Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Mazda Demio fuel consumption

Of all Mazda Demio modifications produced from 1997 to 2003 real fuel consumption according to user ratings is similar compared to advertised consumption. Since 1997 the Mazda Demio average difference between owner-reported real-world fuel consumption and declared fuel economy has been less than industry average.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline cars
All carmakersMazda Demio
1997+3%insignificant
Show all years
1998+3%insignificant
1999+3%insignificant
2000+4%insignificant
2001+5%insignificant
2002+6%insignificant
2003+6%insignificant

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Mazda Demio.

1997 - 2003

Mazda Demio 1997 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines33.4 MPG
7.1 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines34.8 MPG
6.8 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *insignificant

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Mazda Demio 1997 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.6 liters per 100 km or 8% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox.

Of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Mazda Demio with 1.3 petrol engine and manual transmission (Mazda Demio 1998 1.3 16V 72 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.3 liter petrol engine
Mazda Demio 1997 1.3 63 HP manual 33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km
31.8 MPG
7.4 l/100km+6%
Mazda Demio 1998 1.3 16V 72 HP manual 39.2 MPG
6.0 l/100km
1.5 liter petrol engine
Mazda Demio 2000 1.5 75 HP manual 32.2 MPG
7.3 l/100km
31.4 MPG
7.5 l/100km+3%
Mazda Demio 2000 1.5 Automatic 75 HP automatic 29.8 MPG
7.9 l/100km

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.