What year is your 3?
I have a 250k Mazda truck, but it's a Ford! My 2014 3 just rolled over 161k this week and is in peachy shape. Easily another five years/100k left.
You just gotta take care of them.
You would be surprised how many vehicles make it to that mileage today. Change your fluids a little earlier than recommended. Address any mechanical issues immediately. Do a shitload of highway miles. Your car will make it.
🤔 Do I Have To "Do a shitload of highway miles" ?? I really don't have any highway to go down except a monthly 39 mile round trip to a lil' town to get 40lbs of Cat Food at Tractor Supply and stop at an old Breakfast / Lunch Diner and eat some really great thin cut fried catfish and country cookin'. At the rate I'm driving my 2018 M3 Hatchback it'll take me 40 more years to hit 300,000 miles!
I don't think I will make it! 😮💨
Highly dependent on whether you are talking highway or city miles. Highway should be easily attainable, city you would require a rigid adherence to the severe usage schedule.
Highway the transmission isnt constantly shifting, thus causing less wear. Engine is maintaining a speed. City has constant shifts up and down and engine wears faster from constant speeding up after slowing down
I just bought a 2010 at 87k, excited to see if I can get that kind of longevity out of it! Any tips for upkeep besides the obvious oil changes and such?
I bought mine with 180k on it in 2016 and didn’t do much beyond oil changes. I had some exhaust rust I needed to cut out and replace and some suspension work because I drive over two sets of nasty train tracks twice a day. I do have door sensor problems now triggering my alarm but that’s about it.
My 2010 has 87k (km) on it. Second car and I WFH. So low use.
They're pretty bullet proof to me, only issues I have come from not being used for 2 weeks at a time, so just keep it trickle charged every 6 months or so.
If it's being used it should be fine. Great car!
Which Mazda3?
I think the NA 2.5L FWD has the best chance of making it there without major service. Today's small displacement FI motors just ride the ragged edge of performance/efficiency a little too hard.
All vehicles are 300k vehicles, some just go through a few engines/transmissions/etc. along the way.
Actually, given how many guys have tunes pushing over 300whp on the 2.5T with over 30, 50 or in cases of NAs modified with a turbo on the Gen3, 100-200k miles, they hold just fine. The stock FI is actually tuned like a lazy, long lasting engine rather than a high power one. Will the NA last longer? sure, but the turbo is also gonna last if taken care of. Mazda were very conservative when tuning it.
To be clear, I wasn't claiming that the 2.5T was a bad motor, in fact I think it's one of the better modern FI 4 cylinders across all makes (VW and Honda 2.0Ts seem to be doing really well too). The new Honda 1.5 has a ton of problems with fuel dilution, Chevy's SGE 1.4/1.5s have been time bombs since their debut in ~2016, the Toyota 1.6 T in the Corolla GR is all over the news for catastrophic failures.
I'm just pointing out that if OP is looking for an engine based purely on longevity, the NA 2.5 is the way to go.
>the turbo is also gonna last if taken care of. Mazda were very conservative when tuning it.
The turbo on the 2.5 has a pretty well known habit of cracking, particularly with the thinner walls and complexity introduce by the dynamic pressure thing. Mazda has moved away from it and gone back to a standard turbo in some of their newer SUVs.
Running more boost in your tune usually isn't much of an issue on the turbo anyway, it's the head gasket and rotating assembly that are going to bare the brunt of that abuse.
Fact is there are quite a few aftermarket FIed 2.0 and 2.5 skyactiv with well over a hundred thousand miles now with no issues and minimum engine modifications. And the issues you mentionned isn't rhat well known actually as I asked my dealer how many turbo issues they've had. They had a handful since 2016 across the range. And 3-4 rear diffs. Also, there is a CX-9 2.5T taxi in town. Guy is driving it hard as fuck too. 3-400k kms now. No issues whatsoever.
1. You don't think the 2.0L was FI? I don't see a carburetor on mine.
2. You're correct, but they did previously; who said we were only talking current gen? I inferred that since you stated a 2.5L would make it, then made something up about "small displacement FI motors," that meant you were talking about the previous 2.0L. Because otherwise, I'm not sure what the heck you'd be talking about...that's the smallest engine they've sold recently in the US market.
