Mazda3: Is it worth it to get the 2.5 engine?

Luxion

Banned
:
suv 7
I've been seriously considering getting a Mazda 3 however I am not sure which engine I should go for.

I test drove both the 2.0 and the 2.5 and thought the 2.0 was a bit gutless especially when starting out from a dead stop and while making passing maneuvers. It was a brand new car so I didn't push the engine past 3,000 or so RPMs, so I guess I didn't get much of a feel for it.

When I test drove the 2.5 liter I noticed a noticeable improvement in power and torque. It felt significantly more effortless to get up to speed and more powerful off the line.

Right now I am somewhat undecided if I should just get the standard 2.0 liter or if I should splurge and go for the upgrade 2.5 liter. The 2.5 costs a pretty penny compared to the 2.0 liter and you really don't gain that much more in horsepower, however I did enjoy the feel of the 2.5 liter compared to the sluggish nature of the 2.0.

I'd like to hear some opinions from people who own the car. While the 2.0 engine was slower, it did seem like it would be a joy to rev out. I'm not somebody who minds revving out an engine. I am curious to hear some positives and negatives about both engines.
 
My 89 MX6 GT turbo had about 190 lbs-ft of torque from the factory and my replacement had to be at least as fast as that car. That's why I test drove only the 2.5 liter. It has about the same amount of torque as my old MX6 did, before I cranked up the boost from 6 to 11 psi. The gas mileage difference is not huge on paper, at least. Consumer reports did see 45 MPG when testing the 2.0's highway mileage.
Also, Car & Driver just recently pitted the 2.0 Mazda3 against the new Civic, new Sentra, and new Elantra. Of course, the Mazda3 beat them all. I have not driven the 2.0 liter 3 but I can say that I am very happy with the power that my 2.5 delivers. My advice is that if you CAN easily afford the 2.5, get it. 0-60 is reached in 6.8 seconds vs 8.0 seconds for the 2.0.
 
Get the 2.5 liter engine. You don't want to regret your purchase later. The 2.5 liter engine makes peak torque at 3250 rpm, which is probably why you noticed an improvement in power/torque when you test drove it.

That said, the 2.0 liter engine makes peak torque at 4k rpm. I agree it feels slow, especially after driving with the 2.5 engine, but you mentioned you didn't push the engine past 3k rpm. This means you never really got into the car's powerband. Go test drive both cars again and this time, rev them both to redline.
 
I just bought a 2016 3 hatchback manual
I am trying to trade for an S now.

Get the S
 
How can you trade for an S if you're still paying on your current hatchback? When I got my 2012 Mazda 3 I was only able to find an i-Touring and I wanted a Grand Touring or Grand Touring S. I bought the car because of it's low mileage but always felt gipped.
 
My wife bought the 3 with the smaller engine and we have regretted it every time we get on the highway. I have a 6 and even with the heavier weight you can feel the difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
How can you trade for an S if you're still paying on your current hatchback? When I got my 2012 Mazda 3 I was only able to find an i-Touring and I wanted a Grand Touring or Grand Touring S. I bought the car because of it's low mileage but always felt gipped.
If he is not upside down on his current car loan, then he can trade in his car and get comparable payments on the new car.
 
Absolutely get the 2.5. As long as you're okay with the slight hit and gas mileage. Look at it this way, right now if you go on to that performance website and spend about $900 to $1,000 you will gain about 15 horsepower by adding a cat car back and an intake. The 2.5 comes with 30.

I read all these stories about people saying the extra .5 liter isn't worth it... they obviously didn't drive them (lol)
 
Absolutely get the 2.5. As long as you're okay with the slight hit and gas mileage. Look at it this way, right now if you go on to that performance website and spend about $900 to $1,000 you will gain about 15 horsepower by adding a cat car back and an intake. The 2.5 comes with 30.

I read all these stories about people saying the extra .5 liter isn't worth it... they obviously didn't drive them (lol)

The tree you may need to look into this but I was just reading that with the newer Mazda 3 if it is a 2.0 engine it comes from Mexico and if it is a 2.5 it comes from Japan. If that is true that would seal the deal I would think for most.
 
I had the 2014 3iGT with the 2.0L, and always regretted not getting the 2.5L. I did not keep long...2.0 was not exciting to me.
 
the 2L is slow. the 2.5L has basically the same fuel economy and much more torque.
 
I have Mazd3s for my wife, and Mazda6 for myself.
Same engine, the latter is heavier by 100-200lbs.
Mazda3 is smaller on the inside for me, so I love driving my '6.
On power and acceleration, Mazda3s is more peppy than the '6.

My friend has the Mazda3i (2.0), he gets significantly better MPG than my Mazda3s.
Don'tr be fooled by EPA rating. 2.5L drinks more fuel than the 2.0L. No magic on that.
 
