Results 11 to 15 of 15
-
Tsikoteer
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Posts
- 703
May 16th, 2005 10:47 AM #11The 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...
-
May 21st, 2005 03:25 AM #12
In short, a manual gearbox respectfully complements the brilliant 3's chassis, and obviously, better in performance, economy and price.
-
Tsikot Member Rank 3
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,452
May 21st, 2005 10:04 PM #13personally 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.
-
May 21st, 2005 10:05 PM #14
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)
-
3M Color Stable series are all above 50% TSER. RFID readable through the tint, stays good for...
What's the best car tint brand and color?