Mazda3 M/T

[Bravoexo]

The EPA rates the 2.0 manual at 28/35, the 2.0 auto at 26/34, the 2.3 manual at 25/32, and the 2.3 auto at 24/29.

* ideal environment conditions...(in mpg)

So depending on how you drive, you will hit the same consumption range of a m/t 2.0R MZ3 if it were available here... and I suspect it will translate the same way to the even smaller 1.6L MZR Z6 engines.

* You can also check the threads at www.mazda3forums, where they've debunked the advantage of having a m/t over a atx in respect of fuel economy as not significant at all anymore. Basically the reason to get a M/T was for that 5th gear...and to use it, you use more fuel in the process...

[squala]

In short, a manual gearbox respectfully complements the brilliant 3's chassis, and obviously, better in performance, economy and price.

[parakitoJDM]

personally i would be very interested in the 1.6Li CRDi w/5MT available in Europe. its rated for about 1.5BHP with gobs of low end torque.

[mbt]

i'd buy a manual transmission more for the responsiveness and positive action and not so much for the fuel economy differences.

although, we have both a manual and an automatic gen2 cr-v and the manual seems to consistently return better fuel mileage (about 0.4 to 0.8 km/L)

[flakez]

ung barkada ko din yan din sana kukunin kaso walang manual.