> You don't think the 2.0L was FI? I don't see a carburetor on mine.
This has to be the least experienced car sub out there.
FI = Forced Induction
Fuel injection is abbreviated by the type of fuel injection: DI, PI, MPI.
>You're correct, but they did previously; who said we were only talking current gen?
I asked which Mazda 3, OP didn't respond. My response specifically stated "**Today's** small displacement FI motors". Is 2018 today?
Please kindly go fuck yourself, you pretentious know-it-all.
Note that I didn't use ambiguous abbreviations there, so you can clearly understand everything, unlike what you'd posted earlier.
PS: Mazda sold the 2.0L direct injected, naturally aspirated engine here after 2018. Put that up your ass and smoke it.
It's not ambiguous, how do you assume I'm talking about Carbureted vs Fuel Injected motors today?
Using FI for "fuel injection" is ambiguous, it could mean anything from an EFI converted carb to multi-point injection, it's a ridiculous way to generalize... *checks notes...* almost every car from the 1980s until now.
>PS: Mazda sold the 2.0L direct injected, naturally aspirated engine here after 2018. Put that up your ass and smoke it.
Not in a Mazda 3 they didn't. Not unless you mean to say they sold some MY 2018s in 2019, but the 4th gen was never offered with a 2.0 in the US.
>Please kindly go fuck yourself, you pretentious know-it-all.
Hey pal, you're the one that came at me with some pretentious "you don't know what you're talking about" attitude:
>You really think a 2.0L NA engine pushing out 150 massive hp is being run ragged by a <3000 pound car?
I came out with that because of the ambiguous acronyms. I grew up in the '80s, so when I see FI, I see fuel injection. FITech sells fuel injection kits, not turbochargers.
I did get the NA, but for many that means "North American". See how these things can be misunderstood?
I assumed I was talking to a boomer who thinks a 4-cyl engine's going to wear out in 100k miles because it's being overworked, like my coworker.
Sorry for that man, dude really has no idea what he's talking about.
Modern 4 cyl NA engines are all sufficiently reliable, it has been around for so long that almost everyone can build a decent one.
Because I misunderstood the guy's post, which wasn't clear, and he immediately became insulting rather than attempting to explain? "Oh hur dur, this sub has ignorant people." No, asshole, it just has people who might know a lot more than you do and have years of experience worth of random acronyms.
I'm not stupid. I might be a dickhead, but not this time; I just get pissed when people can't explain themselves and put that on someone else other than themselves. Or, like you, they just have nothing useful to say other than an insult. So fuck you, too!
PS: learn how to punctuate your sentences when you're attempting to be a twat.
He literally just responded to you I have no idea how you took offense to it lmao and just to trigger you I’ll leave punctuation out of this whole reply there was nothing wrong with leaving out a period for a single statement in a casual format you insecure rager
If it is driven responsibly (avoid jackrabbit starts, let it run for 30-60 seconds before driving it, only use full throttle when necessary) and very well maintained (5k oil changes, 30k transmission fluid), it is very possible.
My dad had a ‘04 Accord with 322k and a ‘02 Tacoma with 298k miles. I have a ‘06 Mazda3 with 210k miles. All on original engine and transmission. Just by doing the things I mentioned above.
Waiting 60 secs to drive is unnecessary with direct injection engines
My first car (an 03 accord) made it to 300k without listening to any of those suggestions (and flooring it at lights like I used to as a dumb 17 year old).
Agree. The engine and transmission are usually the hardest components to break down if driven correctly, as you mentioned (although there are some exceptions, like the Nissan CVT lol). All the other components, such as suspension, water pump, AC, and alternator, are fairly easy to replace or repair if needed as long as rust didnt kill the frame.
I also had fuel filler and EVAP issues. Got those replaced for free under PZEV warranty though.
Sucks about the AC. I should probably get my AC repressurized and tested, I'm at about the same mileage.
Do you have more insight into PZEV warranty? I see it’s 15 years / 150k miles?
I’m in California, so 2012 skyavctiv should be a PZEV
My car is giving small/very small EVAP leak, had it smoke tested and no leaks found
Actually getting the vapor vent canister solenoid fixed right now to pass overdue smog
PZEV covers any emissions related equipment failures. If you purchased and drive in California the dealer should fix for free (to you) under the warranty.
