The Ohio Random Thread... aka We Should Probably Be Working

[magnumP5]

I haven't flat out measured, but it is close to fitting.

The 2.0L actually doesn't feel sluggish. It also drives like a car, and doesn't feel like a large vehicle.

Mine is a Titanium. Previous owner took a huge hit on it, because I saved a ton of money and I'm sure the dealer made some. Long wheel base is nice and doesn't feel huge. Headroom is more adequate than anything else. Seats don't actually come out, but they do fold flat into the floor. It's pretty slick.

My rental had the 2.0L. Definitely slower than the 3.5 Ecoboost in the Flex but more than adequate to move the Transit. It definitely drives more like a car than the Flex as well but the Flex certainly doesn't drive like a SUV to me either. I only played with the rear seats since I had car seats in the middle two. The fold-down mechanism was strange but I liked that they folded flat to the floor. I wish more thought was put into the Flex's folding seats.

The transmissions are all set to maximize fuel economy sadly. I've felt the sluggishness in the Edge, but it doesn't bother me at all. I didn't have any weird shifting with the Flex and It was quick to downshift when I floored it so I wouldn't get PITted on the highway. I put in 87 because I'm cheap and was still getting 20.5 on the highway at 80.

I've only ever driven ours so I can't say if it's normal or not. The 3-4 shift is definitely different from the others though. I plan on changing the transmission, PTU, and rear differential fluid at 40k miles with Redline or Amsoil full synthetic. I've seen just north of 22 mi/gal on the highway at best, but that's at speeds closer to 75 mi/hr.

The owners manual does state to use 91+ if you're doing a lot of hauling or dogging the engine a lot, but 99% of the time i'll put in 87. The last tank, i put in premium & didn't notice much of a difference, if at all. Fuel economy also stayed the same. This may or may not be due to the fact that the car has less than 2,000 miles on it. Either way, we're happy with the purchase. Rides nice, drives nice, decent amount of tech, looks nice......can't complain about it.....well except for the stupid auto door lock feature. As of now, the ford computers won't disable that feature because of how new the vehicle is. Hopefully in the near future, that feature will be allowed to be disabled.

I've used 87, 89, 91, 92, and 93. There's definitely a difference between 87 and 93. Right now I'm using Wawa 92 since it's convenient and gas prices are low. My preference would be Shell, BP, or Sunoco 93 though. I actually think fuel economy is down a little bit with the higher octane stuff, which agrees with the science behind it. I like the auto door lock as well. Even more so now that my 3 year old knows what the shiny handle on the door does.

 

[tweiss3]

I was mistaken, its a 2.5L in the transit. The ecoboost (1.6L available only in the work versions) only adds 9hp and 13 ft-lbs over the NA. I agree with you, its not quick like the Flex, but it's not slow. Power is adequate getting on the highway. The biggest problem it has is that you don't feel like you are doing 70.

 

[Fiji Mazda3]

I've used 87, 89, 91, 92, and 93. There's definitely a difference between 87 and 93. Right now I'm using Wawa 92 since it's convenient and gas prices are low. My preference would be Shell, BP, or Sunoco 93 though. I actually think fuel economy is down a little bit with the higher octane stuff, which agrees with the science behind it. I like the auto door lock as well. Even more so now that my 3 year old knows what the shiny handle on the door does.

How are you getting better economy with the lower octane fuel? It's suppose to be to other way around. I know if I use 87 in the ST, I have a difference of 2-3 mpg and a lot less pep.

 

[lildisco]

I had about 50-60 miles to empty & i filled it up with 93 from Get Go, which could be my problem. also could be that it has less the 2,000 the car has on it too. could also be get go, lol, but with $1.30 off a gallon i can't complain

 

[Fiji Mazda3]

It took about 4-5k miles before I started to see better fuel economy.

 

[magnumP5]

How are you getting better economy with the lower octane fuel? It's suppose to be to other way around. I know if I use 87 in the ST, I have a difference of 2-3 mpg and a lot less pep.

