important point to note about the SKYACTIV G also is that the engine in the Mazda 3 has much longer ratios with the gearbox in the 120HP trim. i do a frequent derbyshire to hampshire trip and i often hit 52-53MPG (75k on the clock, 2017 model). These engines in the mazda's are just stupidly economical considering how great they are.
You do know that long gears is nothing to be proud of and sucks the joy out of every car enthusiast? Oh, and also makes the car slower to accelerate? Oh, and also makes you less economic at lower speeds? Just sold my 2017 G-165 M3, wouldn't have enjoyed it half as much with that shitty gearbox they put into G120.
@@badbasic it's the same box. Differential is different. And mine has more torque than the standard G165. And it does over 65MPH in second gear, so you could drive it in second gear always on any B Road. And it uses less RON98 fuel. Does 0..60 in less than 8 seconds. Less economic at lower speeds? I drive from 36MPH in VI and then it does 3.5l/100km (67MPG). The lower the RPM the lower fuel consumption. See Conquer Driving
@@asphalthedgehog6580 Always driving it in second gear on B roads? You try to act like a petrolhead, but no real petrolhead would enjoy such a thing. I've tried both, a colleague of mine has g120 tuned to 165 hp, he much prefers mine for the driving dynamic. As for 36mph in 5th, I easily did 31mph in 6th, so no.
Hi Richard!! It’s my turn to say that I passed my test today with 4 minors and the examiner couldn’t even remember why he marked one of them 😂. Your videos have been absolutely amazing in helping me to pass and it’s safe to say I will still be an enthusiastic viewer
Hey, I just passed my driving test with only 3 minors! I have to say thank you for the great informative content you provided, hours of lessons finally paid off.
If you wanted some numbers for a cheap 1st car. The 1KR engine in the peugot 107, toyota aygo and citroen c1 regularly gives me 65+mpg i managed to get into the low 80s but that was because i was doing 50mph on dual carriage ways (not ideal). The car is ok for its purpose of city driving but not motorways as it feels gutless when approaching 60. Especially with multiple people and a 5 speed gear box. £20per year road tax and insurance group 3 out of 50 so its almost as cheap as you can get. So many more fun cars out there but for a cheap runaround its great.
@@AnimeWorld_1-2 In my experience turbo's (not talking about diesels) tend to fall in no mans land. At normal driving you barely ask much from the engine thus the turbo isn't being used much. Meanwhile the engine has a lower compression ratio to compensate for having a turbo so it doesn't do too well compared to a slightly bigger naturally aspirated engine. When driving it sporty, the turbo kicks in harder and you actually use more fuel than a slightly bigger engine naturally aspirated because there's more air in the cylinders than an N/A engine could suck on it's own and thus more fuel must be added by the ECU for the mixture to not lean out too much. In other words, more fuel usage. I mean yeah, you can easily ask for more performance from a turbo with a chiptune but at that point you are more likely chasing performance and not economy. So in my humble opinion I don't know where petrol turbo's shine the most. Like what is the best usage case for them? Not to mention having more parts that can fail if it doesn't improve economy by much is questionable to me for reliability.
@@surena9451 ye I get your point overall you’re in the same position with a bigger NA and a smaller turbo engine I guess it’s just a cool piece of engineering or marketing the smaller engine might make people want to buy the car thinking that it’s more economical because “it’s smaller” turbo engines also will be more economical at low rpms as the turbo doesn’t have to work at all (depending on size of turbo tho) for me personally a cool feature abt 1.4 turbo engine is that insurance is somehow cheaper than on a 2.0l even though their performance is exactly the same lol
@@AnimeWorld_1-2 The size of the Engine matters less than the size of the car. mx5 is a small ,aerodynamic and lightweight car. That same engine in an SUV would produce worse economy than the Seat Leon I willing to bet
@@surena9451 Modern turbo engines tend to be more efficient (and lighter) than similar power NA engines as the turbo effectively allows the engine to collect otherwise wasted engine from the exhaust, but it varies a lot between manufacturers and will probably depend more on the car itself and how you drive.
the on off gas pedal on cold starts is something i have been looking for as a reason on why my car hates me sometimes and this man once again clears all other channels and mentions the cause and logic. Bravo
Thanks so much for your videos, I passed my test recently with 2 minors primarily due to watching your channel. For anyone about to do their test, try not to stress as the stress will mess you up
Hey Richard, just wanted to say i finally passed my driving test today 2nd time, your videos have been a huge contributing factor to my pass as i had 0 prior lessons with an instructor and instead learnt with family. i have been into cars since before i could touch the pedals and i am eternally grateful for your videos for helping me to not only pass my test but learn from a fellow enthusiast . cant thank you enough
From technical side, apart from what has already been mentioned, a great deal of technological advancement has be put on the Mazda with their Skyactive engines. Apart from the high compression ratio, optimised intake and exhaust arrangements, weight loss etc. it all adds up. It's an area where average ordinary consumers don't care but I think the result speaks for itself and make the Mazda engine development team proud.
My dad passed your videos on to me, and they’ve been extremely useful. Just passed my test this morning. Thank you so much for all you do for us learners. Best of luck with everything! 👊🏾❤️
In my economical bare bones 2012 VW up! 1.0 (59 bhp) I manage 48.4 mpg without air condition or other creature comforts. If I take fuel-saving to the absolute extreme, I can achieve 53.46 mpg, but I'm also a bit of a hazard. You would think that such a small low power engine could be more economical. In comparison to that in my 1998 MX-5 1.6 (109 bhp) I manage an average of 31.4 mpg with sportily driving. The same driving style achieves an unimpressive 37.76 mpg in the up!. So if you drive the up! sportily, then you lose almost every advantage of the smaller engine.
Not sure if you will read it but I wanted to say you are a great teacher and have helped me a lot even from the other side of the world. I'll have my driving test next Monday!
Thank you so much for your videos, I passed my driving test today, first try. I had zero lessons, however as a full cat A motorcyclist, i drove a reliant Rialto 3 wheeler for just over 3 years, giving me my experience, you videos among others helped me prepare for the test, I took a gamble on UA-cam lessons and it paid off.
I had a March 2017 2 litre MX5RF from new and kept it for 6 years. I was constantly surprised and impressed by the fuel economy. On several occasions I checked the MPG manually and compared it to the car's computer, getting very similar results each time. Typically throughout the six years I had it, I was getting 45-48MPG. If I drove like an absolute angel, I could reliably get the MX5 to return 53MPG on my 27 mile, mostly rural, but good quality, commute. It was a thoroughly enjoyable car to own and drive and, in my opinion, one of the best looking cars on the road for the price. The only downside for me is that I am "leg tall" and I was right on the edge of the MX5 being too cramped for me.
I passed my test today with just one minor, was my 2nd go but still so happy, your longer vids on how you drive around citys (Brighton) helped alot. Should do more. Thanks again.
Richard, in my VW Jetta owners manual, under Eco Tips section, it mentions: "Refuel in moderation: A full fuel tank increases the vehicle weight. A fuel tank that is half to three-quarters full is best suited for city driving." Could you put the above statement to test to see what's difference in efficiency when driving with full tank versus half tank in your 3 typical driving scenarios. Keep up the good work🙏
I don't think I would notice a difference, I would probably need a laboratory to measure that. We're talking about 20kg difference between half a tank and full. That's about 1.6% the mass of the car. One slight difference in road conditions will probably make a bigger difference to the result.
