Why Is Mazda Marketing a 58MPG Mazda3 SkyACTIV In Canada?
It was around April of 2011 when I noticed an ad in the Toronto subway for the 2012 Ford Focus, touting fuel economy of 59 MPG. I dwelled on that outrageous figure for a second, made a mental note to check if they were using Imperial MPG measurements and then promptly fell asleep on the train home and missed my stop. A Google search for the Ford Focus mpg claims didn’t yield anything from the Blue Oval, but did reveal a Google ad showing Mazda touting the same figures for its 2012 Mazda3 SkyACTIV, rated for 40 mpg on the highway. Even so, this would only be 48 mpg Imperial. So what gives? 10 mpg is not an insignificant difference.
So, what exactly are the Transport Canada test methods? Canada’s Fuel Consumption Guide offers a long-winded explanation involving cars being broken in for 6000 km, and then tested on a dynometer using a standardized procedure. The only problem is that all fuel economy ratings are voluntarily reported to Transport Canada by the OEMs. A report by the Canadian Broadcasting Company found that the Consumption Guide regularly overstated fuel consumption figures, sometimes by as much as 22 percent. The Canadian guide even offers a warning on page 10 advising consumers that
“Fuel consumption ratings in Canada and fuel economy ratings in the United States will differ significantly. Beginning with the model year 2008, the United States implemented additional testing cycles and procedures for its fuel economy ratings. Furthermore, U.S. fuel economy ratings are listed in miles per U.S. gallon and are averaged based on U.S. sales and adjustment factors.”
The CBC report also stats that Canadian tests are done under “ideal conditions”, while the EPA’s 2008 revisions to their fuel economy standards “…added tests using air conditioning and during cold temperature at city speeds and harder acceleration and braking at highway speeds…” Canada’s methods, on the other hand, date back nearly 40 years.
What makes this so nefarious is that the L/100km metric is rarely understood by a population that ignored Canadian car publications for U.S. rags, making MPG the most common fuel economy heuristic in people’s minds. The cavalier attitude towards the marketing of mpg figures, in a country with a high cost of living, pricier cars and more expensive gasoline is quite frankly deceitful if not nefarious.
On Monday, I will be picking up a Mazda3 SkyACTIV, and while I had originally intended to do a Take Two Review of the car, I will be keeping a very close eye on fuel consumption. Canada’s fuel guide lists the car as returning 37/56 mpg for the sedan with a 6-speed manual, and 40/58 for the automatic equipped version – likely the Mazda reported numbers under “ideal conditions”. This works out to 7.7/5.0 L/100 km and 7.1/4.9 respectively. Converted to US MPG, this would be 30/47 or 33/48 mpg respectively. A discrepancy between the numbers is still present. Let’s see what I come back with at the end of next week. The Globe and Mail’s Michael Vaughan wrote a report about the matter this week, but nobody from AJAC, Canada’s Auto Journalist guild, has raised the issue so far.
More by Derek Kreindler
Comments
Join the conversation
Per the EPA 2012 data, (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml), here's the unadjusted EPA numbers for the Dodges referenced... they're quite close to the Canadian numbers. Dodge Avenger I4/4AT: 26.5 city, 41.5 highway Dodge Charger V6/5AT; 22.2 city, 37.5 highway Dodge Challenger V6: 22.2 city, 37.5 highway I'll go out on a limb and say that, as far as the test procedure is concerned, this car does get 58 highway MPG in US gallons. It sure looks to me that the Canadian test procedure is very close to the original EPA procedure which has been revised a few times, but is still used with fudge-factors and additional tests to determine the window-sticker numbers.
For the purposes of quick calculations, a US gallon is almost exactly 5/6 the size of the Canadian gallon. The exact calculation is 231 cubic inches for a US gallon (the old British wine measure) and 277.4 cubic inches for the Canadian (Imperial) gallon. The Imperial gallon is the only British measure that has any logic to it at all. One Imperial gallon of water weighs ten pounds. As kids growing up in England in the '50s, it was drilled into us: "a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter." 8 pints in a gallon, so 10 pounds per gallon. As for gas consumption, logic would dictate gallons per mile - that's a measure of consumption, so litres per kilometre makes sense. Since a kilometre is short, and a litre is big, the boys at SI decided to make consumption litres per 100 kilometres. I find it convenient, as it directly relates to my cost. If gas is $1.30 a litre, and my car averages about 10l/100km, it'll cost $13 to drive a hundred klicks. Speaking of which, I record every fillup. My car was rated at 11.9 city, 8.4 highway. Overall, it has averaged almost exactly 10.30 over 67,000 km, including remote start warmups in winter, as I hate cold cars, and am willing to waste gas for added comfort. The onboard computer is almost dead accurate, so I know within a litre what it'll take to fill it up. Convenient. Winter gas is about 10% worse than summer gas for consumption, and you can tell when it changes. That 10.3 l/100km is almost exactly 27.5 mpg Canadian, 22.8 US. Car is an 08 Legacy GT. Over 155,000 km, my '99 Impreza averaged 9.82 l/100km, despite weighing 300 kg less, under identical conditions, so it was a guzzler by comparison. I have managed to get the Legacy GT to show a steady 5.6 l/100km at 65 kph on a flat road for several kilometres, and that equates to 50 mpg Canadian.1750 rpm. Gets boring quickly. As for Transport Canada, the term "waffling buffoons" adequately describes the outfit. Note to US readers: I have used international spelling for litre and kilometre. A meter is a gauge, such as speedometer or voltmeter to us foreigners.