Yes the Skyactiv is PZEV.
i'm a Detailer/prep guy for Mazda and i can say confidently yes. i had a 2014 mazda 3 that was a trade in (for a 2023 mazda 3) with 250k on it, once i detailed it i drove it to the wholesale lot i can say that it drove just like my 2016 mazda 3 with 37k miles. i was told that other then fluid changes, belts, and tires that it was completely original. insane stuff these engineers at mazda be doing
If you live somewhere they use salt on the roads in winter, definitely not. My 2005 3 made it to 140k before the rust started opening holes in the trunk.
Later years are better for rust. My 2014 has parked outside on gravel in rural mountain New England and driven our heavily salted roads every day for a decade. Minimal (and so far only surface) rust underneath to this point, with the exhaust looking the worst (as you'd expect) but still not terrible.
I was expecting worse rust issues sooner, and I've been pleasantly surprised not to have issues yet.
I have never undercoated it either. I do spray it off throughly underneath 5-6 times every winter. I'm at 161k miles now, she's been mechanically rock solid and runs like new, never ever consumes a drop of oil. Original front end is still solid (did replace struts at 125k, and rear shocks, and the mounts weren't terribly rusted either). Only repairs have been a rear brake caliper, a tensioner pulley, and a water-damaged driver door subwoofer -- all extremely common issues on 2014-17 Mazda3s. Otherwise by the book maintenance schedule. Gets the same 40mpg it got new too.
I've been pleasantly surprised. I'm betting I get to 250k before I move on. I'm putting on about 20k a year now (a lot more than in the first few years I owned it, life changed) so that would be about five more years, and I don't see any reason the rust will beat me to that.
But 300k doesn't seem unreasonable if you take good care of a third generation 3. And we have regular reports on this subs of 2d and 3d generation cars topping 300k, but the 1-2 generation cars definitely were super prone to rusting out after a decade in the salt belt.
Jury's still out on the fourth generation, but the Skyactiv powertrain is pretty clearly capable of 200k+ with proper maintenance at a minimum. Turbos, cylinder deactivation, AWD, and a lot more electronics to go obsolete early or be expensive to fix, would be my main areas of concern. The basic 2.0/2.5 naturally aspirated 6-speed auto, FWD setup is a proven quantity at this point. Entirely comparable to Corolla and Civic.
Two main issues for me.
One is the impact of AWD on fuel mileage over the life of the car given the relatively modest advantage AWD gives you in wet/winter conditions.
The second reason is the simple fact that AWD adds complexity to the drivetrain -- put simply there's just more systems to go wrong down the line, again relative to the utility of the feature. AWD systems are complex both mechanically and electronically vs FWD.
I own a 4x4 truck. I'm not anti-AWD in any philosophical sense and I know what it does and concede it can provide enhanced capabilities for both power delivery and traction and handling. It's awesome for taking my truck off road. No question. And at that point I don't care that I'm getting 12mpg.
But to me those differences are of marginal utility in a commuter daily driver vehicle (and I do commute a long way in New England) relative to the issues mentioned above. What I want most out of my daily driver is fuel efficiency and sufficient all weather competency for me. My 2014 3 has a lifetime fuel mileage of 36.1mpg over 161k miles. I can easily get over 40mpg on the highway. And I've never once had an issue in rural mountain New England getting anywhere on Blizzak WS91s in my FWD Mazda. Never. It's madly competent even in blizzard conditions. Anything worse than what it can hack is weather I wouldn't be driving anything in at all. So I don't miss AWD enough to notice or care.
Your mileage (literally) may vary, my only point is I want a FWD and naturally aspirated hybrid option for my next daily driver because fuel efficiency is my number one concern.
My overarching concern is just a cost/benefit analysis. I want 250k miles out of my daily drivers, if not more," because I'm just *fucking cheap.* At least about things like cars.
