What are the fuel consumption figures for the Mazda3 1.5L and 2.0L models?
3 Answers
Mazda3 1.5L and 2.0L fuel consumption figures are as follows: 1. The Mazda3 1.5L consumes 4.6 to 4.9 liters per 100 kilometers; 2. The Mazda3 2.0L consumes 4.9 to 5.4 liters per 100 kilometers. The methods to turn off the navigation system in Mazda3 are: 1. Simply click "Exit Navigation" on the navigation interface; 2. Manually power off the navigation device by pressing and holding the power button for three seconds. Taking the 2020 Mazda3 as an example, its body dimensions are: length 4662mm, width 1797mm, height 1445mm, wheelbase 2726mm, minimum ground clearance 150mm, fuel tank capacity 50 liters, trunk capacity 419 liters, and curb weight 1337kg.
I've been driving a Mazda3 1.5L for three years, mainly for urban commuting, with actual fuel consumption fluctuating between 6.5 to 7.8 liters. On highways, I've achieved a minimum of 5.9 liters. I also tried my friend's 2.0L version, which averages around 8 liters in the city and about 6.3 liters on highways. Actually, fuel consumption is most affected by road conditions—during peak hours in traffic jams, it can differ by up to 2 liters. The 1.5L engine provides adequate power but requires deeper throttle input for overtaking, which might actually consume more fuel. Over the long term, the 1.5L saves over a thousand yuan in fuel costs annually, but the 2.0L's more spirited driving experience might justify the extra fuel expense. Mazda's SkyActiv technology is indeed fuel-efficient, but don't just rely on official figures—actual driving conditions usually result in slightly higher consumption.
From a technical perspective, both the 1.5L and 2.0L Mazda3 (Axela) models feature 13:1 high-compression ratio engines paired with 6-speed automatic transmissions. The 1.5L version is about 50kg lighter, theoretically making it more fuel-efficient with an NEDC combined fuel consumption of 5.8L/100km. However, in actual urban driving conditions, the 2.0L engine's superior low-end torque means it doesn't need to rev as high during frequent starts, narrowing the fuel consumption gap to about 0.8L/100km. On highways, the 2.0L's lower RPM operation makes it more economical. My tests show that with full load and air conditioning, the fuel consumption difference expands to about 1.5L/100km. Therefore, rather than obsessing over fuel efficiency, consider your usage scenario: choose the 2.0L for frequent long-distance driving, while the 1.5L is more cost-effective for pure city commuting.