I've always noticed better fuel economy but lower power with the lower octane stuff. I'm not a chemist or a chemical engineer but I always thought the higher octane stuff was just for knock resistance. I thought I read somewhere the high octane stuff actually has a slightly lower energy density, hence the slightly lower fuel economy. Something to consider though, if you make less power you have give it more throttle to accelerate at the same rate as you did with more power. More throttle = less fuel economy so perhaps your experience is due to trying to make up for the loss in power? Either way, it's not a huge difference. If I'm going to be driving around town a lot, 93, if I'm highway cruising, 87.

 

[tweiss3]

Manual said 87 unleaded only. Specifically states no E85, which surprised me, I figured it would be flexfuel capable being a 2015. Oh well. It did ok when I drove it to work yesterday, power is plenty for cruise to maintain 70mph, even up steep slopes without downshifting.

 

[o0n8]

Gas is too cheap to bother with e85 right now anyway. Isn't the 2.5L the same engine they've been using for ever from when Mazda was still part of Ford? or is it a different 2.5?

 

[tweiss3]

It's the same Mazda L engine, which also happens to be the basis of the 2.0L ecoboost as well.

 

[magnumP5]

Gas is too cheap to bother with e85 right now anyway. Isn't the 2.5L the same engine they've been using for ever from when Mazda was still part of Ford? or is it a different 2.5?

Gas is always too cheap to bother with E85.

 

[o0n8]

It's the same Mazda L engine, which also happens to be the basis of the 2.0L ecoboost as well.

(dance)

Gas is always too cheap to bother with E85.

It was cheaper per mile when 87 was about $4 and e85 was about $1.75 in the Escape.

 

[tweiss3]

I'm guessing NEO doesn't do Menchies any more? I may have to hit up Stricklands tonight with the kiddos, since it's 3 blocks away from the house.

 

[mazdadude]

Anybody here close to Malvern, OH? I need a part shipped to me from there...

 

[magnumP5]

It was cheaper per mile when 87 was about $4 and e85 was about $1.75 in the Escape.

I just don't like E85. It makes sense in super/turbocharged racing applicatios, but even then if you're looking for maximum power why not just go with straight methanol? Neither makes sense in street cars. Both have incredibly low energy density relative to gasoline so you're just wasting fuel when you're not in boost. Methanol injection tied to boost pressure and/or ignition timing/engine speed is a much better alternative.

 

[Lewis7789]

Anybody here close to Malvern, OH? I need a part shipped to me from there...

So you're asking someone to pick up said part, pack it and ship it to you?

What is the part? I could probably ship it for a fee, of course.

 

[mazdadude]

So you're asking someone to pick up said part, pack it and ship it to you?

What is the part? I could probably ship it for a fee, of course.

Yes, that is what I am asking... LOL... For a fee of course...

I need the drivers side fender for a bright blue (paint 24A) Protege5/mp3...

I am finding that most wrecking yards don't want to ship sheet metal UPS, and the $250 Freight shipping they want is too much...

 

[Lewis7789]

Ahh, sorry, I can't help ya there. I have a hook up with FedEx through work but can't ship a fender. Maybe someone else can help out.

Ps- Ohio bros, the part is SE of Canton.

 

[tsaktuo]

Morning folks. Could anyone help with any leads on stock MS3 rear springs available in the central ohio area for a genTwo. Thanks in advance!

 

[o0n8]

Morning folks. Could anyone help with any leads on stock MS3 rear springs available in the central ohio area for a genTwo. Thanks in advance!

Have you tried the Ohio Mazdaspeeds Facebook group?

 

[o0n8]

I just don't like E85. It makes sense in super/turbocharged racing applicatios, but even then if you're looking for maximum power why not just go with straight methanol? Neither makes sense in street cars. Both have incredibly low energy density relative to gasoline so you're just wasting fuel when you're not in boost. Methanol injection tied to boost pressure and/or ignition timing/engine speed is a much better alternative.

I agree but E85 is much easier to find then Methanol. I'm all about what's best for my wallet though. If it's cheaper to run a tank of E85 than 87 (which has only happened a couple of times) then that's what is being put in the tank.