpg over the last 3 years - again, well under what VW advertise but 10 mpg greater than what I witnessed the Mazda 6 doing.
Can any owners here confirm what economy they get on their Mazda 6s - preferable 150PS Diesel models?
Many thanks,
Nigel
-
I guess you are looking at the new model with the SkyActiv engine.
Mine is the previous model 2.2 Sport tourer with 180bhp ... I get around 40-41mpg, with a mix of town and fast motorway driving.
It uses extra fuel to clean the DPF
So - the new technology should be better than this ... but don't expect to get anywhere near the laboratory figures used to produce the stats ! Same goes for any car
-
I certainly never expect to see paper figures for real - just a little surprised by how high the paper figures are.
As I posted, the Mazda 6 claims 72.4 whereas the Golf claims 68.9.
Really hard to imagine how the heavier and larger Mazda 6 could claim to be more efficient than the BlueMotion Golf.
For my older Golf I see 53 (77% of advertised) whereas in the Mazda 6 demonstrator I saw 42 (58% of advertised).
Cheers,
Nigel
-
Read on Honest John that for a mix of long / short journeys like most average drivers, urban +10% is a good rule of thumb on most cars.
This is exactly what i get on my 59 plate 2.2 diesel (163bhp)
-
Read on Honest John that for a mix of long / short journeys like most average drivers, urban +10% is a good rule of thumb on most cars.
This is exactly what i get on my 59 plate 2.2 diesel (163bhp)
That would be fantastic - 65mpg for combined but I would be amazed if could get that.
I get about 53mpg on my Golf which is about -25%.
I have booked another demonstrator Friday to Monday and intend to do some decent tests this time round. I'll post back what I find.
Cheers,
Nigel
-
Just checked Honest John and the Mazda 6 comes in as number 9 in the top 50 mpg performers.
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/topten/50-worst-real-mpg-performers-of-2013/?image=8
Cheers,
Nigel
-
I have recently taken delivery of the Mazda6 150ps and at the first fill up it achieved 43 on the pumps and 42.9 on the car computer. It is now showing 48 mpg on the car computer. My driving is a mix of short runs in the town and 60 mile round trip motorway driving. I am happy with the car so far.
There was a report on the internet recently about the manufacturers claims of fuel consumption and the test they use to arrive by that, which is nothing like normal driving. They then remove ( or not supply) the spare tyre (claim this prevents low emissions and low economy) , tape up door joints, do not use any accessories like a/c, heater, lights etc. They then claim that you can buy a tyre and jack as an extra.
I suppose these figures that manufacturers use if compared with each other are just a guide, but may or not be achievable. It all depends on how you drive and how much rubbish you carry in your boot, do you garage it (keeping it that much warmer) thus shorter time to warm up (extra fueling) in the winter. Don't run the engine on idle in winter( to warm it up), but drive off straight away, but gently as more wear takes place when the engine is cold, more fuel dilution of the oil as the pistons, rings and cylinders have not come up to normal temperature.
Though I have noticed with the Mazda the temp light has gone from blue to blank in less than 3/4 of a mile helped by the recirculation of exhaust gasses. I would have preferred a proper temperature gauge though with real temperatures on, particularly if you have a chance of overheating in some conditions.
My previous car a 14 year old R45 did achieve some of the figures the manufacture claimed, in fact my Urban was much better than mfrs, even in the winter.
-
My 3 Sport 185 achieved every single figure. The new 6 not even close.
-
I have the new 2.2 Sport Tourer. I have to drive like a saint to achieve average of 48mpg. My last car was TDI Golf (130). Would need to be acting the maggot to get the Golf this low. Changing to Mazda was a bad idea. Wish I had not bought it now. Won't be keeping it!
-
Hey ... you don't buy a 2.2 litre estate car with 180bhp and expect to get fantastic mpg. You certainly wouldn't expect to get better consumption than a smaller lighter car with 130bhp !!
-
I have had the old mazda 6 2.0l diesel and the last 2.2L 163 diesel estate. I changed to the new 2.2l 150pS tourer 2 days ago. Last week I did a 400 mile journey with a loaded boot full of tools and the old 6 gave me 47mpg, so with the new skyactive tech I was expecting a better return this week after doing the same journey. The exact same mpg on both cars and I was driving like a saint.
The ipod interface is a joke and the Bluetooth connections have dropped out resulting in me having to stop the car and switch off to take calls. I am seriously thinking about returning it tomorrow as I only have it 3 days now. There was 9000 miles on it and it is the soul red. It drives really well but it is just a pity that the claimed specs are not met. I drive a lot and the ipod is my best mate on long journeys but everytime I switch to the radio or stop the car the whole thing needs to be plugged out and then takes 5 minutes to set up again.
not happy with Mazda...
-
I and others, are getting around 45 mpg overall on our petrol Gen 3 cars!
-
Typically i get 52 to 54 mpg driving to work 60 mile round trip.
-
I was chatting with the sales staff in my local dealer on Friday and allegedly there are plans for world wide legislation to make manufacturers actually do real life mpg readings. Exactly what is involved I can't say, or what body would be overseeing the results. But it would mean testing a car as it would be driven on the road. Not stripped down on a carefully prepared track.
That would prove interesting
-
Yes that was on the news some time ago.
At the moment, the figures come from a dyno simulation to allow repeatability:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle
There is some interesting documentation that things are improving a bit faster than expected:
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars_en
Regardless of what the mpg figures indicate, something must be done about the drivers.
If 99% of the drivers cannot drive economically, the car industry progress will not be enough.
