Mazda MX-5 2005 fuel consumption
Mazda MX-5 from 2005 to 2009 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 7% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. Starting from 2006 Mazda MX-5 average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was similar to average, at 2008 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All carmakers | Mazda MX-5 | |||
| 2006 | +9% | +10% | ||
| Show all years | ||||
| 2007 | +11% | +10% | ||
| 2008 | +12% | +10% | ||
| 2009 | +14% | +10% | ||
See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Mazda MX-5.
2005 - 2009
Mazda MX-5 2005 fuel economy
| Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines | 29.4 MPG 8.0 l/100km |
| Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines | 27.7 MPG 8.5 l/100km |
| Average real gasoline consumption difference * | +10% |
The table below shows the real and claimed fuel consumption and the differences for specific versions.
| Modification | Claimed consumption | Real consumption |
|---|---|---|
| 1.8 liter petrol engine | ||
| Mazda MX-5 2006 Roadster Coupe 1.8 126 HP manual | 32.2 MPG 7.3 l/100km |
28.3 MPG 8.3 l/100km+14% |
| 2.0 liter petrol engine | ||
| Mazda MX-5 2006 Roadster Coupe 2.0 S-VT 160 HP manual | 30.5 MPG 7.7 l/100km |
27.4 MPG 8.6 l/100km+12% |
| Mazda MX-5 2006 Roadster Coupe 2.0 S-VT 160 HP manual | 28.7 MPG 8.2 l/100km |
27.4 MPG 8.6 l/100km+5% |
| Mazda MX-5 2005 2.0 i 16V 167 HP automatic | 26.7 MPG 8.8 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.