2004 to 2020 Mazda 3 Forum and Mazdaspeed 3 Forums banner
1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Having just purchased a new e skyactiv x I have been very surprised how fast it feels, coming from a I30N I was expecting the 3 to feel fairly sluggish by comparison, whilst it's not quite as fast there is not the drop in performance I was expecting considering there is supposed to be 90bhp less it makes me feel that maybe Mazda are underplaying the actual power and performance of the car a bit like VW with the Latest Golf gti clubsport has anybody actually tested the real output of the new e skyactiv x?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Thank you for the information. We don’t have that engine I the US, we will probably get it at some point. Good to hear that it is exceeding your expectations.
 

·
Registered
2017 Mazda 3 GT hatch
Joined
·
148 Posts
Having just purchased a new e skyactiv x I have been very surprised how fast it feels, coming from a I30N I was expecting the 3 to feel fairly sluggish by comparison, whilst it's not quite as fast there is not the drop in performance I was expecting considering there is supposed to be 90bhp less it makes me feel that maybe Mazda are underplaying the actual power and performance of the car a bit like VW with the Latest Golf gti clubsport has anybody actually tested the real output of the new e skyactiv x?
How's the fuel consumption?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
How's the fuel consumption?
Current average 51mpg, yes I know even I didn't expect it to be this good on a half decent run it can get near 60mpg shorter trips say less than 10 miles I haven't seen less than about 45mpg and the car has done less than 2000 miles I wouldn't be surprised when it's got a few more miles under it's belt for that to rise even further, it is fantastically smooth and quiet as well nothing like a diesel though at lower revs it pulls like one, believe me this is one amazing engine it's a shame at the moment all countries don't seem to get it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Current average 51mpg, yes I know even I didn't expect it to be this good on a half decent run it can get near 60mpg shorter trips say less than 10 miles I haven't seen less than about 45mpg and the car has done less than 2000 miles I wouldn't be surprised when it's got a few more miles under it's belt for that to rise even further, it is fantastically smooth and quiet as well nothing like a diesel though at lower revs it pulls like one, believe me this is one amazing engine it's a shame at the moment all countries don't seem to get it.
Of course this is UK gallons in the US these figures would be around 10% lower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
792 Posts
The biggest factors in achieving good mileage are whether they are highway miles vs city miles, the speeds driven, and the drivers' habits. My 2015 2.0L has averaged almost 45MPG over 30K miles since I bought it new in 2015, all because I drove it almost exclusively on the highway. In contrast, since the virus from China has swept over the world, my driving habits are no longer 90% highway, and I'm no longer getting such fuel economy :-(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
The biggest factors in achieving good mileage are whether they are highway miles vs city miles, the speeds driven, and the drivers' habits. My 2015 2.0L has averaged almost 45MPG over 30K miles since I bought it new in 2015, all because I drove it almost exclusively on the highway. In contrast, since the virus from China has swept over the world, my driving habits are no longer 90% highway, and I'm no longer getting such fuel economy :-(
The biggest factors in achieving good mileage are whether they are highway miles vs city miles, the speeds driven, and the drivers' habits. My 2015 2.0L has averaged almost 45MPG over 30K miles since I bought it new in 2015, all because I drove it almost exclusively on the highway. In contrast, since the virus from China has swept over the world, my driving habits are no longer 90% highway, and I'm no longer getting such fuel economy :-(
I had the same model as you mine was the 165bhp sport nav hatch 2015, fair play for averaging 45mpg mine was around 41mpg was yours the 122bhp version? that may have been the difference. I cant believe my 186ps e skyactiv x is currently averaging over 50mpg but I suppose that's what 6 years of progress does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
792 Posts
My 2015 with the 2.0 is rated at 155HP from the factory. It's an automatic, and I run the AC most of the time in my hot-and-humid Louisiana USA climate. This car is the most efficient I've ever driven.

I hope the SkyactivX works out and sells well. It may be my next choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
My 2015 with the 2.0 is rated at 155HP from the factory. It's an automatic, and I run the AC most of the time in my hot-and-humid Louisiana USA climate. This car is the most efficient I've ever driven.