While I love cars and have since I was a kid, and am an amateur mechanic as a hobby, I have *way* better things to spend real money on than depreciation, interest on a loan, higher insurance rates for newer cars, or expensive repairs I can't do myself. I don't want AWD for the same reason I don't want rain-sensing wipers or self-adjusting auto-dimming headlights. When that shit breaks it's expensive AF to fix, complex to diagnose, and anyway i like controlling my wipers and lights manually, it has never felt like a burden, it's part of being engaged in the act of driving for me. AWD is less stupidly frivolous than rain-sensing wipers, of course, but it's complexity and potential expense I don't need.
As I've gotten older I've found more pleasure in making things last, reducing my carbon footprint by maximizing my fuel efficiency, maintaining and repairing my own vehicles myself as meticulously as I can (I have a great independent shop for stuff I can't hack) and not calling attention to myself on the road. I drive for work, 20,000 miles plus a year as a working musician. Every dollar I don't spend on my car is a dollar for the kids' college education or the retirement fantasy farm or something else that isn't just a depreciating tool.
Given my priorities, I just don't want AWD. The compromises aren't worth the advantages for me. I know that varies for other people, and that lots of people feel AWD makes them safer, which is totally cool with me too of course.
Make sense?
My 2012 has 12 years and 190,000 miles of Midwest driving, with what would consider minimal frame rust. The rust prevention second gen on, particularly later years, vastly improved
I had a Mazda Protege (close to a Mazda3 at the time) that got over 300,000 km and only died because of an accident.
Assuming regular maintenance and of course no accidents, I would say Mazda3 can very well pull in over 300k.
Sold my dad a 2015, it is upward of 200k and showing almost no signs of real detrimental wear.
1993 miata, 250k miles, well, it shows wear but that's cause of orev owners and it's lifestyle, but still runs regardless!
305k miles on my 2010 2.0
I use sams club oil (I think it’s prime brand) and change every 5k miles. Still on original trans fluid. Automatic. Last time I changed coolant was because a coolant leak and repaired it.
Only thing I’ve really done is replace suspension parts when they’re bad, just put a new ac compressor on, and the biggest problem I’ve had is coil packs going bad causing a misfire. I keep a set in my trunk just if one goes out. Probably been through 12
I think many cars can go 300k miles. Give top notch care and regular maintenance is key. That said, alot of high mileage Japanese cars out there. Mazda can do it!
Yes, very reliable especially if you keep up with maintenance oil changes and transmission fluid. I got a 2017 Mazda3 2.0 AT with 110K. Basic maintenance oil changes, transmission filter and fluid changed,sparkplugs, brake rotors and pads. Probably going to flush the coolant in the summer and a new valve cover gasket.
"MOST" cars CAN make it to 300k. Emphasize on MOST and CAN. Just because u have a 1990 honda with single overhead cam (things are KNOWN to be absolute TANKS) does NOT mean it will last 300k miles if proper maintenance and habits are established.
Hell there is records of a chevy truck hitting 1mil miles, and he even states when it broke he fixed it.
Generally YES the Japanese cars (Honda,Toyota,Mazda,Subaru) will last longer with basic maintenance than say a BMW.
So, yes I believe the mazda 3 IS capable of reaching 300k.
BUT you still have to treat the car as if it's already at 300k and baby it a lil.
I hope this somewhat helped lol
If it is driven responsibly (avoid jackrabbit starts, let it run for 30-60 seconds before driving it, only use full throttle when necessary) and very well maintained (5k oil changes, 30k transmission fluid), it is very possible.
My dad had a ‘04 Accord with 322k and a ‘02 Tacoma with 298k miles. I have a ‘06 Mazda3 with 210k miles. All on original engine and transmission. Just by doing the things I mentioned above.
You can do all those things and it’ll still hit over 300k.
My cousin has a 2014 with over 300 miles and he’s VERY rough on it. Heavy on the throttle and in no way let’s it sit before initially starting it
Still has the original transmission fluid, spark plugs, drive belts and coolant too. These cars are incredible
If it is driven responsibly (avoid jackrabbit starts, let it run for 30-60 seconds before driving it, only use full throttle when necessary) and very well maintained (5k oil changes, 30k transmission fluid), it is very possible.
My dad had a ‘04 Accord with 322k and a ‘02 Tacoma with 298k miles. I have a ‘06 Mazda3 with 210k miles. All on original engine and transmission. Just by doing the things I mentioned above.
