Diesel Consumption

aceracer

I have a new Mazda 6 Diesel for about 4 months now.I am a little dissapointed with its fuel consumption.
Since I got the car the most I have Ever achieved was 35 MPG and that was on a long journey to Galway at the legal limit the whole way most of the time its in the early thirties.
Maybe I am expecting too much as its my first Diesel Car but I was expecting a litttle more to the gallon.
I have a friend who has a new Audi A4 TDI and hes averaging 44/46 MPG on his car and its the 143 Bhp model.
Would be interested to hear from anyone else who has one of these cars..........

Mr Benevolent

It's possible to get 35mpg on a diesel if you're throwing it around, accelerating like mad or towing heavy loads. Your username suggests the second option

Other then that, 35mpg is terrible mileage for a diesel. Also, are you using a trip computer or are these calculations done on paper?

martydunf

How many miles are you getting from a full tank?
Im just after reaching the 560miles mark now after filling up the tank (55l) and thats from mixed driving so that should give you an idea of what you should be getting.

rocknchef

check a couple of things is the air con on all the time and ur gear changes are you keeping them around the 2000rpm.

other things are heated seats, open windows basicly any extra electrical devices make your car burn more fuel.

homer90

was it a brand new car ?

Might take a bit of time for the engine to loosen up

Codofwar

I have a 2l turbo diesal mondeo and if I drive it reasonably as in not taking off like a bat out of hell and keeping the rev clock around 2000, ie, sticking to the limits and good gear changes so as not to rev too much before I can get close to 600 from it whereas if I drive it like I shouldn't that can reduce to around 450 miles from a full tank, around 55l I think.

jon1981

driving like a man possessed gives me ~450m/tank
driving like a tree hugger gives me ~580m/tank

320d (2l turbo diesel)

Matt Simis

rocknchef wrote: »

check a couple of things is the air con on all the time and ur gear changes are you keeping them around the 2000rpm.

other things are heated seats, open windows basicly any extra electrical devices make your car burn more fuel.

Electrics use more fuel, but rather tiny amounts when talking about mileage per tank. Certainly shouldnt be causing a drop from say mid 40s to mid 30s mpg. They are just running off a 12v battery which is being constantly recharged after all (except the Air Con, but again, modern aircon minimal impact). I have 4Zone Climate control and the difference on or off is 1mpg, torquey engines arent hit as hard when running the AC compressor.


EDIT: FYI, according to http://www.motorbar.co.uk/mazda6.htm they got 42mpg on average on the Mazda6 2.0d 115bhp (economy model). Logicially the faster 141bhp "high power" diesel is going to get less, so maybe you arent that far off the mark if you have the 143bhp... do you? Either way, the Mazda6 probably isnt a particularly economical model.

OldmanMondeo

That is poor, I have a 2.0tdci mondeo and am getting 45 ish MPG. If I drive with a full load, i.e. canoe on roof and full load of gear I might go to 44MPG.

Tigger

tiggers get 38mpg from thier 2.2 diesels if they are in a hurry

bazzachazza

I'm getting 44.5mpg from my 10 week old A6 2.0 diesel which has 168bhp and I'm not even trying to be a tree hugger.

smokingman

Honda Accord 05 2.2 diesel and I'm getting anything from 47 to 55mpg depending on my driving. I have definitely changed my driving style since I got it and drive like a tree hugger a lot. There are times when I say to hell with it on a clear open motorway though and hence the 47.

Farls

08 L200 Animal 168bhp and I'm getting 35mpg with the foot well planted and a trailer on tow!!!

Matt Simis

Would be interested to hear from anyone else who has one of these cars..........

Why is everyone who doesnt have a Mazda6 providing results!? Entirely different cars, weights, engines, doesnt help the OP.

OldmanMondeo

Matt Simis wrote: »

Why is everyone who doesnt have a Mazda6 providing results!? Entirely different cars, weights, engines, doesnt help the OP.

Cause most of these car are of the same wieght and size and should only have a minor difference in MPG, like 1 - 2 MPG.

Bogger77

Matt Simis wrote: »

Why is everyone who doesnt have a Mazda6 providing results!? Entirely different cars, weights, engines, doesnt help the OP.