I do not see what the average driver kicking gas and brake pedals eratically, will gain by giving them another mpg figure.
The majority of the drivers do not even know what is their mpg across the car ownership.
They may check by accident the car computer and then complain that this mpg figure is lower than the official mpg figure but they will forget about it soon after the blame the car manufacturer.
The biggest challenge of the current simulation model is to represent the short cold trips in traffic.
So far there is no model for drivers playing with their phone and not filling in the gaps, not starting when the traffic has gone, turning off the start/stop, not driving efficiently and effectively, not thinking ahead, etc.
Our only hope is to move faster to autonomous cars and just hope that the programmers have the skills to program them to drive as they should.
-
Now into my 4th year ( with the 2.2d 2014 manual saloon) and mpg taken each fill up and averaged over a year and I am achieving 48 mpg on average, no different from my previous diesel that was 14 years old. The Mazda 'may' be better on emissions but for a fancy engine no improvement on actual mpg over a long period.
This last week I drove 500 miles roundtrip on motorways and 'A' dual carriageways with the cruise control set on 70-73mph and achieved 49mpg Northbound and 49mpg southbound with an average speed of 65mph. The Dash registering 45 & 52 mpg, zeroed at fill up each time.
I use the stop start facility and tend to let the car slow down rather than braking and accellerate from 50 - 70 using the cruise control in increments. There was minimum traffic and no hold ups.
Agree with you APAV.
2 M6's passed me rather quickly on the A46 when I was doing 70 so they are the people you are obviously talking about.
-
I would like to try the third generation 6 for its consumption. I have the second generation car with the 2.0 first generation engine. I bought it used as the third owner at 76K miles from a franchise dealer but not as an approved used car. The trip computer was reading 22mph average speed and 36mpg average consumption. After 30K miles within 31 months, I am now reading 31mph average speed and 54.2mpg average consumption. I have not done any resets. On paper, my 30K miles divided by the litres I have filled in, return a high 66mpg average consumption. If I fill in and avoid traffic (miracles happens sometimes), the trip computer estimate of the remaining distance added to the distance covered, goes very close to 1K miles but does not reach it. There was an ex-fleet third generation car on AutoTrader with an average consumption of 85mpg. It all depends on the driving conditions.
-
After 4 years from new, the average consumption for each year has been 48mpg. Week by week or instantaneous is not reliable, you need to take consumption over a long period so that it takes in all the types of drinving and weather conditions. During the year I plug into a spreadsheet everything I spend on the car, such as tryres, servicing etc statutory payments like insurance, plus at the end of the year total fuel bill from a spreadsheet of consumptiom. My spreadsheet calculates the cost per mile all expenses, cost per mile maintenance and mpg. Plus total cost per year I also add in depreciation as an expense from Glass's averaged value. Not that depreceation worries me as I kept my last car 14 years, so it did not owe me anything when I sold it.
-
Subsequent to my earlier post in 2014 just after I bought the car, I have kept fuel figures from that day and each year print a graph for the consumption and pence /mile over the same period.
After my 5th year the figures are as follows-:
Years average - 44.57 mpg
Life Average - 47.32 ( this has dropped this year following the software change in 2018).
Max for year - 55.53
Min for year - 36.6
Median - 45.19
Total mileage 41K.
The life average is total miles/ total fuel bought.
The individual mpgs at fill up and the official figures, even world figures are at best very rough. All depends on how a car is driven, ambient temps, elevations, level of servicing, loading of the car i.e passengers , luggage etc.
You can be sure that any official figures are done on an empty car on the flat at its best ambient and with a very light foot.
Stating Urban, Motorway, and Combined are still guestimates, but driven for a year with mixed driving and weather gives a more accurate reading.
The cars consumption gauge does not actually measure fuel delivered to the engine, fuel returned to the tank, but based on sensors and can be +/- 5-10% out.
If the term 'filling the gaps' means what I think it means, then riding on somebodies rear bumper/ slipstreaming is a dangerous and bad habit.
-
I do long drives to work (45 miles each way), so perfect candidate for good fuel economy.
I managed 65 mpg driving like Miss Daisy for the first week. The second week, I drove without fuel economy in mind and achieved 55 mpg. Very happy with the car and the performance.
-
Filling in what gaps?
After 5 years of ownership I have averaged 48mpg over the first three years until they did the software update in August 2018 then it dropped to 45mpg.
Those Mazda figures are not really achievable at the start of the post, you may get the odd high reading one month in the summer with a following wind, but you need to be looking over 12 months to get a decent figure based on fuel bought and miles driven.
Using the stop start must save fuel, it doesn't take much to start a car, you are not going to loose any time. Give your self large gaps in front of you to anticipate what is happening ahead of you, take you foot off the accellerator early and allow the regenerative braking work and the car to slow down slowly, this way you also save on brake pads and discs, tyres wear and tear. I am still on original discs and pads at 43k - 2014 plate. You will also find its a much smoother ride for yourself and passengers and people following you.
-
After 7 years of ownership and a new set of fuel injectors my long run consumption is usually about 62 -65 depending on season, much better in the summer obviously.
Regens after 200 miles, not 30 miles prior to fuel injector change.
If you have Forscan, I recommend you log lube oil fuel dilution and number of regens from new with this you can calculate frequency of regens. If they are starting to drop each fill up then you may have fuel injector problems, not DPF problems as some garages will tell you. The DPF is doing its job, but you have trouble upstream in the cylinder causing bad combustion and unburnt carbon deposits on the DPF.