View Single Post
Old October 23rd, 2019, 21:18   #6
tikal
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southeast Texas
Fuel Economy: 37 MPG (~ 45% city)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by turbobrick240 View Post
That's a pretty handsome CUV. Definitely larger than a Mazda 3. With an AWD option, considerably more power than any 4 cylinder tdi ever sold here, and cheaper fuel.... looks quite attractive. I'd like to know if it requires premium fuel or can take 87 octane. With these skyactiv x vehicles just on the horizon, the skyactiv d will be very short lived here, imo. We'll see, the skyactiv d was on our horizon for the better part of a decade. If this tech takes that long to get here, nobody will want one. I have a fondness for Mazdas, but they really need to get with the program and start some EV development.
Well according to my Google search the 2020 Mazda 3 hatchback has a cargo volume of 20.1 ft. So if cargo volume is important to the buyer then I would say that a Mazda 3 hatchback is more useful than this Mazda CX-30 with a mere 15.2 ft of cargo. I also realize that neither of these vehicles are available right now in North America, but my point is not about availability but rather than the Mazda CX-30 overall is smaller than the Mazda 3 hatchback, so FE is not "apples to apples".

It is easier to make smaller vehicles with FE in the upper 30s or lower 40s MPG running on gasoline. Now provide a decent passenger volume and cargo space as in the 2015 VW TDI (30.4 ft of cargo space) averaging around 40 MPG and then you have a better optimized vehicle overall and better for the environment than a gasoline engine without gas particle filter (GPF).
tikal is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.09224 seconds with 8 queries
[Output: 16.01 Kb. compressed to 14.54 Kb. by saving 1.47 Kb. (9.17%)]