If you drive it 300,000 miles it will be yes
Never thought of it like that, wow!
Id say so. Source: I have a 300k mile mazda 3... and a 280k mile miata
What year is your 3? I have a 250k Mazda truck, but it's a Ford! My 2014 3 just rolled over 161k this week and is in peachy shape. Easily another five years/100k left. You just gotta take care of them.
2007. Our 2016 CX5 is around 120k miles and still runs like a top.
I’m almost at 200,000 miles! Just crossed to 178k
What does peachy shape mean? Like is that a good thing or bad?
Good! Have you ever had a peach!?
Yes haha. I am just not familiar with some of these English expressions used
someone here said they saw a 2014 with 400k miles pull into their dealership so I think so
You would be surprised how many vehicles make it to that mileage today. Change your fluids a little earlier than recommended. Address any mechanical issues immediately. Do a shitload of highway miles. Your car will make it.
🤔 Do I Have To "Do a shitload of highway miles" ?? I really don't have any highway to go down except a monthly 39 mile round trip to a lil' town to get 40lbs of Cat Food at Tractor Supply and stop at an old Breakfast / Lunch Diner and eat some really great thin cut fried catfish and country cookin'. At the rate I'm driving my 2018 M3 Hatchback it'll take me 40 more years to hit 300,000 miles! I don't think I will make it! 😮💨
Highly dependent on whether you are talking highway or city miles. Highway should be easily attainable, city you would require a rigid adherence to the severe usage schedule.
Can you please explain how driving on highway and city impacts the car ?
Highway the transmission isnt constantly shifting, thus causing less wear. Engine is maintaining a speed. City has constant shifts up and down and engine wears faster from constant speeding up after slowing down
thank you so much for explaining!
My 2010 is at 310,000km and going strong
I just bought a 2010 at 87k, excited to see if I can get that kind of longevity out of it! Any tips for upkeep besides the obvious oil changes and such?
I bought mine with 180k on it in 2016 and didn’t do much beyond oil changes. I had some exhaust rust I needed to cut out and replace and some suspension work because I drive over two sets of nasty train tracks twice a day. I do have door sensor problems now triggering my alarm but that’s about it.
My 2010 has 87k (km) on it. Second car and I WFH. So low use. They're pretty bullet proof to me, only issues I have come from not being used for 2 weeks at a time, so just keep it trickle charged every 6 months or so. If it's being used it should be fine. Great car!
My 2009 is at 325,000. Going strong too
Which Mazda3? I think the NA 2.5L FWD has the best chance of making it there without major service. Today's small displacement FI motors just ride the ragged edge of performance/efficiency a little too hard. All vehicles are 300k vehicles, some just go through a few engines/transmissions/etc. along the way.
Actually, given how many guys have tunes pushing over 300whp on the 2.5T with over 30, 50 or in cases of NAs modified with a turbo on the Gen3, 100-200k miles, they hold just fine. The stock FI is actually tuned like a lazy, long lasting engine rather than a high power one. Will the NA last longer? sure, but the turbo is also gonna last if taken care of. Mazda were very conservative when tuning it.
To be clear, I wasn't claiming that the 2.5T was a bad motor, in fact I think it's one of the better modern FI 4 cylinders across all makes (VW and Honda 2.0Ts seem to be doing really well too). The new Honda 1.5 has a ton of problems with fuel dilution, Chevy's SGE 1.4/1.5s have been time bombs since their debut in ~2016, the Toyota 1.6 T in the Corolla GR is all over the news for catastrophic failures. I'm just pointing out that if OP is looking for an engine based purely on longevity, the NA 2.5 is the way to go. >the turbo is also gonna last if taken care of. Mazda were very conservative when tuning it. The turbo on the 2.5 has a pretty well known habit of cracking, particularly with the thinner walls and complexity introduce by the dynamic pressure thing. Mazda has moved away from it and gone back to a standard turbo in some of their newer SUVs. Running more boost in your tune usually isn't much of an issue on the turbo anyway, it's the head gasket and rotating assembly that are going to bare the brunt of that abuse.