I hope the SkyactivX works out and sells well. It may be my next choice.
That's pretty impressive It's bloody hot here at the moment 31 degrees though I expect you are used to much hotter than that, if they get to sell the E skyactiv x in the US I would very strongly recommend it to you it's a real step up in quality for Mazda in almost every aspect the interior and smoothness of ride and economy is amazing.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,403 Posts
The 4 cylinder SA-X won't be in the US anytime soon if ever. Its too expensive to compete with the 2.5 or the current 2.0 SA-G. Mazda increased the SA-X power output by some 30hp and 20 some-odd f/lbs but somehow performance is about the same as the 2.0L SA-G engine. SA-X prices would be near $31k for an entry level car, and $40k for a higher end GT car. Nobody here is going to touch one as long as the 2.0L is available with the same or better performance and 40mpg with a starting price of about $22k. The 2.5L is also available with much better performance and a Premium trim turbo 2.5L would cost only $1k more than the SA-X base model...... thats a no brainer right there....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
The 4 cylinder SA-X won't be in the US anytime soon if ever. Its too expensive to compete with the 2.5 or the current 2.0 SA-G. Mazda increased the SA-X power output by some 30hp and 20 some-odd f/lbs but somehow performance is about the same as the 2.0L SA-G engine. SA-X prices would be near $31k for an entry level car, and $40k for a higher end GT car. Nobody here is going to touch one as long as the 2.0L is available with the same or better performance and 40mpg with a starting price of about $22k. The 2.5L is also available with much better performance and a Premium trim turbo 2.5L would cost only $1k more than the SA-X base model...... thats a no brainer right there....
In the UK the SA G does 0 to 60 in 9.5 seconds the SA X 7.9 seconds which is quite a difference but I can understand why with the US having the 2.5L SA G it probably wouldn't be worth selling the X model. here we dont have that option which is why most 3 hatches are the new model as there is not much difference in the price I paid about US $37,000 for mine and knowing how much cheaper cars are there I would be very surprised if a top level X would be anywhere near $41,000.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,403 Posts
In the UK the SA G does 0 to 60 in 9.5 seconds the SA X 7.9 seconds which is quite a difference but I can understand why with the US having the 2.5L SA G it probably wouldn't be worth selling the X model. here we dont have that option which is why most 3 hatches are the new model as there is not much difference in the price I paid about US $37,000 for mine and knowing how much cheaper cars are there I would be very surprised if a top level X would be anywhere near $41,000.
Are those real world numbers? Can you duplicate the 7.9 seconds?
In the US the 155hp 2.0 can do 0-60 in about 8 seconds. Seems like if the SA-X has 184hp as claimed it should be closer to 7 seconds.
$37USD is about $4k more then the MSRP for the Premium package 2.5 Turbo. Thats a bunch of money for an economy car with at best mediocre performance. Mazda has already said that in the US the SA-X engine would add close to $10k to the price of the Mazda 3. $10k in gas savings compared to the SA-G over the term of ownership isn't going to happen either....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Are those real world numbers? Can you duplicate the 7.9 seconds?
In the US the 155hp 2.0 can do 0-60 in about 8 seconds. Seems like if the SA-X has 184hp as claimed it should be closer to 7 seconds.
$37USD is about $4k more then the MSRP for the Premium package 2.5 Turbo. Thats a bunch of money for an economy car with at best mediocre performance. Mazda has already said that in the US the SA-X engine would add close to $10k to the price of the Mazda 3. $10k in gas savings compared to the SA-G over the term of ownership isn't going to happen either....
But $37,000 is the price I paid here in the UK, for you it would be a lot less. I'm guessing $32,000, That for a car that would do well over 40mpg US, and cars that will do the 0 to 60 in around 7 seconds here in the UK tend to have around 200bhp and are in the class below weight wise, I'm not sure which watches they are using there where a medium sized hatch with 155bhp can go that fast, cars with 184 bhp can't possibly do 0 to 60 in 7 seconds certainly not cars that weigh the same as a Mazda 3, 1400kg, the fiesta st that weighs 200kg less and has 200ps does it in 6.7 seconds, so how is a 184bhp Mazda 3 going to get even close to that? and multiple road tests have the SA X at 8.1 seconds 0 to 62 (100kmph) look it up on the internet Auto car top gear etc. I have also seen US tests of the new 2,5L turbo and they quote a 0 to 60 of near 7 seconds so the time of the SA X of 7.9 seconds sounds about right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
But $37,000 is the price I paid here in the UK, for you it would be a lot less. I'm guessing $32,000, That for a car that would do well over 40mpg US, and cars that will do the 0 to 60 in around 7 seconds here in the UK tend to have around 200bhp and are in the class below weight wise, I'm not sure which watches they are using there where a medium sized hatch with 155bhp can go that fast, cars with 184 bhp can't possibly do 0 to 60 in 7 seconds certainly not cars that weigh the same as a Mazda 3, 1400kg, the fiesta st that weighs 200kg less and has 200ps does it in 6.7 seconds, so how is a 184bhp Mazda 3 going to get even close to that? and multiple road tests have the SA X at 8.1 seconds 0 to 62 (100kmph) look it up on the internet Auto car top gear etc. I have also seen US tests of the new 2,5L turbo and they quote a 0 to 60 of near 6.8 seconds so the time of the SA X of 7.9 seconds sounds about right.
I have since seen times of 6.4 seconds for the turbo but still cant believe the 155 bhp G could do it in 8 seconds my 165 sport nav was quoted as 8.2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I have since seen times of 6.4 seconds for the turbo but still cant believe the 155 bhp G could do it in 8 seconds my 165 sport nav was quoted as 8.2.
AS A final quote 0 to 60 is only a small part of how a car feels the extra torque this car produces means in everyday driving it feels a lot faster say from 30 to 70 through the gears, in England the G only puts out 120bhp what would you buy if the X was only $1500 more as it is here?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,403 Posts
But $37,000 is the price I paid here in the UK, for you it would be a lot less. I'm guessing $32,000,
Thats is exactly the problem....$32k for a car that would be maybe $25k with the SA-G, with similar or less performance in exchange for few more mpg. Fuel cost savings can't make up that price difference. This is primarily why the SA-X isn't in the US.


