Mazda’s green vibes must just feel right with the Environmental Protection Agency, as the agency has proclaimed the automaker has the highest fuel economy and lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any automaker in 2013.
Edmunds reports Mazda’s portfolio netted an average of 28.1 mpg and 316 grams/mile of CO2, followed by Honda (27.4/324), Subaru (26.7/332) and Nissan (26.2/339). Nissan also had the greatest improvement in both rankings, jumping up 2.2 mpg and cutting down 30 g/mi of CO2 compared to 2012. All four are set to continue their green ways, as well, with Mazda leading the way again for 2014 at 28.8 mpg/309 g/mi CO2.
At the bottom of the list, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles delivered an average of 20.9 mpg/425 g/mi CO2. Volkswagen AG bested the other German manufacturers with 353 g/mi CO2 and 25.7 mpg, while Hyundai and Kia continue to be footnotes due to an ongoing investigation regarding fuel economy numbers.
As stated earlier, the overall average mpg for 2013 came out to 24.1 mpg, while overall CO2 emissions averaged 369 g/mi. The EPA adds that the number of vehicles topping out at 40 mpg and above jumped from three to 26, and that the top three most fuel-efficient models for 2013 are the Chevrolet Spark (119 combined MPGe), Honda Fit EV (118) and Fiat 500e (116).
But they still have snoots like Underdog.
Whatever you think they look like, they’re about the best looking snoots on the road IMHO.
Agree with @cirats. Great looking snoots. And yes, Mazda is an Underdog.
Skyactive seems to be paying off. That and no full size pickups to quick sand the numbers.
I think the latter point is the real driver here. Mazda’s cars are not that much more efficient than the competition.
Before Skyactive Mazda did not have a good fuel consumption reputation. In that respect Skyactive has paid off.
Like sales figures, I would love to see these figures with out the Pick ups.
Or better yet, divided by load capacity and/or interior space. Vespa has a high overall fuel economy as well, after all….
Honestly who cares. Mazda also manufactures cars that rust faster than anything else on the road. That I care about.
Dads 2010 is still solid, even through this years extreme salting.
I can’t find rust anywhere.
155k miles.
You must be a fanboy if a 4 year old car is proof for long term rustproofing.
My 2005 Mazda 3 also was kind of OK. Untill year 5 of course when I had to apply all magic at hand to hide the rust.
Not anymore, and not since 2004 to 2006 depending on the model (and new models such as the CX-5 were designed/fabricated from the start to resist rust as well as any mass produced vehicle sold today).
If you search hard or well enough you will see Mazda personnel heads rolling for corrosion issues in the great white north part of the U.S. And pretty much all of Canada (where the formerly quite rust prone Mazda 3 was a huge seller).
Mazda is now overdosing its vehicles with galvanic superpowers if anything and you will see many other vehicles rusting before new gen Mazda ones do.
Thanks for the info. 03 Protege owner here. Oh the pain. I see some rusty first-gen 3’s here and there, but none after the refresh (08?). good to see they fixed 2 of the biggest issues (fuel economy, rust) I have with my car. Anyone know how high highway rpms are in the new 3?
I want to believe, but I’ve been hearing this since the Protege days, and it’s yet to be true. I’m no expert on Mazda3 years, but aren’t the ones with the amber rear turn signals post-2006? I’ve been seeing even those with pretty significant rust already, as well as quite recent Mazda5s. And there’s also the commonality of dents on the front doors, from a defect a few years ago that allowed thieves to unlock the cars by bashing them at that point. Supposedly Mazda fixed that weakness, but it doesn’t stop would-be thieves from bashing that spot – happened to a coworker of mine within a few months of buying his then-new 2008. All the other carmakers figured out rustproofing at least a decade ago; why is it taking Mazda this long?