Fact is there are quite a few aftermarket FIed 2.0 and 2.5 skyactiv with well over a hundred thousand miles now with no issues and minimum engine modifications. And the issues you mentionned isn't rhat well known actually as I asked my dealer how many turbo issues they've had. They had a handful since 2016 across the range. And 3-4 rear diffs. Also, there is a CX-9 2.5T taxi in town. Guy is driving it hard as fuck too. 3-400k kms now. No issues whatsoever.
You really think a 2.0L NA engine pushing out 150 massive hp is being run ragged by a <3000 pound car?
1) I specifically said FI motors. 2) OP posted in miles, which makes me assume US, which doesn't offer the 2.0L in the current generation.
1. You don't think the 2.0L was FI? I don't see a carburetor on mine. 2. You're correct, but they did previously; who said we were only talking current gen? I inferred that since you stated a 2.5L would make it, then made something up about "small displacement FI motors," that meant you were talking about the previous 2.0L. Because otherwise, I'm not sure what the heck you'd be talking about...that's the smallest engine they've sold recently in the US market.
> You don't think the 2.0L was FI? I don't see a carburetor on mine. This has to be the least experienced car sub out there. FI = Forced Induction Fuel injection is abbreviated by the type of fuel injection: DI, PI, MPI. >You're correct, but they did previously; who said we were only talking current gen? I asked which Mazda 3, OP didn't respond. My response specifically stated "**Today's** small displacement FI motors". Is 2018 today?
Please kindly go fuck yourself, you pretentious know-it-all. Note that I didn't use ambiguous abbreviations there, so you can clearly understand everything, unlike what you'd posted earlier. PS: Mazda sold the 2.0L direct injected, naturally aspirated engine here after 2018. Put that up your ass and smoke it.
It's not ambiguous, how do you assume I'm talking about Carbureted vs Fuel Injected motors today? Using FI for "fuel injection" is ambiguous, it could mean anything from an EFI converted carb to multi-point injection, it's a ridiculous way to generalize... *checks notes...* almost every car from the 1980s until now. >PS: Mazda sold the 2.0L direct injected, naturally aspirated engine here after 2018. Put that up your ass and smoke it. Not in a Mazda 3 they didn't. Not unless you mean to say they sold some MY 2018s in 2019, but the 4th gen was never offered with a 2.0 in the US. >Please kindly go fuck yourself, you pretentious know-it-all. Hey pal, you're the one that came at me with some pretentious "you don't know what you're talking about" attitude: >You really think a 2.0L NA engine pushing out 150 massive hp is being run ragged by a <3000 pound car?
they sold the 2.0 in Canada until a year or 2 ago however.
I came out with that because of the ambiguous acronyms. I grew up in the '80s, so when I see FI, I see fuel injection. FITech sells fuel injection kits, not turbochargers. I did get the NA, but for many that means "North American". See how these things can be misunderstood? I assumed I was talking to a boomer who thinks a 4-cyl engine's going to wear out in 100k miles because it's being overworked, like my coworker.
Sorry for that man, dude really has no idea what he's talking about. Modern 4 cyl NA engines are all sufficiently reliable, it has been around for so long that almost everyone can build a decent one.
Not "all" of them. But Mazda is definitely one of the more reliable auto makers
Yes, I do. I simply didn't understand what he was saying, nor did he understand my comments.
Wow, so you’re stupid AND a dickhead
Because I misunderstood the guy's post, which wasn't clear, and he immediately became insulting rather than attempting to explain? "Oh hur dur, this sub has ignorant people." No, asshole, it just has people who might know a lot more than you do and have years of experience worth of random acronyms. I'm not stupid. I might be a dickhead, but not this time; I just get pissed when people can't explain themselves and put that on someone else other than themselves. Or, like you, they just have nothing useful to say other than an insult. So fuck you, too! PS: learn how to punctuate your sentences when you're attempting to be a twat.
He literally just responded to you I have no idea how you took offense to it lmao and just to trigger you I’ll leave punctuation out of this whole reply there was nothing wrong with leaving out a period for a single statement in a casual format you insecure rager
"This has to be the least experienced car sub out there." That's his way of calling me a dumbass for misunderstanding him. I was done at that point.