On the surface this advice seems unlikely to be a good one. My bet is whatever fuel you save by not carrying 20 or 30 kg of fuel (which is like 2% of an average car weight, and weight makes almost no difference in fuel consumption at constant speed, it only matters when you accelerate) you will burn doing extra refuelling stops.
I'm soooo glad I'm not the only one to keep track of their fuel economy on their cars. I've got a spreadsheet going back 5 or 6 cars keeping track of almost everything including ppl, mileage, where I fuelled up and I calculate stuff like mpg, pence per mile and also a comment column to say what the drive included like driving across the country on motorways etc. The best I've had so far was an old diesel M-reg Vauxhall Astra. Filled up at Exeter, drive to Scunthorpe and back on 1 tank and filled back up at Exeter managing 72mpg. I now drive a 61 plate VW Passat estate and drive for fuel economy. I remember driving from Exeter to Laindon and drive there in my Passat estate and drive there doing 60mph and it cost £25 with a car packed full; 3 adults, 1 child and loads of luggage in the boot and packed around us. Had to drive back quicker due to the health of one of the team being elderly doing 70-75mph and it cost me about £35. I read the road and try and let the car slow down on its own rarely braking hard (emergencies!) and slow acceleration all without being a nuisance to other vehicles. Read the road ahead and do my best to adjust the speed according to what's up ahead. Used the air con instead of opening the windows where possible to reduce drag. Even now I can get up to 66mpg around back roads and if on the motorway I get around 56-60mpg.
Forgot to add. I use the tank method to calculate as I like to let it run down to just under quarter tank left and fill right up every time. Cash is a bit low at the moment so had to put a pause on it for a bit.
Great video Richard. Who would have thought a 2l sporty jobbie would be more economical than a 1.4l conventional motor? Massive surprise to me but I understand your reasoning on why this could be the case.
Modern skyactiv generation Mazdas are really fuel efficient for what they are, and more than likely to be able to reach or at least get close to their advertised fuel economy in real world driving
Great video and great channel! I passed my test over a decade ago, but your genuine passion for driving makes your videos hypnotic to watch - and I've learned a few great tips! Thanks Richard!
Hello Richard! Love these types of videos, they really show how much of a car enthusiast you are. I enjoy both the content on this channel and the second channel a lot. Maybe a better comparison to the Leon would be the 3rd Gen Mazda 3 with the 2 litre Skyactiv-G? They weigh similar, both are hatchbacks and FWD? If anyone in your area owns one maybe they can lend it to you again so you can test. Keep up the great content! :)
@@Johnykeys His second channel is "Richard Fanders". He's got the latest video linked in the community tab on this channel. I think you will enjoy the contents of the second channel.
I’ve passed my test a couple months ago and watched your videos to get more knowledge and confidence, and I just love that you drive a mx-5 it’s my dream car from how it looks to how it feels 😊
This particular Leon does not have the ACT cylinder deactivation system, which is a game changer. It reduces consumption with approx. 0.6-0.8 or more liters across the board. For example, at 125 km/h (indicated, 121 GPS) it consumes 5.4l/100 km (75mph@52.3 mpg imp), or 5.0 at 110 km/h (69mph@56.4 mpg imp). These are numbers I've been getting consistently for close to 7 years, with the car (an ST, or estate) laden or not. Interesting test nonetheless.
This is a great bit of analysis Richard. Surprisingly close considering that these are two completely different cars. It is interesting to see the progress made in efficiency over the years though. I have a 1994 Mazda MX5 1.8. It is lighter, less powerful and slower to 60 than yours, but I only get around 35mpg in mixed driving. However, as it’s a bit of a classic now I tend to only use it on nice days with the roof down. That destroys the aerodynamic - lifting off the throttle at high speed feels like the brakes are being applied!
Amazing comparison! I always assumed lower rpm’s equals better fuel consumption, but as I’ve been learning manual on my MX-5 ND2 and gaining confidence and driving more aggressively, I’m actually getting better gas mileage.
I, too, always thought that keeping rpms as low as possible would always get the best MPGs. I drive a 2019 Mazda6 NA automatic and would usually get between 32-35 when driving gently and shifting between 1600-2000 rpm. But I found driving more aggressively and using its snappy upshifts at around 2000-2300 rpm, I now usually get 36-38. People think I'm an aggressive driver, but I'm convinced that's the characteristic of Mazda's philosophy of "zoom zoom," so that's how it wants to be driven.
Mazda have certainly improved the efficiency of their engines. I have a 2014 NC (2 litre) and the best economy I've had from a full tank is 39.8 mpg. Still pretty pleased with that for what is meant to be a fun rather than economical car.
I had the Leon FR for 3 years, immediately followed by the Cupra version of the same car. Strangely I could get better MPG figures from the Cupra with the bigger engine capacity and twice the power.
Mazda is proud of it's right sizing and larger but economical engines without turbos. In the real world similar. Downside is you need to rev more to get the performance but in an MX5 thats a good thing especially with that gearchange. Less so in a hatchback.
Im getting 49.56 mpg since the car was new on average in my mazda 3 with a skyactiv-x engine :) great cars! The record i have on my daily commute is 65 mpg driving carefully on cruise control is perfect conditions on 16 inch winter tyres with low roll resistance. I have an 6-speed automatic.
These are such a joy and also informative. Keep up your amazing content Richard it's highly valuable and wonderfully put together aand produced. Review from long time viewer! ❤
One thing I've never done before as a car enthusiast is to change into the next gear at rev 2000. For cruising I do 2000-2500 how gear selection allows to do. on downhills I sometimes allow lower.
Thank God you waited the 10 seconds recommended by Mazda on cold start. That way the oil gets to all the engine components before you start putting pressure on them. Same applies to the Leon and any engine in the world for that matter. Thank God you waited on the Leon too. You should do that every single day of your cars’ lifespan. You don’t lose any money on fuel by doing that but you do something very good to the engines.
The heater, *pulls* the heat from the engine, not the other way around. In fact if your radiator+intercooler are not enough for the engine to handle the track use, you can max the heater and open the windows, that will help reduce engine heat
I'm going to have to give this a try in the E89 Z4 i've just recently bought. I average around 27 / 28mpg without actively trying to drive economically. Should be able to get it quite a bit higher.
Thanks Interesting test with no surprise results. Mazda has advantages like lighter weight, more aerodynamic shape and naturally aspirated engine which in light load conditions are actually more efficient than turbo charged ones
I see so the point of the story is with the error bar on trip computer readings we don’t really know 😅😅 the difference is insignificant. The weight won’t make much difference on the steady state (it only enters thru the rolling resistance at that point) but the aerodynamics (Mazda being shorter to the ground) very well might
Interesting video! I have a 24 year old 3.2 litre Boxster that, suffice to say, I have never and will never, look at its (lack of) economy 😂 It only does about 2000 miles a year though so doesn't really matter to me, it's all about the fun!
That's also interesting. I had the 1.4 140 in a Leon estate and its interesting what it does compared to my golf 1.5 150 and it confirms what I suspected. The Leon was more economical in town (42 v 38mpg) But the golf is more economical at 70 (53 v 47). On rural roads they are similar. I'd have thought the newer cleaner engine would have been better. But there is another difference. Leon was a manual and golf is a DSG. That long 7th really helps it above 50. But less economical in town. Also worth noting is the 1.4 140 is a smoother engine that is less harsh at high revs. I think I prefer the 1.4 over the 1.5 although it's pretty good in general use there is no reward from pushing it. Got my Cooper S convertible for that. Less fun than an MX5 (still very good fun) but dog can sit in the back and come with us.
