Mazda CX-30 X186 AWD - real-life consumption test done by a professional ecodriver

[@greengohm]

I found this video by chance, as I am spammed with CX-30 videos because of my interest in this car. I got intrigued by the video but quickly got totally mesmerised by the views you have on your route! Thank you for sharing your tests with us!

[@greengohm]

Oh, and BTW - I drive Honda Civic X 1.5T CVT, which has similar power as this 2.0 liter engine in Mazda, but the fuel consumption is absolutely terrible in comparison. At least it seems to be - would love to see you driving this car and applying your testing methodology.

[@ecodriver1746]

Thanks, and you're welcome!

[@ecodriver1746]

Re Civic, I'll place this request with my Honda dealer.

[@scaniatacan]

Same here, been looking for this kind of consumption tests. 1 video alone eas enough to subscribe

[@icehawk3442]

I have nothing but huge praise for this format of review where a sensible, smart economical driving technique is applied onto a daily driver, unlike the big reviewers who keep trying to push the cars dynamically and playing around with the engines mashed together with the economy side of the review, then complaining that 'unfortunately, with my heavy right foot for half the video's length, it looks like that's only doing 20% less economy than they suggested'. My take on this is that with the heavier CX-30 chassis and AWD system mass & larger wheel rim / unsprung mass, larger frontal surface area/higher drag than Mazda 3, and the auto transmission & AWD drivetrain losses, plus many saying that officially, this engine doesn't get its full economy until almost 10,000km. This is the absolute worst case scenario on this e-skyactiv X 2.0 186PS configuration (unless they put it on the next CX-5 or Mazda 6 maybe). So with your results, useful info shopping for the best fuel economy variant of this engine -- a manual, 2WD (possibly 16in rim variant) Mazda 3 and looking for a better representation of achievable economy on a normal day when I'm not pushing it (admittedly a fun car to drive for the weekend, shown by sportier reviewers). To anyone else watching for this engine rather than the CX-30, these are the factors I'd use (in km/l, my preferred units for small cars. Relative to the ref. value obtained in this video's test). - 2.3km/l from CX-30 to Mazda 3 of same trim level ( taken from official figures) - 1.6km/l from auto to manual - 0.4km/l from 18" to 16" rims - 1.2km/l from AWD to 2WD - Running in the engine to 10000km for better economy... Not sure how much, will not add this into the calculation. Of course, each additional factor combined would give a slightly different result than if they were separately assessed apples-to-apples. But this means that an upper boundary for the economy of the base model Mazda 3 that I'm looking for might be: 17.6km/l + (the above) = 23.1km/l. This would make it 20% higher than WLTP for the base Mazda 3 (19.2km/l), and actually roughly checks out with how driving economically like this has allowed me to get an average of 13% higher economy than the WLTP cycle result for my existing car (Lexus IS300h).

[@icehawk3442]

Also, I apologise for not using L/100km like EU is used to, and want to explain the rationale. I understand it's the most linear measure for fuel cost and thus the most direct way to compare, but I think it's a unit much more suited for heavy vehicles as it is a very insensitive change in number terms once we get to modern car consumption levels, e.g. 3.3 on a hybrid, 5 on a skyactiv-X etc. I think the unit is good for objectively showing how much difference you're actually paying for fuel, but it's really too insensitive to help the layman get a better grasp of how much you can improve your driving to get another few percent from your driving habits while looking at the economy indicator. E.g. 20km/l to 22km/l is a commendable relative increase if you can use the feedback from the km/l gauge to drive better and gives you up to 20 subticks (an indication every 0.1km/l) if the in-car computer has that resolution; in L/100km, this would be from 5 to 4.55 L/100km (less than 0.5 difference, only 4-5 subticks).

[@kevlaaa1]

Great video review, uk owner here with the e skyactive x engine also from a mountainous region, I average 45mpg for your information 👍

[@ecodriver1746]

Thanks!

[@spejpo]

Nice job 👍 Different showing of fuel consumption than other reviewers. You showed every part of the trip seperetly and overall...other mainly do overall

[@ecodriver1746]

Thanks.

[@piotrr4097]

nice channel and general idea! As for CX-30 and the accuracy of consmption estimation by the computer. I have this car, but Skyactiv-G 150 HP AT. The accuracy is perfect, with actually no difference compared to calculations on the gas station. Unlike in my second car, where the actual consumption may be even 0,5l/100 km higher than the one showed by the computer.

[@ecodriver1746]

Thanks Piotr!

[@alexandrudicu5212]

Very good job, I am sure you can get better mpg with 2WD version of Mazda CX30 e Skyactive X. Also please keep adding cars in that table it is very nice to see more brands tested. It is easier to compare this mpg chart with maintenance cost to have a better estimation of total ownership cost and make better decisions when buying a new car.

[@ecodriver1746]

Thanks! Not sure about the 2WD, as the rear wheels are only connected if needed, and the way I drove they were not needed.

[@alexandrudicu5212]

@@ecodriver1746 Yes you are right, I was just telling this because this is how the l/100km is specified on their website. For example the best is manual gearbox+2WD with 4.9l/100km, next is AWD+manual 5.1l/100km and after automatic+2WD=5.5l/100km and automatic+4WD=5.6l/100km. This is straight from their website, maybe we can put this values to the test, at least the best scenario and the worst scenario.

