- :
- 2006 Mazda 5 GT 5spd
Mazda5 real-world Mileage numbers
- Thread starter perfecto
- Start date
canadianexpress
Member
- :
- Mazda5, Acura 1.6EL
mazdaFIVEmike said:
40psi might be a bit much. The ride will be harsher and keep an eye on the treads, having to much or too little might cause premature wear.
- :
- 2006 Mazda 5 GT 5spd
Thanks for the warnings guys but the tires say Max Pressure 44 PSI - same as the tires I had on my Jetta and the tire shop I bought them from said to keep it at 40. But just to play it safe I'll lower it to 38. I'd rather have a slightly bumpier ride then to have to put gas in the beast at every corner just for the sake of a soft cushy ride.
Hmm, Canada must have different tires and PSI ratings. Maybe it's the conversion-every other number is converter to a higher sum in Canada. Because here in the states, it's usually 32 psi. But, if your side-wall of the tire says 40psi, then 38psi is where'd I be. I think people drop 2psi off the max for a nice round number.
Fly on the Wall
Member
Anyone want to guess how much the weight of passengers + cargo effects mileage?
The 5-door Mazda 3 has a curb weight of 2808 lbs and EPA est. of 26/32 mpg.
The Mazda 5 has a curb weight of 3333 lbs and EPA est. of 22/27 mpg.
Both are listed as having the same gearing (5spd stick) and tire size. The 3 is shorter and thus more aerodynamic. How much of the 4/5 mpg difference is aerodynamics vs. the 525 lb weight difference? Could a ~230 lb load difference between me and mine and you and yours account for 2/3mpg? Any thoughts? (Yeah Im almost freakishly skinny, think marathon runner, and my kids are young and skinny.)
Another question, does EPA give the 5 more weight during testing because it has one more seat? Could that enhance the EPA mileage difference between the 3 and 5?
Also, the max tire pressure on the sidewall is not the same as recommended pressure for a given car. I believe the max on the tires is 44psi but the recommended on the 5 is 32psi (or 34?). I think the heaver the vehicle, the higher the recommended pressure up to the tire's max. Higher pressure means less rolling resistance and better mileage, but rougher ride and possible other adverse handling impacts. Also, too high or low of pressure can result in un-even tire wear.
The 5-door Mazda 3 has a curb weight of 2808 lbs and EPA est. of 26/32 mpg.
The Mazda 5 has a curb weight of 3333 lbs and EPA est. of 22/27 mpg.
Both are listed as having the same gearing (5spd stick) and tire size. The 3 is shorter and thus more aerodynamic. How much of the 4/5 mpg difference is aerodynamics vs. the 525 lb weight difference? Could a ~230 lb load difference between me and mine and you and yours account for 2/3mpg? Any thoughts? (Yeah Im almost freakishly skinny, think marathon runner, and my kids are young and skinny.)
Another question, does EPA give the 5 more weight during testing because it has one more seat? Could that enhance the EPA mileage difference between the 3 and 5?
Also, the max tire pressure on the sidewall is not the same as recommended pressure for a given car. I believe the max on the tires is 44psi but the recommended on the 5 is 32psi (or 34?). I think the heaver the vehicle, the higher the recommended pressure up to the tire's max. Higher pressure means less rolling resistance and better mileage, but rougher ride and possible other adverse handling impacts. Also, too high or low of pressure can result in un-even tire wear.
ColoradoXtreme
Member
284mi / 13.52gal = 21mpg
All city driving. Haven't had a chance to take it on any road trips yet. It is mostly the wife's grocery getter and weekend vehicle to haul the family around together in one car.
All city driving. Haven't had a chance to take it on any road trips yet. It is mostly the wife's grocery getter and weekend vehicle to haul the family around together in one car.
- :
- 2006 Mazda 5 GT 5spd
Can someone please help me to understand.
For our last fill up, my wife mistakenly put 94 octane (its a long story) gas in the car. She proceeded to do mostly highway driving for 400km (250miles). She filled up again but not because of an empty tank and the mileage we got was nearly 29mpg.
Holy crap!
Not because 29mpg is high - its just high for us who are averaging about 21-22mpg with a previous high of 26mpg.
Now here is where I am confused - the car does not need 94 octane nor do I care to pay for 94 octane but in other posts people talk that putting a higher octane gas in a vehicle that does not require it - is simply a waste of money. Now why would I get such an increase with just a single tank? If 94 octane would give me on average consistent 24-26mpg I might consider it, however, what is the downside to using such a high octane rating on an engine that should run perfectly on 87.
Any thoughts? (dunno)
For our last fill up, my wife mistakenly put 94 octane (its a long story) gas in the car. She proceeded to do mostly highway driving for 400km (250miles). She filled up again but not because of an empty tank and the mileage we got was nearly 29mpg.
Holy crap!