Gives an idea what other diesel's in the same general class are giving, and one poster has posted the official mpg figures for the Mazda6.

example, I'm getting 50mpg from a 2L D4D Corolla, with a good mix of city driving, and motorway, and not being too light on the pedal. Driving more reasonably on motorways, and avoiding city/town driving, I get 56-58mpg.
So the Mazda appears heavy on juice, compared to others in it's class group

galwaytt

Matt Simis wrote: »

Why is everyone who doesnt have a Mazda6 providing results!? Entirely different cars, weights, engines, doesnt help the OP.

I bought an 02 Mazda MPV, fitted with the same RF series 2.0 common rail diesel. One of my customers has the same car, in the same colour even - silver.

Tbh, that engine is a ball of ****e. See my post HERE

35mpg is about it for that engine. Also likes oil. A lot of oil ! Fuel injection pump on those is also highly suspect.........as is DMF and clutch.

Me ? Biggest waste of 13.5k I've ever spent - wouldn't touch another Mazda diesel ever again. Engine spares v. expensive.

jamesO

If you really want propper fuel saving "Bluemotiom" its your only man can't be beaten..............jO-)

245

Give it a chance to loosen up and experiment with your driving technique (reset trip computer between trips etc)

pred racer

I get better mpg than that when towing a trailer. (c5 2.0 hdi 110)
Id get rid of it...........

Damien360

OP, are you relying on your trip computer ?

Stick to the actual fuel replaced at the tank and actual mileage readings.

35mpg for any diesel of similar size car on a long trip is poor.

Old model mondeo 2.0 diesel 50mpg driving it nice and easy.

New model 1.8 zetec diesel 1140km for 65L driving miss daisy with no motorway sections. (49mpg)

New model 1.8 zetec diesel 969km for 65L driving like a loon. (42mpg)

245

galwaytt wrote: »

Tbh, that engine is a ball of ****e. See my post HERE

There's a very depressing Honest John thread regarding DPF related rising oil levels on the Mazda 6 which should be food for thought for any new model Mazda 6 owners. Most depressing aspect is the Mazda UK response.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=4&t=70841

aceracer

Thank you so much for all your replies , most helpful.
Firstly to clarify a few points the car was brand new and now has 14 thousand klms on the clock and so should be well run in by now.
I do not drive it fast as you cant really anymore with speed checks etc.
The car doesnt have a fuel computer so I am getting my readings from filling the tank each time and recording the mileage which is a pretty accurate method.
I have even tried diffferent types of Diesel but the results seem pretty much the same.
In conclusion despite it being a nice car to drive I may soon consider something else like an Audi A4 or such like.

miju

I get about 39 MPG from my 1.9 Alfa but I'm VERY heavy footed while driving it

aceracer

After re reading some of your points the one thing I forgot to mention is that the most I have ever achieved from a full tank was 690 klms which I now know is very poor,
I know my car has the 143 BHP engine and maybe thats a factor but in my opinion it should achieve better fuel consumption.
My neighbour has Mercedes e 320 and even he tells me that he gets over 30 Mpg on a long run which is excellent considering the size of the car.

Biro

aceracer wrote: »

Thank you so much for all your replies , most helpful.
Firstly to clarify a few points the car was brand new and now has 14 thousand klms on the clock and so should be well run in by now.
I do not drive it fast as you cant really anymore with speed checks etc.
The car doesnt have a fuel computer so I am getting my readings from filling the tank each time and recording the mileage which is a pretty accurate method.
I have even tried diffferent types of Diesel but the results seem pretty much the same.
In conclusion despite it being a nice car to drive I may soon consider something else like an Audi A4 or such like.

Don't get an A4, overrated ball of twine. The 6 diesel should be getting between 40 and 45mpg easily, that's what I'm getting from mine. Galwaytt loves slating that engine cause he bought a bad one, and he was giving bad info to a fellow poster recently also, till I set the other poster right. It's not a great engine, but it's not near as bad as Galwaytt would like you to believe. I know much more A4 diesel engine problems than I do Mazda.
If you're going to change the car you should change it for another 6 with the new 2.2 diesel. Mazda actually took their finger out of their asses when designing this engine and it's an excellent one, no matter which tune you buy it in. It'll prove to be a leage ahead of an A4 diesel in every department apart from interior, which I don't care much about anyway. Cars are for driving, not sitting in and licking the lovely plastics!
6 diesels are scarce in this country, and thankfully Galwaytt hasn't gotten on RTE recently, so therefore they're actually worth something to trade in. So the new 2.2 would be an excellent buy.
Mine doesn't use any oil either.