Interesting video Richard, where you said in the video off the A12 was Silver End it was in fact Rivenhall End as Silver End is a few miles away from the A12 dual carriageway.
I've found Mazda does seem to make very efficient naturally aspirated engines at the moment. My Mazda 2 has a 1.5L mild 'hybrid' (if you can call it that) and claims to get around 56 mpg on motorways, 58-62 on country roads, and about 47 in town. The downside of course is the need to change gears quite often, as its gear ratio seems to be quite long and can't maintain 70 on the more hilly motorways in 6th as the RPM is barely more than 2000.
the big Problem is when you dont drive it eco a turbo needs 3-4 times more fuel than in normal when you drive sporty you will see a far bigger different. target of downsizing is to have low consumption when driving economical with the possiblility to speed up fast when necessary in exceptional or emergency sittuation (without taking the economy into account)
There's a more accurate way. Fill both tanks until it clicks off. Do each run, but a decent one. Not short like 15 miles! Refil the tanks until they click. Work out the litres into gallons ( x by 4.5461) and then divide the milage by the amount of gallons used. This gives a true and accurate MPG and not relying on the computer.
Great video but lets face facts the MX-5 might be slightly more economical on fuel but all things considered would probably cost considerably more than the Leon over the ownership of the 2 vehicles for the average car user. The few quid saved per month on fuel would be outstripped by finance payments, insurance, services/maintenance and any repairs needed. Also, the Leon is hugely more practical. Still, I understand you're not advocating for everybody to give up their hatchbacks in favour of a sports car, I just feel that learner/new drivers should understand that fuel economy is only part of the cost of running a car.
You mentioned that the Miata is a small car, but the Cd isn't actually very good, at .35. The Leon on the other hand, seems to have .29. This is from a quick bit of google searching, but falls in line with what I would expect. I didn't try to look up frontal areas though, so the MX-5 probably still has less total drag, but it maybe closer than you think. There will be other factors too, such as gear ratios, tire size and engine tuning. This is a very good showing for the new generation of Miatas though! My 2000 Miata got terrible fuel economy! I drove it pretty hard most of the time and didn't have good conditions for fuel efficiency anyway.. But still, I averaged around 23 mpg US. Terrible for such a small car. The older models have very short gears and less efficient engines though. None the less, it is a sports car first and I do miss that car very badly.
Theres a lot of variables at the end of the day, but im keen to believe, that in this country due to road layout, a 1.6 vs 1.6 turbo petrol is only going to be better on fuel if more consistent motorway use is a thing, if you live in the sticks with b-roads and roundabouts plus navigating past small towns, then i see a turbo engine being worse on economy just due to the fact that someone navigates through more corners than the average and has the turbo spooling up and down more often in their "luxury shopping cart" when using their car for typical general use. I mean i try to think of it the case when the older folk buy a car and believe it to be better on fuel but then being moderately dissapointed when its getting 35mpg instead of the 36mpg they expected.
The MX5 is front engine, rear drive. That has a higher parasitic loss than front front. Mazda (USA) once said in a press release that they don't tune their cars to gain the (US EPA) MPG tests, they tune them for real world driving. The 1.5L 2011-14 Mazda2 was sold in the US and the EPA MPG estimates were easily beaten by owners driving normally.
The Seat Leon becomes more expensive in the long run. When turbocharger fails then turbo repair/replacement costs will be expensive, in some cases if the broken turbo has leaked too much oil into exhaust system, you probably also have to replace catalytic converter.
I've done 19,000 hours in the Leon and it's still on the original turbo. Think how many years it would take to do 19,000 hours if you were to drive 1 hour a day.
Someone pointed out that when mercedes replaced a V6 with a turbo i4 in one of their cars (can’t remember the model), the reported combined comsumption went down only by 0.2L/100km, or something along those lines. HP to HP it doesn’t help
Hello Mr. Fanders, A very interesting and insightful test and, in my opinion, a very important part of the correct handling of a motor vehicle in today's world; small fun fact, I have been driving my Renault MEGANE Grandtour Mk3 Privilege 2.0 16V CVT for over 14 years with an average consumption of between 7.38 liters and 7.58 liters per 100 kilometers, which corresponds to the standard consumption of 7.4 liters per 100 kilometers specified by the manufacturer RENAULT and I'll be driving my MEGANE for a long time! Another request from me: Could you please create a video where you are explaining the differences in British road traffic in opposite to Austrian road traffic (not just the fact of left-hand traffic), but the main intersection and road traffic rules, the mandatory taxes required to use British roads and to what extent my Austrian driving license (pink, old driving license issued in 2000) is valid in the UK? Thank you in advance and best wishes from Styria, Austria 🇦🇹, Christoph Grail 🤝 I left a subscription!
Your comment reads like an ad. "I used to suffer from high fuel consumption, but now, thanks to my RENAULT MEGANE TURBO CVT 16, I've been driving faster and cheaper ever since!" *Insert stock footage*
The cars are geared completely differently, as they are for different end tasks. MX5 is geared for acceleration, to make up for it's lack of power (184ps is not a lot these days for a 'sports car'). It is a bit lighter though which is definately going to help (and maybe more aerodynamic too). I'd assume the Seat has longer gearing. FWIW, my last car, a tuned M140i, weighed 1480Kg, had 455bhp/643nm, and I could get an indicated 42+mpg on a run. Pretty good for a fairly heavy, quite powerful, tuned hot hatch. I now have an OG M2, and even though it is less powerful (standard power 370bhp), and weighs only slightly more at 1520Kg, it uses a lot more fuel. I didn't buy it for it's economy though, and I really couldn't care. Interesting video though, and 49mpg from the MX5 is probably better than I expected. The Seat seems pretty good considering it's done over 200k miles 🙂
Bit of an apples to oranges comparison, different cars (+weights), very different engine designs, different gearboxes and final drive ratios, different drag co-efficients and probably different tyres...
I have a 1.4tsi leon and my combined L/100km is 5-6 liters I dont baby my car and I drive around 2000rpm all the time I think it uses less fuel I got it to 5.1L/100km one time on country roads with 4 people in the car
Always idle my engine for at least few minutes when its below zero outside. Prefer to spend some more fuel than harm my engine with thick, cold oil. I have ford focus mk2 1.6 NA.
@@flolin8766 It's not. Your engine needs some time to be fully lubricated, longer during winter. If you rev with cold oil you may get metal to metal contact in the engine=sooner engine failure.
mine ND 2l need 6,7 per100km but i do have an sport exaust. i dont drive it in eco (i love to excellerate) and i drive mostly on semi-tracks mostly up to 5000-7000 rounds/min (only use it for fun so i drive normaly out of rush hour and city). i think the way to the "Track route" i drive 20min over country road and urban without trafik and mostly in constant 80km/h in 5-6gear and 50km/h in 4th so i do have 3,5-6l (uphill he needs mostly 5,5-6l by constant speed) on 2/3rd of the time where i do not driving like a lunatic :) its balancing it out. overall i am happy with the consumption of 6,7 with winter tires (even when i dont daily it in traffic)
Hi Richard, i love all your videos man keep up the good work, i was just wondering if you would consider when doing these videos to try for example the 2 litre on the first road and then showthe 1.4L straight after as it makes keeping track easier? im also more than happy to know if there is a specific reason its done that way, also your learner videos are extremely helpful and interesting to watch, i havent not finished a single video of yours, great work!