Car and Driver has tested the 2.0L and 2.5L versions of the sedan (with A/T) in the last few months. The results of their tests show the obvious power advantage of the 2.5L, but the fuel economy results are surprising.

2017 Mazda3 Touring 4-door A/T
0-60- 7.9sec
50-70mph- 5.4sec
Observed fuel economy- 27mpg
Observed fuel economy @ 75mph highway driving- 38mpg

2017 Mazda3 Grand Touring 4-door A/T
0-60- 6.8sec
50-70mph- 4.4sec
Observed fuel economy- 29mpg
Observed fuel economy @ 75mph highway driving- 42mpg

So the 2.5L was 1.1sec quicker to 60mph, 1.0sec quicker from 50-70mph, averaged 2mpg more overall and 4mpg more at 75mph on the highway. They don't mention how many miles were on each test car or how long their test route is for their 'observed fuel economy'. But I still found the results interesting.

They did a longer-term test in a 2016 i Grand Touring (2.0L/AT) and reported 33mpg over the 800-mile test route.

They also tested a 2016 2.0L sedan and 2015 2.5L hatchback and achieved the same 29mpg over a 200-mile trip. Interestingly, the 0-60 time for those two were almost identical (7.5 vs 7.3sec).

In the real world, who knows? The 2.5L with automatic is the quickest of all, but the long-term fuel economy is a mystery....
 
Swap in 17-lb wheels over the 27-lb boat anchors and REALLY achieve a boost in acceleration. This will most likely apply to either size engine car.
 
absolutely. it has a much more usuable mid range which in turn does not make it any less efficient then the 2L since you do not have the rev it as hard. the throttle response, sound, performance and efficiency of this motor surpasses my expectations for a 4 cylinder engine.
 
My experience

I am on my 4th 3s, this time I bought the 2.5, GT, fully loaded, all packages. Love love love it!!! But the gas mileage SUCKS compared to the 2 litre. But unfortunately you cant get all the comfort goodies with a 2 litre. No regrets just stunned by the poor fuel economy compared to my 2 litre 3's. Info........When the 2.5 is full of gas, range is approx 100 km less than my 2
 
Last edited:
Buyers in China can get the 1.5 liter Skyactive engine in a Mazda3. I'm guessing that engine gets better gas mileage than the 2 liter version. It could be that the 2.0L may have a less restrictive exhaust manifold compared to the 2.5L 3. This may explain why the 6 gets almost the same gas mileage as the 3 with the same engine. The 6's exhaust manifold plumbing takes advantage of the extra space in the 6. Still, the 2.5L 3 auto is the quickest (latest generation) by a good amount, Mazda outside of the MX5. That is the price we pay.
 
We've had both. But the 2.0 was a 6spd manual. It is actually peppier than the 2.5. I hated to sell that one, it was a better driving car than the GT.

Along with the bigger engine you get a lot of other options, the bigger nicer wheels (that ride worse) as well as leather and roof, nav, if you like that kind of stuff. There was a big price difference from a iTouring to a GT, about five or six grand. So it's not just the motor.

We liked them both but one went back on lease and the other we traded off at 2-years for a CX-5. The 3 was too small and too noisy. I guess for 17 they have improved sound deadening on them. The '5 is church-quiet. :)
 
just discovered the tank on my 2013 was 5 or 10 litres smaller than the 2017????????? I haven't had a chance to calculate mileage other than with the "range" displayed. but regardless, the 2.5 is light years ahead of my old 2013 2 litre. twice the balls, quieter, solid feel, love bit!
 
the 2L is just... really lacking. you have to rev the piss out of it to get going. think about this... 185 ft/lb at 3250RPM vs 150 torque at 4000RPM... big difference.. the 2.5 has enough passing power to easily overtake in the city. now on the highway, EVEN the 2.5 can feel somewhat lacking at times and the 2L is just useless. for even somewhat spirited drivers, you will NOT be happy with the 2.0L engine. I've tried one in the smaller and lighter Mazda 3 and was not impressed at all. it was getting WORSE MPG.

better low-end torque = efficiency. the larger motor has plenty of get-up and go once you hit 3000RPM whereas the 2L you are practically flooring it to get any power. it's not efficient in the hands of a spirited driver at all. the 2.5L has a lovely bassy snarl as it rips through the rev-range and genuinely sounds quite good for a 4 cylinder engine. nothing beats the steady swelling pull all the way to redline and throttle response of a larger engine... if you prefer the 2L, you either havent driven the 2.5 or have absolutely zero demands for any sort of passing power.

plus, one big advantage (for spirited drivers) is not only the far superior throttle response, but the shift-points when downshifting are improved dramatically. with the 2.5L all you have to do is drop one or two gears to tap into all the torque whereas the smaller motor is practically giving you everything it's got with a super aggressive downshift. again. you will get WORSE fuel economy unless you drive the speed limit.
 

Latest posts

Back