Matt Simis

But why should or would he change from a Mazda that seemingly didnt live up to its promise for another one that might? That would require a big leap of faith there for no apparent reason, unless he is enamored with Mazdas?

Biro

Matt Simis wrote: »

But why should or would he change from a Mazda that seemingly didnt live up to its promise for another one that might? That would require a big leap of faith there for no apparent reason, unless he is enamored with Mazdas?

Because he's happy with every other aspect of it, namely how it drives, and hes right to be, because it's excellent. And his one seems to be an exception rather than a rule, but either way the new engine IS excellent, not might be excellent. So it's a guarantee.

galwaytt

Biro wrote: »

.. Galwaytt loves slating that engine cause he bought a bad one, and he was giving bad info to a fellow poster recently also, till I set the other poster right. It's not a great engine, but it's not near as bad as Galwaytt would like you to believe. I know much more A4 diesel engine problems than I do Mazda...........6 diesels are scarce in this country, and thankfully Galwaytt hasn't gotten on RTE recently, so therefore they're actually worth something to trade in. So the new 2.2 would be an excellent buy. Mine doesn't use any oil either.

A couple of points. I do slate that engine, and I will continue to slate that engine. I will advise all and sundry to avoid it like the plague. And, as I'm coming from a position of fact - along with the 100's of others in the links posted - your opinion of it, frankly, is irrelevant. Unless, of course, you're going to warranty a Mazda 6 for the likes of the OP and provide that peace of mind, at your expense....

You're right about VAG diesels causing more problems, but, that's over-simplistic. For a start, there are 10's of 1000's of them in this country, and so, even on a % basis, the sheer numbers of them on the road means you'll get more of them broken down/issues at any given time. Even that is simplistic, because at least, in the main, VAG diesel problems are relatively straightforward, and widely, and reasonably, repairable. Absolutely none of that applies to the Mazda engine. Large component failures (turbos', cranks, pumps, etc) are also particularly expensive in the Mazda, compared to a VAG. And, critically, there is a huge lack of expertise on the Mazda diesel generally, compared to other diesels out there. Even the Fiat diesels (as fitted to Fiat, Opel, Alfa, Saab etc) are far more common.

You're right too about Mazda 6 diesels being scarce in this country. That's not a bad thing.

And my experience is mirrored by another Galway owner, so even down here, I'm not alone in my experience of the RF engine.

RTE ? ...now there's an idea..........must write to Joe.....:D

Now, back on topic: I have a 150bhp Saab 9-3 too, and it's fabulous - it even belies the fact that it's a diesel. But, like the Alfa above (same engine), I get about 39mpg in normal use, but could get mid 40's on a run (but that's rare, for me). There must be something in the fact that all these now high rpm, high bhp diesels have to get their power from somewhere.....

EPM

aceracer wrote: »

Thank you so much for all your replies , most helpful.
Firstly to clarify a few points the car was brand new and now has 14 thousand klms on the clock and so should be well run in by now.
I do not drive it fast as you cant really anymore with speed checks etc.
The car doesnt have a fuel computer so I am getting my readings from filling the tank each time and recording the mileage which is a pretty accurate method.
I have even tried diffferent types of Diesel but the results seem pretty much the same.
In conclusion despite it being a nice car to drive I may soon consider something else like an Audi A4 or such like.

Could you not book it into the dealers if it's new for a look at? Maybe get a similar one for a couple of days to compare them?

furtzy

galwaytt wrote: »

Now, back on topic: I have a 150bhp Saab 9-3 too, and it's fabulous - it even belies the fact that it's a diesel. But, like the Alfa above (same engine), I get about 39mpg in normal use, but could get mid 40's on a run (but that's rare, for me). There must be something in the fact that all these now high rpm, high bhp diesels have to get their power from somewhere.....

have the same engine in the vectra and have gotten 1200km from a tank on motorway driving. 800km is the norm with a mix of city/normal driving

Zube

aceracer wrote: »

In conclusion despite it being a nice car to drive I may soon consider something else like an Audi A4 or such like.

Hang on, it was brand new a year ago and you're thinking of changing because the fuel consumption is 35 instead of 45 mpg? That doesn't make a lick of financial sense!