Not because 29mpg is high - its just high for us who are averaging about 21-22mpg with a previous high of 26mpg.
Now here is where I am confused - the car does not need 94 octane nor do I care to pay for 94 octane but in other posts people talk that putting a higher octane gas in a vehicle that does not require it - is simply a waste of money. Now why would I get such an increase with just a single tank? If 94 octane would give me on average consistent 24-26mpg I might consider it, however, what is the downside to using such a high octane rating on an engine that should run perfectly on 87.
Any thoughts? (dunno)
Charles J P
Member
Higher octane gas WILL yield higher fuel economy in many instances (not all) ESPECIALLY if its 94 regular vs. 89 ethanol. Ethanol is less efficient at creating power for some reason. My father in law is a mechanic and has explained it to me but I don't really understand it. I've gotten 29 on 89 ethanol so if I ever wanted to cross 30 just for the sake of saying I did, I bet I could by putting premium in.
Fly on the Wall
Member
So is the regular you were using an ethanol blend? If not, I don't understand how the higher octane would boost mpg?
So long as you're giving your money away for no reason, send some my way... I'll give you my address.
Not only does higher than recommended octane fuel do nothing for fuel economy or performance, it also can shorten the life of your catalytic converter. Even if there's a miniscule benefit to gas mileage, what's the point when you're dishin out at least $.20 more a gallon? That's like throwing $3 bucks away everytime you fill up. A 9.7:1 compression ratio on a N/A engine has absolutely no need for anything above 87.
Also, not sure if you're talking about E85 ethanol, but that gets slightly worse fuel mileage than gasoline.
Not only does higher than recommended octane fuel do nothing for fuel economy or performance, it also can shorten the life of your catalytic converter. Even if there's a miniscule benefit to gas mileage, what's the point when you're dishin out at least $.20 more a gallon? That's like throwing $3 bucks away everytime you fill up. A 9.7:1 compression ratio on a N/A engine has absolutely no need for anything above 87.
Also, not sure if you're talking about E85 ethanol, but that gets slightly worse fuel mileage than gasoline.
Last edited:
- :
- 2006 Mazda 5 GT 5spd
I was curious as to the long term effects of using too high of an octane rating.
It just seemed odd that it was a significant jump in mileage for us. We've struggled to get 24mpg on 100% highway driving and for it to jump to 29mpg with 1 tank of 94 octane - on a car not needing 94 octane - seemed significant.
The 87 gas we use does not have ethanol in it.
And for the record - I'm not independently wealthy so I like to hold on to my cash. Hell - we used to put 89 octane in and I was happy to learn that the car only needed 87!! Whaaahooo - an extra $1.50 in my pocket!!!
It just seemed odd that it was a significant jump in mileage for us. We've struggled to get 24mpg on 100% highway driving and for it to jump to 29mpg with 1 tank of 94 octane - on a car not needing 94 octane - seemed significant.
The 87 gas we use does not have ethanol in it.
And for the record - I'm not independently wealthy so I like to hold on to my cash. Hell - we used to put 89 octane in and I was happy to learn that the car only needed 87!! Whaaahooo - an extra $1.50 in my pocket!!!
Fuel Consumption Numbers
I recently completed a camping trip with the '5-er'.
Fully loaded, 4 bikes strung off the rear bike rack, overhead storage box, wife, 3 kids and lots of crap stuffed in the back.
Total distance = 498km (all highway, some of it uphill)
Avg Speed = 120km (lots of downshifts to keep up with my buddy in his P5)
Total fuel to fill up afterwards= 41liters
I estimate this to be about 28mpg or thereabouts. Not bad considering the load and type of driving.
What do you guys think?
Anthony
I recently completed a camping trip with the '5-er'.
Fully loaded, 4 bikes strung off the rear bike rack, overhead storage box, wife, 3 kids and lots of crap stuffed in the back.
Total distance = 498km (all highway, some of it uphill)
Avg Speed = 120km (lots of downshifts to keep up with my buddy in his P5)
Total fuel to fill up afterwards= 41liters
I estimate this to be about 28mpg or thereabouts. Not bad considering the load and type of driving.
What do you guys think?
Anthony
- :
- 2006 Mazda 5 GT 5spd
antlind said:
That's damn good mileage with all the 'crap' you had (sounds like our family camping trips - everything including the kitchen sink!!)
We just managed to get 28mpg on a trip that did not have the car loaded up.
I take it your camping took you west?
- :
- 2006 Mazda 5 GT 5spd
antlind said:Actually the wife wanted to take the kitchen sink but I had to put my foot down
We went north of Calgary to Sylvan Lake in Red Deer....Mid-way between Calgary and Edmonton. Great place, not too far from home.
Anthony
Nice - we stayed there once... I think... it was 15 years ago so its a bit foggy in my old brain!!(braindead