And I actually really like Mazda’s cars, but it’s hard to buy a new one when you see 6-8 year-old ones rusted out on a daily basis in a time when other carmakers’ models still look good after 10+. At that point, I’d be much more likely to buy a Golf than a 3 if/when I need a big-boy car. (My plaything ’99 Miata remains rust-free except a little under the dead pedal, but it’s never seen a winter.)
I dunno if this counts, but my ’02 Tribute (is it a Ford badged as a Mazda? Or was the Escape a Mazda badged as a Ford?) is just now showing rust in the rocker panels.
Which I think is quite a feat for a car in Minnesnowta.
It’s a Ford Escape badged as a Mazda built on the Mazda 626 platform. If it’s a 4-banger it’s a Mazda engine, the V6 gets you a Ford Duratec.
How’s that for clarity
I guess Tesla is burning more gas than I thought.
Easy to do when you’re not a full range manufacturer and your most inefficient offering sells like 54 units a year.
I think this is an excellent point that demonstrates why Ford is relentlessly pushing the envelope in improving F Series average fuel economy.
Any manufacturer that depends more heavily on truck sales/volume is going to have trouble competing on fleet fuel economy average compared to a Mazda or a Honda.
I love how the US gov’ts edicts hurt the two US owned mfgs the most, don’t you?
Except the CAFE regulations differentiating trucks from cars benefits the US companies the most.
I guess it just depends on what you choose to look at.
Cafe in and of itself is completely idiotic. The whole methodology serves one purpose only, and that is to protect entrenched, full line manufacturers from startup competition.
The most profitable segments of the market, are the ones that use the most fuel. If saving fuel was a cafe goal, making it maximally easy for a startup to bring larger, yet slightly more frugal than an S class, to market, would be encouraged. As it now is, only those with deep enough pockets to also sell boatloads of “loss leader” smaller cars need apply.
Ditto for pickups, where selling high mileage “personal use” trucks at a virtual loss, is the price to pay to be able to sell pickup trucks designed to be used as pickup trucks.
The whole scheme is nothing but another reason why Jefferson’s quip that for good governance, every generation should have a revolution.
How so? They each have to keep compliance cars and engines in certain cars in order to afford their trucks. Do you really think GM or Ford want to sell the lineups they are currently selling? I don’t.
@28-Cars-Later
Try getting funding for a startup to produce 10 different vehicle models, across the most competitive segments of the auto industry; versus for doing a niche 4cyl diesel 1 ton truck optimized for long distance unsupported hauling of a camper. The latter would dramatically lower fuel consumption for that specific usage niche, since people now are stuck with tow monsters to get the load capacity to haul a camper. But even with a 4cyl diesel, the sheer weight of the thing makes it unlikely it would clear CAFE by itself.
The whole idea that you are punished for selling a more efficient version of a large vehicle, simply because you don’t simultaneously have the capital and expertise to build and profitably sell a me-to small car, is for idiots’ minds only. Like 99+% of what’s enforces as “The Law” these days.
And also, their mainstream cars (3, 6) lack a “big motor”, V6 or T4.
Every time I see a Mazda6 I cry a little inside that there is no performance motor option. The car looks like it should have a 300hp motor under the hood. zoom zoom…not really…..
More lamentable than a higher output motor is the lack of handling that the 3 has…
Still hoping for a “Sport” trim that would give class leading handling, saver only for the 3 Series
It really does look like it should go faster. Sadly, I haven’t gotten mine to break 120, though at that speed I wasn’t exactly crawling.
FWD….
I have 2007 Mazda 6 with 155 hp and can’t fully use 1st gear due to tire squealing. Not sure what the point of more hp would be if you have to hold back when accelerating.
The point is that there are 4 more gears.
When a 2.5 liter NA 4 cylinder is the most powerful engine in your lineup and the closest thing to a truck is a car-based compact crossover, this is what happens.
They also have the 3.7L V6 (same as the Mustang) in the portly CX-9.
They don’t sell many of those, however.
Replacement transmissions for those cost $5600.
I wouldn’t buy one either.
