Hi hear the mazda2 1.5 ( circa 2012 ) is a good city car and seems reliable etc
My daughter does about 200 miles a week motorway driving and 100 local roads
Are they good to drive on the motorway ?,,can they keep up with the traffic, overtake before the sun goes down !
any mazda2 owners out there give me any advice. I've found a 2012 , 90k miles FSH, MOT etc so wondered if it was a good bet
cheers
Put it this way - my larger/heavier 2005 Mazda3 1.6 petrol can keep up fine on motorways. Yes, for some overtakes, for safety, you may need to drop a gear to get enough acceleration on tap.
The 1.5L engine in the Mazda2 from 2007-15 had roughly the same output (it did vary depending on the year), as thus should be fine performance-wise given it is lighter than my car.
|
Our cars are a Mazda 3 2012 1.6 (0-60 12 plus secs) and a 1.4 turbo Golf (0-60 8.8 secs). The extra power and acceleration in the Golf comes in handy when fully loaded or on hills and for flexibility, for example in joining from a slip road. However the Mazda is fine most of the time on the motorway. The Mazda 2 is pretty much half way between these two. Clearly it won't have the mid range punch of a turbo but no doubt it will keep up in real traffic.
Looking on Autotrader the 2012 Mazda2 has 102hp but is slower to 60 than the later 89hp car. Of course hp and 0-60 are not the only measure of good motorway performance. But it might be worth understanding any drivability differences between these two specs.
I am often surprised at the small cars that nip past me on the motorway when I am at the limit. Picantos, Aygos and Corsas for example. Against that lot I am sure a Mazda 2 would be fine.
|
I am often surprised at the small cars that nip past me on the motorway when I am at the limit. Picantos, Aygos and Corsas for example.
I'm not, in fact it surprises me much more when I see a thread like this. I mean I guess I can understand that someone who hasn't been in a small car for decades might be concerned that a 1.0 (N/A) car could be hard work on the motorway (it won't be, unless fully loaded), but a 1.5 Mazda 2?. I just can't figure how anyone might think that a small and light car with a reasonably powerful engine could possibly struggle?.
When I started working in a VW dealer in 2000 the 'entry level' Golf GTI (2.0 8V) had very similar performance figures to the Mazda 2 1.5 (10 seconds 0-60, 120mph top whack). Yet I very much doubt this question would be asked if the OP was thinking of buying one of them for his daughter!.
|
I am often surprised at the small cars that nip past me on the motorway when I am at the limit. Picantos, Aygos and Corsas for example.
I'm not, in fact it surprises me much more when I see a thread like this. I mean I guess I can understand that someone who hasn't been in a small car for decades might be concerned that a 1.0 (N/A) car could be hard work on the motorway (it won't be, unless fully loaded), but a 1.5 Mazda 2?. I just can't figure how anyone might think that a small and light car with a reasonably powerful engine could possibly struggle?.
When I started working in a VW dealer in 2000 the 'entry level' Golf GTI (2.0 8V) had very similar performance figures to the Mazda 2 1.5 (10 seconds 0-60, 120mph top whack). Yet I very much doubt this question would be asked if the OP was thinking of buying one of them for his daughter!.
Is it really necessary to keep on criticizing the OP like this? It would certainly put me off asking questions here in the future.
|
|
|
|
it might be worth understanding any drivability differences between these two specs. I am often surprised at the small cars that nip past me on the motorway when I am at the limit. Picantos, Aygos and Corsas for example. Against that lot I am sure a Mazda 2 would be fine.
The 'drivability' thing is more of an issue these days when so many people are long accustomed to turbocharged engines, diesel and petrol, that produce enough power to accelerate at a reasonable rate from 2000rpm or even less.
Unblown petrol cars with small engines depend on rpm to produce decent power. The Mazda produces its 102hp at 6000rpm. At maximum torque, 4,000 rpm, it makes 75hp - which is plenty.
On a motorway at 70mph in 5th, it will be doing 3300rpm, and making between 55-60hp. There won't be a lot to spare for acceleration but of course there is a 4th gear. 4th will reach 100mph at just under 6000rpm.
The OP's daughter might like to know that an MX-5 1.5 (I have one, I might have mentioned it) only makes just over 5hp more at 4000rpm and is about the same weight. At 70mph in top gear (6th in the MX-5 when it's at 3000rpm) the power outputs are near enough identical.
It just needs to be driven (a bit). There's nothing wrong with changing down. I can still hear my dad saying "Keep the revs up!"