[@ecodriver1746]

The issue here is that in the official numbers the weight is factored in, whereas in reality - when driven correctly - weight doesn't play such a dominant role with an ICE-Car (due to the general inefficiency of the drivetrain).

[@declde]

Looks great! I'm interested in the Mazda 3 with e-Skyactiv X and hoping to test drive one in the coming days/weeks. My main driving is home/work with 80% highway at 120km/h. My current car is an Opel Insignia with 2.0 CDTI 163hp and automatic, which uses about 6.5 L/100km with AC on and normal driving. The new Mazda 3 just sounds like the perfect package for me: naturally aspirated engine, plenty of power when you need it, a hatchback, well built, nice interior options and a good price.

[@ecodriver1746]

It definitely is! I have a CX-5 G194 and it's a perfect car! Mazdas nowadays are really well built and designed.

[@declde]

@@ecodriver1746 They certainly look that way. I love how Mazda is just keeping it simple and refining what works, instead of putting the car full of features and new tech that doesn't properly work or not properly tuned.

[@mariot.5178]

1yer experience: Mazda 3 HB,BP 2022., X186, FWD., MT..... avg. consumption is 7,3l/100km It has full areo package + big muda flaps... and about 60kg of interior upgrades.... Summer tires are 225/45-18 with 18x8J rims... so 1cm wider and taller wheels I CAN MAKE THE FUEL CONSUMPTION FROM 6-10,5L/100KM ... This car is not for riding uphill bc its atmospheric engine and to have torque for it it needs high revs = more fuel.... + in the city it uses like evrey engine more fuel (in my case cca 9l/100km).. It love's open roads like 70-110km/h, and flat roads.... On the highway on 130km/h on flat, low inclined road... I get 6,5l/100km So if you will drive in the city or mountains you will be in 9l digit, and if flat, open roads around 7l.. In my case 50% open road, 30% city and highway 20%...

[@scaniatacan]

Could you make the test with a manual gearbox FWD CX30?

[@behzadnasr]

Hi .thanks for your video.i wanna buy one of Mazda cx-5 and cx-30 ? I driving to my work 80 kilometers on highway. So which one better ? Or cx-60 plugin hybrid? Thanks

[@ecodriver1746]

The difference between CX-5 and CX-30 is mainly space. I also think the CX-30 is a bit more efficient with the X-engine. If you want to pay the premium for the CX-60 PHEV, go for it! :) But it only works well if you have an option to charge at household-rates.

[@vadimtres]

Was this car with Hybrid M technology already? If not, would be interesting to see the difference that this tech adds.

[@dinosgura]

Sorry Sir is this your car? How Many km you did before this video? Anyway 5,5lt /100km on highway is a very remarkable result. Thank you for the video that showed me your wonderful country. Just bought the same Mazda cx30 skyx 😉

[@ecodriver1746]

Hi, no, it's not mine. I got it from a dealer for this video and I drove around 10 kms before I taped this video.

[@spejpo]

Hey! Can you make test with CX-30 (or Mazda 3) with G122 2WD engine? I wonder which difference would be compere with this one

[@ecodriver1746]

Hi, I've already done one and it will be uploaded here within the next 3 weeks.

[@spejpo]

@@ecodriver1746 Great 👍😊

[@georgebratu]

@@ecodriver1746 Hi, you did a test with CX-3 not CX-30 for Skyactive-G. It would have been more interesting to see the same car with skyactive-x vs skyactive-g consumption differences.

[@pedroc6132]

Great test! If we consider overall experience (not just consumption), I've seen you have test Suzuki SX4 Cross too. Is there many diferences? I suposse that you preffer CX30 so you hace a CX5 but it's interesting your feeling with S Cross because it's AWD and much cheaper

[@AZ-bd7ux]

As for the quality of interior and of the the car in general ... there is no comparison between the two cars. Suzuki is very cheap quality. The only thing Suzuki has better is its AWD system ... more capable than the Mazda's ... it can take you off-road limited by its suspension of course ... while Mazda CX-30 actually has no off-road capability ... its AWD system performs only in slipery surfaces ...

[@cartaginalandscape6349]

Nice video, congrats! Please, dou you remember what type of tires were(summer/winter/allseason)?

[@ecodriver1746]

Thanks. They were Winter-Tyres.

[@egegiray]

What do you mean by `W` at transmission part. Isnt it TC?

[@arkagnhlen]

Hi, I had the 122 horsepower and it was a disappointment, it had very high consumption, I just sold it and I would like to switch to the 186 AWD but the consumption here doesn't convince me either, I saw your video, you had very low consumption to be an automatic AWD. I noticed that you rarely exceeded 4000 rpm, you drove very calmly. As an owner, would you recommend the 186 horsepower AWD? Thank you so much, ah they are beautiful mountain places where you live, the city is also very beautiful, but where is it located. Greetings. Marco.

[@Vidmantas969]

I bought new CX-20 with eskyactive-G150 automatic. I get very good consumption. On country roads 5 - 5,2, city 6-7l. So far amazed by efficiency of the car.

[@gravelmann_outdoor]

Wundermotor ???, lol.