Ooh… I hope those darling little slippers are OK in that snow!
Looks like about a 4″ powdering so they’ll probably do just fine.
@petezeiss
I’m not as big into 13″ rims and square cars as you, but I personally hate this trend of gawdawful huge rims. My car came only with 18s, and they really hurt the ride.
I am off to Kaltire next week for some 16″ Nokian Hakka R2s on powdercoated OEM 16″ Buick rims, and besides the obvious safety reasons, I am pretty sure its going to ride a lot better too. Sadly 16″ is the smallest I can go, due to 12″ rotors.
Long live tires with sidewall!
“Sadly 16″ is the smallest I can go, due to 12″ rotors.”
Just as well as I remember searching for 15″ Nokians for a friend’s Kia and turned up exactly 3 tires in all of NA for her rim width. Tried several tire chains, same result.
But as to your general preferences, come the apocalypse, you’re on my short list of kids to save :-)
I bought an NA6 miata with 17″ rims. First thing I did was replace them with some 14″ Enkeis that weigh under 9 lbs apiece. Much better!
Way to go, Suto! Sanity must be returned to the industry by individual acts of defiance like yours and Dave’s.
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-tires-rims/calgary/set-of-16-powder-coated-alloy-rims-for-buick-5×115/1018722016
Thematically appropriate, powdercoated for winter toughness, OEM, and can’t beat the price for a set of 4 16″ alloys.
Oh, hell yeah… you could pay that for a set of rough Chinese steelies that are already rusting under the BBQ-grill paint.
Your not alone, the big rim craze is incredibly stupid. Supposedly the automakers are starting to back off because it’s starting to cost them in the fuel economy department.
I really don’t think automakers should go past 17″ for the factory offering. The kids that are into that look can go buy their own 20″+ rims and all the headaches it brings.
I’ll take the better fuel economy, better acceleration, comfy ride, lower road noise and MUCH cheaper tires that smaller rims give you. Please and thank you
I hope Chrysler has no ambitions of moving up this list. I’d like to keep seeing vehicles like the Hellcats being made.
+1 really the only company that is trying to bring something different to the market for those that don’t want to spend >100k
Highest MPG, lowest CO2?
Aren’t those *the same thing* in this context?
It’s like saying “the sky is blue, and also the complement of orange”.
I mean, unless someone’s found a way to burn gasoline that doesn’t break it up into carbon that burns with ambient oxygen to form CO2…?
If an automaker has diesels or other fuel sources, then CO2 calcs may change.
More and more in recent years Mazda inhabits the space that Honda once did. Vehicles with sporty driving, efficient, and cutting edge powertrains.
>>More and more in recent years Mazda inhabits the space that Honda once did.
I’ve noticed that too. In addition, Mazda continues to offer a hatch. Old Honda/Acura had them on the Integra, RSX, Civic, and Accord. One could argue hatches don’t sell, but then the Mazda3, Ford Focus, and VW Golf show there is market for them.
Highest MPG, loudest road noise of any new cars I’ve driven. These things are related.
I love Mazdas and what they stand for, but until they get the road noise down I can’t buy another one.
I really don’t understand why automakers can’t figure out how to tame road noise across their lineup.
Of all the engineering challenges, this to me seems the simplest. And it doesn’t weigh the car down in a meaningful way.
To me, a quiet car is just one of those things that’s “make or break”, it’s incredibly fatiguing to be in a car with a lot of road noise.
I pretty much have to buy luxury cars because they’re the only ones that take it seriously.
Well, till my 1st comment on this shows up….
Unibody. Everything is a big, metal kettle drum nowadays.
I can vouch for that. Pulling an empty hay rack with my unibody CUV is a much noisier affair than it would be with a BOF pickup.
I say, mightn’t that still be rather noisy were you to pull it with your Shire horse?
Breaking news! Mazda sells ten cars that get weak gas mileage that is slightly better than a fullsize pickup.