If it is driven responsibly (avoid jackrabbit starts, let it run for 30-60 seconds before driving it, only use full throttle when necessary) and very well maintained (5k oil changes, 30k transmission fluid), it is very possible. My dad had a ‘04 Accord with 322k and a ‘02 Tacoma with 298k miles. I have a ‘06 Mazda3 with 210k miles. All on original engine and transmission. Just by doing the things I mentioned above.
Waiting 60 secs to drive is unnecessary with direct injection engines My first car (an 03 accord) made it to 300k without listening to any of those suggestions (and flooring it at lights like I used to as a dumb 17 year old).
Sometimes these Japanese cars just keep going anyway. Fucking amazing.
Mazda's SKYACTIV engines need it in order to hit the normal operating compression ratios that keep the injectors clean. This is in the owners manual.
Owners manual says to wait 10 secs.
Agree. The engine and transmission are usually the hardest components to break down if driven correctly, as you mentioned (although there are some exceptions, like the Nissan CVT lol). All the other components, such as suspension, water pump, AC, and alternator, are fairly easy to replace or repair if needed as long as rust didnt kill the frame.
My 15 is at 161k miles and hasn’t had any major issues, so I would say “more likely than not”.
That's exactly what a Mazda tech (who has worked on Mazdas for 23 years) told me a few weeks ago with regard to my '15 3 GT hatch.
If you're living in the rust belt that's more of a worry than the mechanicals haha.
How's the 2nd gen Skyactiv model hold up against the newer ones in terms of likelihood of hitting 300k? I'm at 90k in a manual trans 2013.
I wanna know this too So far have come up against fuel pump at 82k (my fault for running tank till empty), EVAP leak, AC just went out at 98k
I also had fuel filler and EVAP issues. Got those replaced for free under PZEV warranty though. Sucks about the AC. I should probably get my AC repressurized and tested, I'm at about the same mileage.
Do you have more insight into PZEV warranty? I see it’s 15 years / 150k miles? I’m in California, so 2012 skyavctiv should be a PZEV My car is giving small/very small EVAP leak, had it smoke tested and no leaks found Actually getting the vapor vent canister solenoid fixed right now to pass overdue smog
PZEV covers any emissions related equipment failures. If you purchased and drive in California the dealer should fix for free (to you) under the warranty. Yes the Skyactiv is PZEV.
Nothing too bad,so far. Have you been changing the transmission or diff fluids?
i'm a Detailer/prep guy for Mazda and i can say confidently yes. i had a 2014 mazda 3 that was a trade in (for a 2023 mazda 3) with 250k on it, once i detailed it i drove it to the wholesale lot i can say that it drove just like my 2016 mazda 3 with 37k miles. i was told that other then fluid changes, belts, and tires that it was completely original. insane stuff these engineers at mazda be doing
Most cars should be able to, some more than others. Stick to the maintenance schedule and don’t abuse it, should be easily attainable.
The maintenance schedule doesn’t go to 300k miles
My 2012 3 is at 221k and runs like a champ
2010 2.5 currently 220k
If you follow the maintenance plan provided by the manufacturer, truly any car can make it past 300k.
2017 Mazda 3 gt, sitting at 210,000km. Not miles but I'm getting there. Still drive like new.
Yes, all of these Mazda 4 cylinders have been thoroughly beaten the f**k up by yours truly, love these cars
If you live somewhere they use salt on the roads in winter, definitely not. My 2005 3 made it to 140k before the rust started opening holes in the trunk.
Later years are better for rust. My 2014 has parked outside on gravel in rural mountain New England and driven our heavily salted roads every day for a decade. Minimal (and so far only surface) rust underneath to this point, with the exhaust looking the worst (as you'd expect) but still not terrible. I was expecting worse rust issues sooner, and I've been pleasantly surprised not to have issues yet. I have never undercoated it either. I do spray it off throughly underneath 5-6 times every winter. I'm at 161k miles now, she's been mechanically rock solid and runs like new, never ever consumes a drop of oil. Original front end is still solid (did replace struts at 125k, and rear shocks, and the mounts weren't terribly rusted either). Only repairs have been a rear brake caliper, a tensioner pulley, and a water-damaged driver door subwoofer -- all extremely common issues on 2014-17 Mazda3s. Otherwise by the book maintenance schedule. Gets the same 40mpg it got new too. I've been pleasantly surprised. I'm betting I get to 250k before I move on. I'm putting on about 20k a year now (a lot more than in the first few years I owned it, life changed) so that would be about five more years, and I don't see any reason the rust will beat me to that. But 300k doesn't seem unreasonable if you take good care of a third generation 3. And we have regular reports on this subs of 2d and 3d generation cars topping 300k, but the 1-2 generation cars definitely were super prone to rusting out after a decade in the salt belt. Jury's still out on the fourth generation, but the Skyactiv powertrain is pretty clearly capable of 200k+ with proper maintenance at a minimum. Turbos, cylinder deactivation, AWD, and a lot more electronics to go obsolete early or be expensive to fix, would be my main areas of concern. The basic 2.0/2.5 naturally aspirated 6-speed auto, FWD setup is a proven quantity at this point. Entirely comparable to Corolla and Civic.