Source:
www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2012/1687580/mazda_...l
Edited by Manatee on 03/09/2021 at 09:52
|
It just needs to be driven (a bit). There's nothing wrong with changing down. I can still hear my dad saying "Keep the revs up!"
Quite right. This is where having an automatic helps. Our family Focus 1.6 Zetec estate has the same power - around 100bhp - and the kick-down enables an unskilled driver to use the gearbox most advantageously, easily revving to the red line and then changing up at exactly the right time. I have never noticed any need for more power on motorway journeys, but it could do with a bit more for the increasingly impossible task of overtaking 45- 50mph sluggards on so-called 'A' roads.
A skilled driver might be able to get slightly better acceleration figures out of a manual box, but in real life the autobox is a better solution - and safer for the engine, as it protects it from both over-revving and from labouring in a too high gear. As a used car buyer, I would never have one with a manual gear box.
|
|
|
It just needs to be driven (a bit). There's nothing wrong with changing down. I can still hear my dad saying "Keep the revs up!"
The problem is, most drivers (in my experience) are afraid to use the revs. From my late FIL who would never go above 2K RPM, to a guy I knew in my teens who had to be told to change down for hills, to SWMBO who would go round corners in fifth at less than 30MPH (nag lights on the current car stopped that), to my daughter who bought an MX5 and moaned at me when I took it to 5K, to a friend, who when I demonstrated my car would pull away in 2nd and go to 50MPH reckoned his engine would blow up if he did that!
|
|
|
|
I am often surprised at the small cars that nip past me on the motorway when I am at the limit. Picantos, Aygos and Corsas for example. Against that lot I am sure a Mazda 2 would be fine.
I'm not surprised - its the yoofmobiles. A former colleague thought nothing of caning it down the A1 to work at 90 in his mid 2000s Fiesta 1.4 petrol. Of course, he did moan about the mpg (!) and then wrote it off when he forgot there was a van in front when pulling out of the industrial estate our office was located on and crumpled the front end.
Most modern cars, even city cars with 65PS should be able to run at 70+ on motorways fine (if perhaps a bit noisy for the small engined cars), though being buffeted in the wind isn't so nice.
I wonder how that residen/remapping improved the 0-60 time of the Mazda2 but at a lower power output?
|
|
""Most modern cars, even city cars with 65PS should be able to run at 70+ on motorways fine (if perhaps a bit noisy for the small engined cars), though being buffeted in the wind isn't so nice"
I agree - I'm currently running a 1.2 i10, and I've been pleasantly surprised. Quite sprightly if you're prepared to use the revs, but sits at 3000-3500 rpm at motorway plus speeds. About 78 bhp I think, but the power-weight ratio is good.
Years ago, anything less tha 1.8/2.0 would have been considered underpowered. Not anymore, I think, even with n/a engines. Personally I feel that I've rediscovered the joys of spirited driving a smaller-engined car but without the need to thrash it. Up to say 5000 rpm (red line is at 6500) is satisfying and quite adequate whils still maintaining mechanical sympathy.
|
The problem is, most drivers (in my experience) are afraid to use the revs. From my late FIL who would never go above 2K RPM, to a guy I knew in my teens who had to be told to change down for hills, to SWMBO who would go round corners in fifth at less than 30MPH (nag lights on the current car stopped that), to my daughter who bought an MX5 and moaned at me when I took it to 5K, to a friend, who when I demonstrated my car would pull away in 2nd and go to 50MPH reckoned his engine would blow up if he did that!
Years and years ago I remember reading an article in a magazine about small British cars in relation to small 'foreign' cars.
Essentially along the lines that the driver of a small British car would just accept that it doesn't like to rev, and that therefore you couldn't really drive fast. By contrast a young Parisienne would expect (and demand) that he/she be able to get in their 845cc (36hp) MK1 Renault 5, point it South, nail the throttle to the floor and not lift off till he/she arrived in Nice, with no ill effects to the car!. Similar theory would apply to an Italian in a Fiat 127.
Also, even earlier, cars like the 2CV, 500 and Beetle were designed to be driven flat-out.
I think re your FIL, that probably harks back to that period where due to a weird car taxation system, Britain ended up with cars having fairly large engines producing a fairly small amount of power at low revs along with a big dollop of torque at little more than tickover. The point being that in addition to higher revs being likely to damage the engine, there was no real point as the engine had nothing more to give past about 2500rpm (or less). So there would have been a few generations of drivers for whom giving the car some revs would go very much against their heavily ingrained instincts!
Edited by badbusdriver on 03/09/2021 at 19:43
|
|
|
|
|
|
