Mazda 3 2009 fuel consumption

Mazda 3 from 2009 to 2011 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 22% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 15% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 28% higher. Starting from 2009 Mazda 3 average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was similar to average, at 2011 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became less than industry average. For more details, see the table below.

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

Year	Gasoline cars
Year	All carmakers	Mazda 3
2009	+14%	+15%
Show all years
2010	+16%	+15%
2011	+19%	+15%

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Mazda 3.

2009 - 2011

Mazda 3 2009 hatchback fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines	30.4 MPG 7.7 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines	26.9 MPG 8.8 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *	+14%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines	47.3 MPG 5.0 l/100km

Mazda 3 2009 specs Mazda 3 2009 owner reviews Mazda 3 service info and schedule

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Mazda 3 2009 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.3 liters per 100 km or 6% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Mazda 3 with automatic transmission consumes around 0.6 litres per 100 km or 7% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Mazda 3 advertised fuel economy is significantly above average, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is slightly worse than average.
The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 1.6 petrol engine and manual transmission (Mazda 3 2009 1.6 105 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Mazda 3 with 2.5 petrol engine and automatic transmission (Mazda 3 2009 2.5 Automatic 167 HP).

The table below shows the real and claimed fuel consumption and the differences for specific versions.

Modification	Claimed consumption	Real consumption
1.6 liter petrol engine
Mazda 3 2009 1.6 105 HP manual	37.3 MPG 6.3 l/100km	31.4 MPG 7.5 l/100km+19%
Mazda 3 2009 1.6 Automatic 105 HP automatic	31.4 MPG 7.5 l/100km
1.6 liter diesel engine
Mazda 3 2009 1.6 CD 109 Hp 109 HP manual	52.3 MPG 4.5 l/100km
Mazda 3 2010 1.6 CD 115 Hp 115 HP manual	53.5 MPG 4.4 l/100km
2.0 liter petrol engine
Mazda 3 2009 2.0 150 HP manual	31.8 MPG 7.4 l/100km	28.0 MPG 8.4 l/100km+14%
Mazda 3 2009 2.0 Automatic 150 HP automatic	30.9 MPG 7.6 l/100km	26.1 MPG 9.0 l/100km+18%
2.2 liter diesel engine
Mazda 3 2009 2.2 2.0 CD 150 HP manual	43.6 MPG 5.4 l/100km
Mazda 3 2009 2.2 CD 185 HP manual	42.0 MPG 5.6 l/100km
2.3 liter petrol engine
Mazda 3 2009 2.3 MPS 260 HP manual	24.5 MPG 9.6 l/100km	23.3 MPG 10.1 l/100km+5%
2.5 liter petrol engine
Mazda 3 2009 2.5 167 HP manual	29.0 MPG 8.1 l/100km
Mazda 3 2009 2.5 Automatic 167 HP automatic	30.5 MPG 7.7 l/100km

Do you own a Mazda 3? Please share your fuel economy!

2009 - 2011

Mazda 3 2009 sedan fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines	31.6 MPG 7.5 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines	28.3 MPG 8.3 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *	+15%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines	47.3 MPG 5.0 l/100km

Mazda 3 2009 specs Mazda 3 2009 owner reviews Mazda 3 service info and schedule

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Mazda 3 2009 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.4 liters per 100 km or 6% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Mazda 3 with automatic transmission consumes around 0.6 litres per 100 km or 7% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Mazda 3 advertised fuel economy is significantly above average, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is slightly better than average.
The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 1.6 petrol engine and manual transmission (Mazda 3 2009 Sedan 1.6 105 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Mazda 3 with 2.5 petrol engine and automatic transmission (Mazda 3 2009 2.5 Automatic 167 HP).

The table below shows the real and claimed fuel consumption and the differences for specific versions.

Modification	Claimed consumption	Real consumption
1.6 liter petrol engine
Mazda 3 2009 Sedan 1.6 105 HP manual	37.3 MPG 6.3 l/100km	31.4 MPG 7.5 l/100km+19%
Mazda 3 2009 Sedan 1.6 Automatic 105 HP automatic	32.2 MPG 7.3 l/100km
1.6 liter diesel engine
Mazda 3 2009 1.6 CD 109 HP manual	52.3 MPG 4.5 l/100km
Mazda 3 2010 1.6 CD 109 HP manual	53.5 MPG 4.4 l/100km
2.0 liter petrol engine
Mazda 3 2009 Sedan 2.0 150 HP manual	31.8 MPG 7.4 l/100km	28.0 MPG 8.4 l/100km+14%
Mazda 3 Sedan 2.0 150 HP automatic	29.8 MPG 7.9 l/100km	26.1 MPG 9.0 l/100km+14%
2.2 liter diesel engine
Mazda 3 2009 2.2 CD 150 Hp 150 HP manual	43.6 MPG 5.4 l/100km
Mazda 3 2009 2.2 CD 185 Hp 185 HP manual	42.0 MPG 5.6 l/100km
2.5 liter petrol engine
Mazda 3 2009 2.5 167 HP manual	29.0 MPG 8.1 l/100km
Mazda 3 2009 2.5 Automatic 167 HP automatic	30.5 MPG 7.7 l/100km

Do you own a Mazda 3? Please share your fuel economy!

* - 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.