Hey mate. Long time watcher, first time commenter. Have you noticed much gear synchro wear in the time youve owned the Seat? Do you think it slips into gear as easy as it did new? Love the videos, keep up the great work
What mode do you use on the Leon? Because I saw, the Mode button is light on, it means it is not Normal, it is Eco or Sport or Individual? The throttle response is different.
Direct injection and turbo.. Spool too quick hence need more fuel.. also fuel in much higher pressure. Great for torque but N/A still is the most well rounded kind of engine
This reference about the rowing machine is not true. Damper setting on 1 is for explosive rowers who don't make a lot rows per minute, but each row is explosive and powerful. Damper setting on ten gives a lot resistance and therefore the rower needs to make more RPM by putting less power in each row.
Do the auto climate control video please, I’ve always wondered how precise are them, on my Golf 21C feels comfortable but then on my Discovery 23C feels comfortable.
6:15 "I'm not going to drive especially economically" Granted... I believe it's just as hard for you as for me to NOT drive in an economical manner 🤣So I bet this is more economical than "average Joe" anyway... Yet another great test, and your attention to details to keep tests as fair as possible is amazing! Keep it coming 👌 NEDC combined figures looks to be Mazda 6.9 l/100km vs Seat 5.2 l/100km. A massive 25% lower for Seat! I would assume that's a bit much, but for sure I expected the downsized engine to come out on top... You mention the Mazda is lighter. +/- 100kg really shouldn't affect consumption, especially at steady speed. As far as I can find, MX5 CD is 0.36 and Seat is 0.32, but with a bigger frontal area... One can only conclude that Mazda know a thing or two how to make engines I guess..? And the NEDC/WLTP tests isn't worth much when concidering your choice of cars..?
I am definitly no traffic expert, but I have not seen any warning for the wall crashing corner,. In my country, many of the dangerous offramps have a sign for sharp corner and a speed limit, sometimes just 30 kph with a arrow pointing at the offramp., and maybe even a sing for "Dangerous Offramp" below the sharp corner sign. I think they could reduce the crashes if they just hang a 20mph sign above the blue sign at 14:18
Your Mazda gets better fuel economy than my 2004 commuter hack Peugeot 206 with a 1.1i 60bhp lump. It's been struggling to reach 43mpg (tank to tank fill up) using E10 and that's on a 13 mile run down the A14/M11. Low fifth gear ratio doesn't help.
the reason why the MX-5 makes so much fun to drive even when it is not mineblowing fast is its smal and the brain interpret the speed different than in a big car. Excemple: in a Dodge with 400PS you can speed up to 100km/h in 5-6s but even when you drive 130km/h it feels not fast. in an MX-5 it feels faster with higher agility higher speed in corners, its like rollercoaster or driving a Gokart at 60-75km/h the brain interprets speed differently comparing how big the car is so the speed feels more excitingand. also the "longer" acceleration of 7s compare to ather high PS sport or muscel cars feel better because its not over as fast and constant PS increas over the number of revolutions makes it extremly enjoyable most cars have downsizing turbos where nothing/less happens till the turbo is kicking in (same enjoy the powerboost of turbos how press you in the seet but in truth naturally aspirated Engines are more enjoyable because you can exactliy kontroll the linear poweroutput with your foot). In ather words the car do what you whant and thats what you are enjoying, and it tricks your brain and let you think/feel that you are faster and the drive is more exiting than it is. "it makes more fun to drive slow car fast than a fast car slow"
i dont think it has anything to do with drag coefficient, urban and 70mph difference is roughly the same on both cars. when air resistance would be a factor in this example i think you would suspect a larger delta between urban and 70mph. i suspect the fact that the engine technology is newer is the biggest factor, then weight, then other resistances
I don't need to see the video to know the 2 Litre NA is more economical. It's also going to need much less in the way of maintenance too. The primary consumer of fuel is unecessary acceleration. Don't speed up if you're going to slow down again. Stop/Start is also silly because you consume about as much fuel starting an engine as you do for idling for about 10 seconds. It's silly to turn your engine off.
Interesting. I've always compared my MR2 1.8 NAs fuel economy to my dad's 1.6 Turbo Tucson. My car is only 2-3 mpg better in town, but 5-6 better on main roads. Interestingly my Celica with the same engine basically matched his economy despite not being much heavier than the MR2, and being far more aerodynamic. The only difference I can think of that'd do that is the gear ratios - the MR2 sits about 300rpm lower at 70. I wonder if weight distribution can effect economy...?
important point to note about the SKYACTIV G also is that the engine in the Mazda 3 has much longer ratios with the gearbox in the 120HP trim. i do a frequent derbyshire to hampshire trip and i often hit 52-53MPG (75k on the clock, 2017 model). These engines in the mazda's are just stupidly economical considering how great they are.
I’m averaging 56mpg in a Mazda 2 (mixed driving). 74mpg on a drive last week. Agreed, amazing cars
Same here. Mazda 3 2017 with the BBR chip. The gearing (diff) is so long it does about the same speed in V as the 165HP version in VI.
You do know that long gears is nothing to be proud of and sucks the joy out of every car enthusiast? Oh, and also makes the car slower to accelerate? Oh, and also makes you less economic at lower speeds?
Just sold my 2017 G-165 M3, wouldn't have enjoyed it half as much with that shitty gearbox they put into G120.
@@badbasic it's the same box. Differential is different. And mine has more torque than the standard G165. And it does over 65MPH in second gear, so you could drive it in second gear always on any B Road. And it uses less RON98 fuel. Does 0..60 in less than 8 seconds.
Less economic at lower speeds? I drive from 36MPH in VI and then it does 3.5l/100km (67MPG). The lower the RPM the lower fuel consumption.
See Conquer Driving
@@asphalthedgehog6580 Always driving it in second gear on B roads? You try to act like a petrolhead, but no real petrolhead would enjoy such a thing. I've tried both, a colleague of mine has g120 tuned to 165 hp, he much prefers mine for the driving dynamic. As for 36mph in 5th, I easily did 31mph in 6th, so no.
Hi Richard!! It’s my turn to say that I passed my test today with 4 minors and the examiner couldn’t even remember why he marked one of them 😂. Your videos have been absolutely amazing in helping me to pass and it’s safe to say I will still be an enthusiastic viewer
That's fantastic news! Thank you for watching and congratulations on passing!
Congrats!
The test examiner couldn't remember one of the minors? Was he in shock from the other 3 minors you ran over? 🤣
@@dodgywheelsandropeywiring5697 no he was so impressed with the rest of my driving that he couldn’t remember one of my faults 😊
Congo mate
Hey, I just passed my driving test with only 3 minors! I have to say thank you for the great informative content you provided, hours of lessons finally paid off.
congrats! only just done 3 lessons myself but i can more than agree as im already confident enough on most roads thanks to the help of richard!
That's fantastic news! Thank you for watching and congratulations on passing!
why were there 3 children in the car?
why did you take 3 children to take your driving test?
@@gabrielwalker421 Why assume that?
Would love to see a set of car reviews that are with likely first cars for new drivers. Thinking stuff like 2010 polos, fiestas, corsas etc :)
Me to, that would be amazing!
My 2010 fiesta does around 40 mpg urban.