I'm not sure which watches they are using there where a medium sized hatch with 155bhp can go that fast, cars with 184 bhp can't possibly do 0 to 60 in 7 seconds certainly not cars that weigh the same as a Mazda 3, 1400kg, the fiesta st that weighs 200kg less and has 200ps does it in 6.7 seconds, so how is a 184bhp Mazda 3 going to get even close to that?
I timed my 2.0l car using onboard OBD timing gear, and got consistent 8.1 - 8.2 0-60 times.
2.5 cars can do 7.0 or so. Car and Driver tested a 2017 2.5L AT sedan and recorded 6.8 seconds. They also averaged 42 mpg by the way....


multiple road tests have the SA X at 8.1 seconds 0 to 62 (100kmph) look it up on the internet Auto car top gear etc. I have also seen US tests of the new 2,5L turbo and they quote a 0 to 60 of near 7 seconds so the time of the SA X of 7.9 seconds sounds about right.
8 seconds is still slower than what it should be if you look at the hp ratings. A 155hp 2.0 will do the same 0-60, a 2.5 is considerably faster with just a few more hp. I think that the reason is the SA-G has a better torque curve with more power in the lower rpm range.


I have since seen times of 6.4 seconds for the turbo but still cant believe the 155 bhp G could do it in 8 seconds my 165 sport nav was quoted as 8.2.
Believe it......
AS A final quote 0 to 60 is only a small part of how a car feels the extra torque this car produces means in everyday driving it feels a lot faster say from 30 to 70 through the gears, in England the G only puts out 120bhp what would you buy if the X was only $1500 more as it is here?
From what I have seen of the SA-X I'll take the SA-G......My 2.0 car currently clocks 0-60 at 7.2, has ~ 170 hp at the wheels and a flat torque curve from 3k to 6200 rpm with a bit of an engine tune. Can't do that with the SA-X......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
AS A final quote 0 to 60 is only a small part of how a car feels the extra torque this car produces means in everyday driving it feels a lot faster say from 30 to 70 through the gears, in England the G only puts out 120bhp what would you buy if the X was only $1500 more as it is here?
I would not own a 3 if it were only available with 120 hp.

But $37,000 is the price I paid here in the UK, for you it would be a lot less. I'm guessing $32,000, That for a car that would do well over 40mpg US, and cars that will do the 0 to 60 in around 7 seconds here in the UK tend to have around 200bhp and are in the class below weight wise, I'm not sure which watches they are using there where a medium sized hatch with 155bhp can go that fast, cars with 184 bhp can't possibly do 0 to 60 in 7 seconds certainly not cars that weigh the same as a Mazda 3, 1400kg, the fiesta st that weighs 200kg less and has 200ps does it in 6.7 seconds, so how is a 184bhp Mazda 3 going to get even close to that? and multiple road tests have the SA X at 8.1 seconds 0 to 62 (100kmph) look it up on the internet Auto car top gear etc. I have also seen US tests of the new 2,5L turbo and they quote a 0 to 60 of near 7 seconds so the time of the SA X of 7.9 seconds sounds about right.
Car and Driver got 5.6. (add .3 second rollout) Motor Trend 5.9, Alex on autos 5.8 for a turbo hatch. Pretty consistent at just under 6 seconds. Where did you see a 7 sec time for it? It's unlikely the sky x with only 55% as much torque and 74 % of the horsepower of the turbo is going to come within 1 sec of its 0-60 time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I would not own a 3 if it were only available with 120 hp.

Car and Driver got 5.6. (add .3 second rollout) Motor Trend 5.9, Alex on autos 5.8 for a turbo hatch. Pretty consistent at just under 6 seconds. Where did you see a 7 sec time for it? It's unlikely the sky x with only 55% as much torque and 74 % of the horsepower of the turbo is going to come within 1 sec of its 0-60 time.
I forgot it has AWD which makes a hell of a difference, I was comparing it to my previous car an 275hp I30N which was 6 seconds for 0 to 60 you wouldn't think a car with 25hp less could do it in less than 6 seconds. yes unbelievably the 3 here with the G engine is really only 120bhp which is why I said most 3s sold here are now the X despite it being about £2,000 more for the extra performance it's well worth the extra money and now it's been updated it gets better fuel consumption despite having over 60bhp more it's a no brainer here in the UK, it's a shame we don't get the option of a 2.5L here. and only 55% of the torque are you sure about that ? I will have to look that up I am talking about the e skyactiv x.
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top