Do the sums, and compare depreciation on a new car to the cost difference between your annual mileage at 35 mpg and the same mileage at 45 mpg.

voxpop

Where are you driving most ? My drive to work is about 5 miles and takes me 30 minutes - I pass about 15 sets of traffic lights on the way. I generally (in winter) get 33-35 mpg and in summer 38-40mpg (less traffic +warmer). All the start/stop driving really kills the mpg. You can only really compare your fuel consumption to others, if they are driving roughly the same routes. My MPG from VW is 52. I get nothing like that unless Im doing motorway driving.

Biro

galwaytt wrote: »

A couple of points. I do slate that engine, and I will continue to slate that engine. I will advise all and sundry to avoid it like the plague. And, as I'm coming from a position of fact - along with the 100's of others in the links posted - your opinion of it, frankly, is irrelevant. Unless, of course, you're going to warranty a Mazda 6 for the likes of the OP and provide that peace of mind, at your expense....

You're right about VAG diesels causing more problems, but, that's over-simplistic. For a start, there are 10's of 1000's of them in this country, and so, even on a % basis, the sheer numbers of them on the road means you'll get more of them broken down/issues at any given time. Even that is simplistic, because at least, in the main, VAG diesel problems are relatively straightforward, and widely, and reasonably, repairable. Absolutely none of that applies to the Mazda engine. Large component failures (turbos', cranks, pumps, etc) are also particularly expensive in the Mazda, compared to a VAG. And, critically, there is a huge lack of expertise on the Mazda diesel generally, compared to other diesels out there. Even the Fiat diesels (as fitted to Fiat, Opel, Alfa, Saab etc) are far more common.

It's a fair post, but you know two examples where all went bellie up, I know a good few Mazda diesels and nothing went wrong with any of them. Also I disagree with the fact that Mazda parts are dear, I find all car manufacturers equally rip off the public. Germans and Italians slightly more so.
I also know a couple of people with Saabs, and no end of problems. But I'm happy to ignore the small percentage.
You're justified in most of your rants, but you do go over the top on that one. That's my opinion.

Merch

voxpop wrote: »

I generally (in winter) get 33-35 mpg and in summer 38-40mpg (less traffic +warmer). All the start/stop driving really kills the mpg.

Wouldn't engines be more efficient in the cold?? higher air density?
I'd have thought, perhaps that is compensated for by the engine management though?

Also what does DPF stand for?

Merch

I see diesel particulate filter

Biro

Merch wrote: »

Wouldn't engines be more efficient in the cold?? higher air density?
I'd have thought, perhaps that is compensated for by the engine management though?

Also what does DPF stand for?

In the winter you tend to have the demister and heater on etc, and car takes longer to get to operating temp. But all things being equal, no elec's on, engine at op temp, you should get more mpg in colder weather.

galwaytt

Biro wrote: »

It's a fair post, but you know two examples where all went bellie up, I know a good few Mazda diesels and nothing went wrong with any of them. Also I disagree with the fact that Mazda parts are dear, I find all car manufacturers equally rip off the public. Germans and Italians slightly more so.
I also know a couple of people with Saabs, and no end of problems. But I'm happy to ignore the small percentage.
You're justified in most of your rants, but you do go over the top on that one. That's my opinion.

Fair enough - but in fairness, that's two in Galway alone, on a (as you say yourself) 'rare' car.....Galway's not that big......

Sure, Saab's not perfect. I think the 'quality boat' for most makes, sailed some time ago......

As for Mazda prices, well, that's what 'burning' 13.5k will do for you, when presented with a Eur 5.3k quoted repair bill...........and no guarantee anything else won't go 'pop' afterwareds (e.g. turbo, pump, etc).

As for rant, well it's going to take a lot to vent € 13.5k's worth...........

voxpop

Merch wrote: »

Wouldn't engines be more efficient in the cold?? higher air density?

The engine will take longer to get up to temp and so will be somewhat overfuelled while cold is my understanding.

Also once the summer comes the traffic quietens down, so less stop/start.

brandon_flowers

720 miles for a full tank (approx 65 litres) driving below 2500rpm most of the time (2500rpm = 130kmh in 6th, 1800rpm = 100km/h in 6th)
500 miles for a full tank driving it full blooded for the majority of it .

Driving an Audi A4 S Line TDi 140bhp same as car in OP.