If you wanted some numbers for a cheap 1st car. The 1KR engine in the peugot 107, toyota aygo and citroen c1 regularly gives me 65+mpg i managed to get into the low 80s but that was because i was doing 50mph on dual carriage ways (not ideal). The car is ok for its purpose of city driving but not motorways as it feels gutless when approaching 60. Especially with multiple people and a 5 speed gear box. £20per year road tax and insurance group 3 out of 50 so its almost as cheap as you can get. So many more fun cars out there but for a cheap runaround its great.
average 35-40 in a 2012 fiesta urban driving, 50+ on Motorways
''Paragon Cars London'' does great car reviews
The fact that a 2 liter is more economical than a 1.4 really conflicts with my intuition. But I guess that’s what tests are for. Great vid!
the leon is bigger heavier and has a turbo which can drink a lot more
@@AnimeWorld_1-2 In my experience turbo's (not talking about diesels) tend to fall in no mans land.
At normal driving you barely ask much from the engine thus the turbo isn't being used much. Meanwhile the engine has a lower compression ratio to compensate for having a turbo so it doesn't do too well compared to a slightly bigger naturally aspirated engine. When driving it sporty, the turbo kicks in harder and you actually use more fuel than a slightly bigger engine naturally aspirated because there's more air in the cylinders than an N/A engine could suck on it's own and thus more fuel must be added by the ECU for the mixture to not lean out too much. In other words, more fuel usage.
I mean yeah, you can easily ask for more performance from a turbo with a chiptune but at that point you are more likely chasing performance and not economy. So in my humble opinion I don't know where petrol turbo's shine the most. Like what is the best usage case for them?
Not to mention having more parts that can fail if it doesn't improve economy by much is questionable to me for reliability.
@@surena9451 ye I get your point overall you’re in the same position with a bigger NA and a smaller turbo engine I guess it’s just a cool piece of engineering or marketing the smaller engine might make people want to buy the car thinking that it’s more economical because “it’s smaller” turbo engines also will be more economical at low rpms as the turbo doesn’t have to work at all (depending on size of turbo tho) for me personally a cool feature abt 1.4 turbo engine is that insurance is somehow cheaper than on a 2.0l even though their performance is exactly the same lol
@@AnimeWorld_1-2 The size of the Engine matters less than the size of the car.
mx5 is a small ,aerodynamic and lightweight car.
That same engine in an SUV would produce worse economy than the Seat Leon I willing to bet
@@surena9451 Modern turbo engines tend to be more efficient (and lighter) than similar power NA engines as the turbo effectively allows the engine to collect otherwise wasted engine from the exhaust, but it varies a lot between manufacturers and will probably depend more on the car itself and how you drive.
the on off gas pedal on cold starts is something i have been looking for as a reason on why my car hates me sometimes and this man once again clears all other channels and mentions the cause and logic. Bravo
Thanks so much for your videos, I passed my test recently with 2 minors primarily due to watching your channel. For anyone about to do their test, try not to stress as the stress will mess you up
Congratulations on passing!
Passed today with 0 minors! Your videos have helped a lot in the process along with getting me more interested in driving too. Thank you Richard.
That's really great to hear! Thank you for watching and congratulations on passing!
Hey Richard, just wanted to say i finally passed my driving test today 2nd time, your videos have been a huge contributing factor to my pass as i had 0 prior lessons with an instructor and instead learnt with family. i have been into cars since before i could touch the pedals and i am eternally grateful for your videos for helping me to not only pass my test but learn from a fellow enthusiast . cant thank you enough
From technical side, apart from what has already been mentioned, a great deal of technological advancement has be put on the Mazda with their Skyactive engines. Apart from the high compression ratio, optimised intake and exhaust arrangements, weight loss etc. it all adds up. It's an area where average ordinary consumers don't care but I think the result speaks for itself and make the Mazda engine development team proud.
Always such a pleasure to watch these videos 👍
My dad passed your videos on to me, and they’ve been extremely useful. Just passed my test this morning. Thank you so much for all you do for us learners. Best of luck with everything! 👊🏾❤️
Congratulations on passing!
This Mazda is a gem. Hope it continues in today's EV/SUV-obsessed market.
In my economical bare bones 2012 VW up! 1.0 (59 bhp) I manage 48.4 mpg without air condition or other creature comforts. If I take fuel-saving to the absolute extreme, I can achieve 53.46 mpg, but I'm also a bit of a hazard. You would think that such a small low power engine could be more economical. In comparison to that in my 1998 MX-5 1.6 (109 bhp) I manage an average of 31.4 mpg with sportily driving. The same driving style achieves an unimpressive 37.76 mpg in the up!. So if you drive the up! sportily, then you lose almost every advantage of the smaller engine.
Thanks for including metric measurements! (L/100km)
Not sure if you will read it but I wanted to say you are a great teacher and have helped me a lot even from the other side of the world. I'll have my driving test next Monday!
That's really great to hear! Good luck with your test!
Thank you so much for your videos, I passed my driving test today, first try. I had zero lessons, however as a full cat A motorcyclist, i drove a reliant Rialto 3 wheeler for just over 3 years, giving me my experience, you videos among others helped me prepare for the test, I took a gamble on UA-cam lessons and it paid off.
I had a March 2017 2 litre MX5RF from new and kept it for 6 years. I was constantly surprised and impressed by the fuel economy. On several occasions I checked the MPG manually and compared it to the car's computer, getting very similar results each time. Typically throughout the six years I had it, I was getting 45-48MPG. If I drove like an absolute angel, I could reliably get the MX5 to return 53MPG on my 27 mile, mostly rural, but good quality, commute.
It was a thoroughly enjoyable car to own and drive and, in my opinion, one of the best looking cars on the road for the price. The only downside for me is that I am "leg tall" and I was right on the edge of the MX5 being too cramped for me.
Hi richard! I learned how to drive all from your vids and just got my license today! I wanna say thanks you're the best!
That's fantastic news! Thank you for watching and congratulations on passing!
I passed my test today with just one minor, was my 2nd go but still so happy, your longer vids on how you drive around citys (Brighton) helped alot. Should do more. Thanks again.
That's great to hear! Thank you for watching and congratulations on passing the driving test!
Passed my test this morning, watching your videos definitely helped. Thank you! 😁
That's fantastic news! Thank you for watching and congratulations on passing!
Richard, in my VW Jetta owners manual, under Eco Tips section, it mentions:
"Refuel in moderation: A full fuel tank increases the vehicle weight. A fuel tank that is half to three-quarters full is best suited for city driving."
Could you put the above statement to test to see what's difference in efficiency when driving with full tank versus half tank in your 3 typical driving scenarios.
Keep up the good work🙏
I don't think I would notice a difference, I would probably need a laboratory to measure that. We're talking about 20kg difference between half a tank and full. That's about 1.6% the mass of the car. One slight difference in road conditions will probably make a bigger difference to the result.
On the surface this advice seems unlikely to be a good one.
My bet is whatever fuel you save by not carrying 20 or 30 kg of fuel (which is like 2% of an average car weight, and weight makes almost no difference in fuel consumption at constant speed, it only matters when you accelerate) you will burn doing extra refuelling stops.
Hi Richard! I passed first time today, and your videos helped me massively, I couldn't have done it without you! thank you!
I'm soooo glad I'm not the only one to keep track of their fuel economy on their cars. I've got a spreadsheet going back 5 or 6 cars keeping track of almost everything including ppl, mileage, where I fuelled up and I calculate stuff like mpg, pence per mile and also a comment column to say what the drive included like driving across the country on motorways etc.
The best I've had so far was an old diesel M-reg Vauxhall Astra. Filled up at Exeter, drive to Scunthorpe and back on 1 tank and filled back up at Exeter managing 72mpg. I now drive a 61 plate VW Passat estate and drive for fuel economy. I remember driving from Exeter to Laindon and drive there in my Passat estate and drive there doing 60mph and it cost £25 with a car packed full; 3 adults, 1 child and loads of luggage in the boot and packed around us. Had to drive back quicker due to the health of one of the team being elderly doing 70-75mph and it cost me about £35. I read the road and try and let the car slow down on its own rarely braking hard (emergencies!) and slow acceleration all without being a nuisance to other vehicles. Read the road ahead and do my best to adjust the speed according to what's up ahead. Used the air con instead of opening the windows where possible to reduce drag. Even now I can get up to 66mpg around back roads and if on the motorway I get around 56-60mpg.
Forgot to add. I use the tank method to calculate as I like to let it run down to just under quarter tank left and fill right up every time. Cash is a bit low at the moment so had to put a pause on it for a bit.
Great video Richard. Who would have thought a 2l sporty jobbie would be more economical than a 1.4l conventional motor? Massive surprise to me but I understand your reasoning on why this could be the case.
Modern skyactiv generation Mazdas are really fuel efficient for what they are, and more than likely to be able to reach or at least get close to their advertised fuel economy in real world driving
Also check the kerb weight of both cars.
I am impressed that the Leon is less than 100kg heavier than the MX-5 being so much bigger, having 4 doors and 5 seat capacity.
Great video and great channel! I passed my test over a decade ago, but your genuine passion for driving makes your videos hypnotic to watch - and I've learned a few great tips! Thanks Richard!
Hello Richard! Love these types of videos, they really show how much of a car enthusiast you are. I enjoy both the content on this channel and the second channel a lot.
Maybe a better comparison to the Leon would be the 3rd Gen Mazda 3 with the 2 litre Skyactiv-G? They weigh similar, both are hatchbacks and FWD? If anyone in your area owns one maybe they can lend it to you again so you can test.
Keep up the great content! :)
What's his second channel
@@Johnykeys His second channel is "Richard Fanders". He's got the latest video linked in the community tab on this channel. I think you will enjoy the contents of the second channel.
@@nemanjasavic3389 thanks
I got a new (2022) Seat Leon Limousine. If driven carefully, it can absolutely do below 5L/100km. I'm amazed by that really.
I’ve passed my test a couple months ago and watched your videos to get more knowledge and confidence, and I just love that you drive a mx-5 it’s my dream car from how it looks to how it feels 😊
bro you go so in depth i loved it
This particular Leon does not have the ACT cylinder deactivation system, which is a game changer. It reduces consumption with approx. 0.6-0.8 or more liters across the board.
For example, at 125 km/h (indicated, 121 GPS) it consumes 5.4l/100 km (75mph@52.3 mpg imp), or 5.0 at 110 km/h (69mph@56.4 mpg imp). These are numbers I've been getting consistently for close to 7 years, with the car (an ST, or estate) laden or not.
Interesting test nonetheless.
This is a great bit of analysis Richard. Surprisingly close considering that these are two completely different cars.
It is interesting to see the progress made in efficiency over the years though. I have a 1994 Mazda MX5 1.8. It is lighter, less powerful and slower to 60 than yours, but I only get around 35mpg in mixed driving. However, as it’s a bit of a classic now I tend to only use it on nice days with the roof down. That destroys the aerodynamic - lifting off the throttle at high speed feels like the brakes are being applied!
Amazing comparison! I always assumed lower rpm’s equals better fuel consumption, but as I’ve been learning manual on my MX-5 ND2 and gaining confidence and driving more aggressively, I’m actually getting better gas mileage.
I, too, always thought that keeping rpms as low as possible would always get the best MPGs. I drive a 2019 Mazda6 NA automatic and would usually get between 32-35 when driving gently and shifting between 1600-2000 rpm. But I found driving more aggressively and using its snappy upshifts at around 2000-2300 rpm, I now usually get 36-38. People think I'm an aggressive driver, but I'm convinced that's the characteristic of Mazda's philosophy of "zoom zoom," so that's how it wants to be driven.
Passed recently. Your videos been really helpful. Cheers for that mate. Still watching you when im free❤
That's fantastic news! Thank you for watching and congratulations on passing!
Mazda have certainly improved the efficiency of their engines. I have a 2014 NC (2 litre) and the best economy I've had from a full tank is 39.8 mpg. Still pretty pleased with that for what is meant to be a fun rather than economical car.
I had the Leon FR for 3 years, immediately followed by the Cupra version of the same car. Strangely I could get better MPG figures from the Cupra with the bigger engine capacity and twice the power.
Mazda is proud of it's right sizing and larger but economical engines without turbos. In the real world similar. Downside is you need to rev more to get the performance but in an MX5 thats a good thing especially with that gearchange. Less so in a hatchback.
Im getting 49.56 mpg since the car was new on average in my mazda 3 with a skyactiv-x engine :) great cars!
The record i have on my daily commute is 65 mpg driving carefully on cruise control is perfect conditions on 16 inch winter tyres with low roll resistance.
I have an 6-speed automatic.
That's a very impressive average.
These are such a joy and also informative. Keep up your amazing content Richard it's highly valuable and wonderfully put together aand produced. Review from long time viewer! ❤
Great video, I agree the climate control differences video would be quite interesting
One thing I've never done before as a car enthusiast is to change into the next gear at rev 2000. For cruising I do 2000-2500 how gear selection allows to do. on downhills I sometimes allow lower.
Thank God you waited the 10 seconds recommended by Mazda on cold start. That way the oil gets to all the engine components before you start putting pressure on them.
Same applies to the Leon and any engine in the world for that matter. Thank God you waited on the Leon too. You should do that every single day of your cars’ lifespan. You don’t lose any money on fuel by doing that but you do something very good to the engines.
Wow the fuel economy is good. My commodore is nearly double that on Urban roads.
thanks for these continued high quality videos
The heater, *pulls* the heat from the engine, not the other way around. In fact if your radiator+intercooler are not enough for the engine to handle the track use, you can max the heater and open the windows, that will help reduce engine heat
I remember when my old Cortina was overheating and I told my wife to put the heater on. She said that’s stupid it will only make it hotter!🤣
I do like my 1 cylinder 3 wheeler though.. Great video
I'm going to have to give this a try in the E89 Z4 i've just recently bought. I average around 27 / 28mpg without actively trying to drive economically. Should be able to get it quite a bit higher.
Thanks
Interesting test with no surprise results. Mazda has advantages like lighter weight, more aerodynamic shape and naturally aspirated engine which in light load conditions are actually more efficient than turbo charged ones
Love these kind of videos Richard thank you 🙏
I see so the point of the story is with the error bar on trip computer readings we don’t really know 😅😅 the difference is insignificant. The weight won’t make much difference on the steady state (it only enters thru the rolling resistance at that point) but the aerodynamics (Mazda being shorter to the ground) very well might
Video idea - Difference between diesels and petrols including benefits and drive feel :) this video was very entertaining. Cheers
I have a 1.25 fiesta and it does 40 mpg urban, my golf 1.4 TSI does 34 mpg urban. Fiesta does 54 mpg motorway and golf 56 mpg
Interesting video! I have a 24 year old 3.2 litre Boxster that, suffice to say, I have never and will never, look at its (lack of) economy 😂 It only does about 2000 miles a year though so doesn't really matter to me, it's all about the fun!