35mpg is seriously low for your car, unless you dont change gears until around 4000rpm every gear change.

galwaytt

furtzy wrote: »

have the same engine in the vectra and have gotten 1200km from a tank on motorway driving. 800km is the norm with a mix of city/normal driving

...that's v.good, which brings two things to mind: how big is your tank (!), and def a 150, or is the 120 ?

voxpop

brandon_flowers wrote: »

35mpg is seriously low for your car, unless you dont change gears until around 4000rpm every gear change.

Its only low if s/he is driving on the motorway all the time. If s/he is mostly doing city driving and alot of stop/starts, then 35 will be ok. Ive just been around town for the last hour - averaged 38 mpg, Im driving a golf which would be lighter than the mazda the OP is driving. The average speed from the trip computer was 13mph(i.e. alot of time sitting at traffic lights and junctions).

Comparing mpg figures is only relevant if you are all doing the same type of journeys.

brandon_flowers

voxpop wrote: »

Its only low if s/he is driving on the motorway all the time. If s/he is mostly doing city driving and alot of stop/starts, then 35 will be ok. Ive just been around town for the last hour - averaged 38 mpg, Im driving a golf which would be lighter than the mazda the OP is driving. The average speed from the trip computer was 13mph(i.e. alot of time sitting at traffic lights and junctions).

Comparing mpg figures is only relevant if you are all doing the same type of journeys.

Yes I understand that, dont do a whole pile of town driving so it never applies to me. The OP said that 35mpg was the best that he/she had got out of the Mazda and that was on a long journey. Hence my reckoning that 35mpg is very poor.

Seinas

Farls wrote: »

08 L200 Animal 168bhp and I'm getting 35mpg with the foot well planted and a trailer on tow!!!

07 L200 averages 21mpg

furtzy

galwaytt wrote: »

...that's v.good, which brings two things to mind: how big is your tank (!), and def a 150, or is the 120 ?

Its a 150bhp SRi. Tank is 60 litres. 120kph is only 1900rpm in sixth so its sipping fuel. Fantastic engine. have driven many of the VAG units and they can't compare

crosstownk

Citroën C5 1.6HDi - averages around 6.0 l/100km which usually gets me more than 1100km to a €65 tank. 75% of my driving is with cruise control on at 120kmh or 100kmh - the rest is driving in typical Dublin traffic.

Audioslaven

crosstownk wrote: »

Citroën C5 1.6HDi - averages around 6.0 l/100km which usually gets me more than 1100km to a €65 tank. 75% of my driving is with cruise control on at 120kmh or 100kmh - the rest is driving in typical Dublin traffic.

#

I have same car and the computer is saying 5.0l/100km, now I am doing alot of long journeys.

crosstownk

Audioslaven wrote: »

#

I have same car and the computer is saying 5.0l/100km, now I am doing alot of long journeys.

Wow - that's quite good. 5.0l/100km is excellent. I get it regularly but once I get back to Dublin for a few days it usually winds out to near 6.0l/100km. I have had the computer indicate a max range of almost 1500km (last week) but as I've been in Dublin all week I'll be lucky to get 1100km to the tank this week. I've almost 11,000km on the clock and I've only filled it 10 times with almost 400km left on the remaining tank.

galwaytt

crosstownk wrote: »

Citroën C5 1.6HDi - averages around 6.0 l/100km which usually gets me more than 1100km to a €65 tank. 75% of my driving is with cruise control on at 120kmh or 100kmh - the rest is driving in typical Dublin traffic.

..crumbs that's good. Are we all driving the wrong cars ??

aceracer

I certainly seemed to have opened quite a debate on this issue.
In reply to the poster who made the comment about depreciation ,of course thats an issue for me, but whats a bigger issue for me personally is to have a car with good fuel economy as I am fortunate to get paid a fuel allowance for my car.
Its also become more important in recent times as that allowance has recently been substantially reduced in line with Government rules.
Finally I do a mix of city and country driving and the figure I quoted of 35 MPG is only ever achieved if I do a long journey down the country.

Merch

galwaytt wrote: »

..crumbs that's good. Are we all driving the wrong cars ??

I think the Peugout/Citroen PSA group seem to be good with diesels, not so sure about the suspension and electrics though, perhaps thats an unjustifiable preconception and doesn't apply anymore??
Id be more inclined to ford myself.