It’s not about revs, it’s only about power needed and efficiency. BTW: gear is nearly never too high.
That's also interesting. I had the 1.4 140 in a Leon estate and its interesting what it does compared to my golf 1.5 150 and it confirms what I suspected. The Leon was more economical in town (42 v 38mpg) But the golf is more economical at 70 (53 v 47). On rural roads they are similar. I'd have thought the newer cleaner engine would have been better. But there is another difference. Leon was a manual and golf is a DSG. That long 7th really helps it above 50. But less economical in town. Also worth noting is the 1.4 140 is a smoother engine that is less harsh at high revs. I think I prefer the 1.4 over the 1.5 although it's pretty good in general use there is no reward from pushing it. Got my Cooper S convertible for that. Less fun than an MX5 (still very good fun) but dog can sit in the back and come with us.
Smaller boosted engines are proven not to last as long as the larger engines they replaced in most cases.
Interesting video Richard, where you said in the video off the A12 was Silver End it was in fact Rivenhall End as Silver End is a few miles away from the A12 dual carriageway.
It's sign posted silver end, that's why I refer to it as the silver end exit. But yes you are right.
I've found Mazda does seem to make very efficient naturally aspirated engines at the moment. My Mazda 2 has a 1.5L mild 'hybrid' (if you can call it that) and claims to get around 56 mpg on motorways, 58-62 on country roads, and about 47 in town. The downside of course is the need to change gears quite often, as its gear ratio seems to be quite long and can't maintain 70 on the more hilly motorways in 6th as the RPM is barely more than 2000.
the big Problem is when you dont drive it eco a turbo needs 3-4 times more fuel than in normal when you drive sporty you will see a far bigger different. target of downsizing is to have low consumption when driving economical with the possiblility to speed up fast when necessary in exceptional or emergency sittuation (without taking the economy into account)
I dont know how, but I somehow passed my drivingtest
Congratulations on passing!
There's a more accurate way.
Fill both tanks until it clicks off.
Do each run, but a decent one. Not short like 15 miles!
Refil the tanks until they click.
Work out the litres into gallons ( x by 4.5461) and then divide the milage by the amount of gallons used.
This gives a true and accurate MPG and not relying on the computer.
Great video but lets face facts the MX-5 might be slightly more economical on fuel but all things considered would probably cost considerably more than the Leon over the ownership of the 2 vehicles for the average car user. The few quid saved per month on fuel would be outstripped by finance payments, insurance, services/maintenance and any repairs needed. Also, the Leon is hugely more practical.
Still, I understand you're not advocating for everybody to give up their hatchbacks in favour of a sports car, I just feel that learner/new drivers should understand that fuel economy is only part of the cost of running a car.
26:26 I really want to see that type of video, especially from you. You could also test if the speed you're driving at changes the temperature
You mentioned that the Miata is a small car, but the Cd isn't actually very good, at .35. The Leon on the other hand, seems to have .29. This is from a quick bit of google searching, but falls in line with what I would expect. I didn't try to look up frontal areas though, so the MX-5 probably still has less total drag, but it maybe closer than you think. There will be other factors too, such as gear ratios, tire size and engine tuning. This is a very good showing for the new generation of Miatas though! My 2000 Miata got terrible fuel economy! I drove it pretty hard most of the time and didn't have good conditions for fuel efficiency anyway.. But still, I averaged around 23 mpg US. Terrible for such a small car. The older models have very short gears and less efficient engines though. None the less, it is a sports car first and I do miss that car very badly.
Theres a lot of variables at the end of the day, but im keen to believe, that in this country due to road layout, a 1.6 vs 1.6 turbo petrol is only going to be better on fuel if more consistent motorway use is a thing, if you live in the sticks with b-roads and roundabouts plus navigating past small towns, then i see a turbo engine being worse on economy just due to the fact that someone navigates through more corners than the average and has the turbo spooling up and down more often in their "luxury shopping cart" when using their car for typical general use.
I mean i try to think of it the case when the older folk buy a car and believe it to be better on fuel but then being moderately dissapointed when its getting 35mpg instead of the 36mpg they expected.
The MX5 is front engine, rear drive. That has a higher parasitic loss than front front. Mazda (USA) once said in a press release that they don't tune their cars to gain the (US EPA) MPG tests, they tune them for real world driving. The 1.5L 2011-14 Mazda2 was sold in the US and the EPA MPG estimates were easily beaten by owners driving normally.
The Seat Leon becomes more expensive in the long run. When turbocharger fails then turbo repair/replacement costs will be expensive, in some cases if the broken turbo has leaked too much oil into exhaust system, you probably also have to replace catalytic converter.
I've done 19,000 hours in the Leon and it's still on the original turbo. Think how many years it would take to do 19,000 hours if you were to drive 1 hour a day.
Someone pointed out that when mercedes replaced a V6 with a turbo i4 in one of their cars (can’t remember the model), the reported combined comsumption went down only by 0.2L/100km, or something along those lines. HP to HP it doesn’t help
My favourite youtuber ❤❤
When I’m “hyper mile-ing” I tend to find that if you don’t exceed 2,000 revs in any gear it gives you excellent fuel economy 👍
Hello Mr. Fanders,
A very interesting and insightful test and, in my opinion, a very important part of the correct handling of a motor vehicle in today's world; small fun fact, I have been driving my Renault MEGANE Grandtour Mk3 Privilege 2.0 16V CVT for over 14 years with an average consumption of between 7.38 liters and 7.58 liters per 100 kilometers, which corresponds to the standard consumption of 7.4 liters per 100 kilometers specified by the manufacturer RENAULT and I'll be driving my MEGANE for a long time!
Another request from me: Could you please create a video where you are explaining the differences in British road traffic in opposite to Austrian road traffic (not just the fact of left-hand traffic), but the main intersection and road traffic rules, the mandatory taxes required to use British roads and to what extent my Austrian driving license (pink, old driving license issued in 2000) is valid in the UK?
Thank you in advance and best wishes from Styria, Austria 🇦🇹, Christoph Grail 🤝 I left a subscription!
Your comment reads like an ad. "I used to suffer from high fuel consumption, but now, thanks to my RENAULT MEGANE TURBO CVT 16, I've been driving faster and cheaper ever since!" *Insert stock footage*
@@BichaelStevensdon't think it's a turbo.
@@RWL2012 Jesus Christ that's not my point, nitwit
@@RWL2012 Jesus Christ thats not my point at all.... 🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂
YEAH!!! LETS GO!!!!
The cars are geared completely differently, as they are for different end tasks. MX5 is geared for acceleration, to make up for it's lack of power (184ps is not a lot these days for a 'sports car'). It is a bit lighter though which is definately going to help (and maybe more aerodynamic too).
I'd assume the Seat has longer gearing.
FWIW, my last car, a tuned M140i, weighed 1480Kg, had 455bhp/643nm, and I could get an indicated 42+mpg on a run. Pretty good for a fairly heavy, quite powerful, tuned hot hatch.
I now have an OG M2, and even though it is less powerful (standard power 370bhp), and weighs only slightly more at 1520Kg, it uses a lot more fuel.
I didn't buy it for it's economy though, and I really couldn't care.
Interesting video though, and 49mpg from the MX5 is probably better than I expected. The Seat seems pretty good considering it's done over 200k miles 🙂
Bit of an apples to oranges comparison, different cars (+weights), very different engine designs, different gearboxes and final drive ratios, different drag co-efficients and probably different tyres...
I have a 1.4tsi leon and my combined L/100km is 5-6 liters
I dont baby my car and I drive around 2000rpm all the time I think it uses less fuel
I got it to 5.1L/100km one time on country roads with 4 people in the car
Always idle my engine for at least few minutes when its below zero outside. Prefer to spend some more fuel than harm my engine with thick, cold oil. I have ford focus mk2 1.6 NA.
Isn't it better for the engine to rev not on idle to get the oil faster to optimal temperature?
@@flolin8766 It's not. Your engine needs some time to be fully lubricated, longer during winter. If you rev with cold oil you may get metal to metal contact in the engine=sooner engine failure.
mine ND 2l need 6,7 per100km but i do have an sport exaust. i dont drive it in eco (i love to excellerate) and i drive mostly on semi-tracks mostly up to 5000-7000 rounds/min (only use it for fun so i drive normaly out of rush hour and city). i think the way to the "Track route" i drive 20min over country road and urban without trafik and mostly in constant 80km/h in 5-6gear and 50km/h in 4th so i do have 3,5-6l (uphill he needs mostly 5,5-6l by constant speed) on 2/3rd of the time where i do not driving like a lunatic :) its balancing it out. overall i am happy with the consumption of 6,7 with winter tires (even when i dont daily it in traffic)
You should re-run the test with both cars using super unleaded, Both my cars return roughly 10% improvement in mpg and torque at lower revs.
First I was a bit surprised, then I remembered that the Leon is from VW group.....
Hi Richard, i love all your videos man keep up the good work, i was just wondering if you would consider when doing these videos to try for example the 2 litre on the first road and then showthe 1.4L straight after as it makes keeping track easier? im also more than happy to know if there is a specific reason its done that way, also your learner videos are extremely helpful and interesting to watch, i havent not finished a single video of yours, great work!
Thank you. That's a good point for the edit.
Hey mate. Long time watcher, first time commenter. Have you noticed much gear synchro wear in the time youve owned the Seat? Do you think it slips into gear as easy as it did new? Love the videos, keep up the great work
I would love to see the climate control comparison
What mode do you use on the Leon? Because I saw, the Mode button is light on, it means it is not Normal, it is Eco or Sport or Individual? The throttle response is different.
What would be interesting is comparing the mazda to a fiat 124 with a 1.4 turbo. Not the engine from the seat but very similar in size.
That would be intersting.
Direct injection and turbo..
Spool too quick hence need more fuel.. also fuel in much higher pressure.
Great for torque but N/A still is the most well rounded kind of engine
This reference about the rowing machine is not true. Damper setting on 1 is for explosive rowers who don't make a lot rows per minute, but each row is explosive and powerful. Damper setting on ten gives a lot resistance and therefore the rower needs to make more RPM by putting less power in each row.
Do the auto climate control video please, I’ve always wondered how precise are them, on my Golf 21C feels comfortable but then on my Discovery 23C feels comfortable.
6:15 "I'm not going to drive especially economically"
Granted... I believe it's just as hard for you as for me to NOT drive in an economical manner 🤣So I bet this is more economical than "average Joe" anyway...
Yet another great test, and your attention to details to keep tests as fair as possible is amazing! Keep it coming 👌
NEDC combined figures looks to be Mazda 6.9 l/100km vs Seat 5.2 l/100km. A massive 25% lower for Seat! I would assume that's a bit much, but for sure I expected the downsized engine to come out on top...
You mention the Mazda is lighter. +/- 100kg really shouldn't affect consumption, especially at steady speed.
As far as I can find, MX5 CD is 0.36 and Seat is 0.32, but with a bigger frontal area...
One can only conclude that Mazda know a thing or two how to make engines I guess..?
And the NEDC/WLTP tests isn't worth much when concidering your choice of cars..?
Would love to see a test of which is more efficient when driving hard.
I am definitly no traffic expert, but I have not seen any warning for the wall crashing corner,.
In my country, many of the dangerous offramps have a sign for sharp corner and a speed limit, sometimes just 30 kph with a arrow pointing at the offramp., and maybe even a sing for "Dangerous Offramp" below the sharp corner sign.
I think they could reduce the crashes if they just hang a 20mph sign above the blue sign at 14:18
Your Mazda gets better fuel economy than my 2004 commuter hack Peugeot 206 with a 1.1i 60bhp lump. It's been struggling to reach 43mpg (tank to tank fill up) using E10 and that's on a 13 mile run down the A14/M11. Low fifth gear ratio doesn't help.
I would love to see the temperature difference between cars 😊
The Mazda is newer and may represent newer technology albeit in a N/A form. The newer VAG engines 1.0 and 1.5 have improved fuel economy.
the reason why the MX-5 makes so much fun to drive even when it is not mineblowing fast is its smal and the brain interpret the speed different than in a big car. Excemple: in a Dodge with 400PS you can speed up to 100km/h in 5-6s but even when you drive 130km/h it feels not fast. in an MX-5 it feels faster with higher agility higher speed in corners, its like rollercoaster or driving a Gokart at 60-75km/h the brain interprets speed differently comparing how big the car is so the speed feels more excitingand. also the "longer" acceleration of 7s compare to ather high PS sport or muscel cars feel better because its not over as fast and constant PS increas over the number of revolutions makes it extremly enjoyable most cars have downsizing turbos where nothing/less happens till the turbo is kicking in (same enjoy the powerboost of turbos how press you in the seet but in truth naturally aspirated Engines are more enjoyable because you can exactliy kontroll the linear poweroutput with your foot). In ather words the car do what you whant and thats what you are enjoying, and it tricks your brain and let you think/feel that you are faster and the drive is more exiting than it is. "it makes more fun to drive slow car fast than a fast car slow"
Yes, it is not allowed to let your engine idle for heating itself, or the cabin, or whatever in Germany. But no one will care for that 10 seconds.
i dont think it has anything to do with drag coefficient, urban and 70mph difference is roughly the same on both cars. when air resistance would be a factor in this example i think you would suspect a larger delta between urban and 70mph. i suspect the fact that the engine technology is newer is the biggest factor, then weight, then other resistances
I don't need to see the video to know the 2 Litre NA is more economical. It's also going to need much less in the way of maintenance too. The primary consumer of fuel is unecessary acceleration. Don't speed up if you're going to slow down again. Stop/Start is also silly because you consume about as much fuel starting an engine as you do for idling for about 10 seconds. It's silly to turn your engine off.
Interesting. I've always compared my MR2 1.8 NAs fuel economy to my dad's 1.6 Turbo Tucson.
My car is only 2-3 mpg better in town, but 5-6 better on main roads.
Interestingly my Celica with the same engine basically matched his economy despite not being much heavier than the MR2, and being far more aerodynamic. The only difference I can think of that'd do that is the gear ratios - the MR2 sits about 300rpm lower at 70.
I wonder if weight distribution can effect economy...?
At a higher cruising speed it's the frontal area and drag coefficiency that has a big affect on fuel economy.
It's crazy how fuel efficient these Miatas are. I think that's the main point here hahaha.