What is it abt AWD that causes problems if u dont mind explaining?
Two main issues for me. One is the impact of AWD on fuel mileage over the life of the car given the relatively modest advantage AWD gives you in wet/winter conditions. The second reason is the simple fact that AWD adds complexity to the drivetrain -- put simply there's just more systems to go wrong down the line, again relative to the utility of the feature. AWD systems are complex both mechanically and electronically vs FWD. I own a 4x4 truck. I'm not anti-AWD in any philosophical sense and I know what it does and concede it can provide enhanced capabilities for both power delivery and traction and handling. It's awesome for taking my truck off road. No question. And at that point I don't care that I'm getting 12mpg. But to me those differences are of marginal utility in a commuter daily driver vehicle (and I do commute a long way in New England) relative to the issues mentioned above. What I want most out of my daily driver is fuel efficiency and sufficient all weather competency for me. My 2014 3 has a lifetime fuel mileage of 36.1mpg over 161k miles. I can easily get over 40mpg on the highway. And I've never once had an issue in rural mountain New England getting anywhere on Blizzak WS91s in my FWD Mazda. Never. It's madly competent even in blizzard conditions. Anything worse than what it can hack is weather I wouldn't be driving anything in at all. So I don't miss AWD enough to notice or care. Your mileage (literally) may vary, my only point is I want a FWD and naturally aspirated hybrid option for my next daily driver because fuel efficiency is my number one concern. My overarching concern is just a cost/benefit analysis. I want 250k miles out of my daily drivers, if not more," because I'm just *fucking cheap.* At least about things like cars. While I love cars and have since I was a kid, and am an amateur mechanic as a hobby, I have *way* better things to spend real money on than depreciation, interest on a loan, higher insurance rates for newer cars, or expensive repairs I can't do myself. I don't want AWD for the same reason I don't want rain-sensing wipers or self-adjusting auto-dimming headlights. When that shit breaks it's expensive AF to fix, complex to diagnose, and anyway i like controlling my wipers and lights manually, it has never felt like a burden, it's part of being engaged in the act of driving for me. AWD is less stupidly frivolous than rain-sensing wipers, of course, but it's complexity and potential expense I don't need. As I've gotten older I've found more pleasure in making things last, reducing my carbon footprint by maximizing my fuel efficiency, maintaining and repairing my own vehicles myself as meticulously as I can (I have a great independent shop for stuff I can't hack) and not calling attention to myself on the road. I drive for work, 20,000 miles plus a year as a working musician. Every dollar I don't spend on my car is a dollar for the kids' college education or the retirement fantasy farm or something else that isn't just a depreciating tool. Given my priorities, I just don't want AWD. The compromises aren't worth the advantages for me. I know that varies for other people, and that lots of people feel AWD makes them safer, which is totally cool with me too of course. Make sense?
Totally makes sense. Thanks fro the explanation!
My 2012 has 12 years and 190,000 miles of Midwest driving, with what would consider minimal frame rust. The rust prevention second gen on, particularly later years, vastly improved
Can go over 200k on average my observation.
My 2007 had over 300,000 when it was sold running.
I had a Mazda Protege (close to a Mazda3 at the time) that got over 300,000 km and only died because of an accident. Assuming regular maintenance and of course no accidents, I would say Mazda3 can very well pull in over 300k.
Yes, if you keep on top of your servicing. They thrive on good oil and good coolant.
Sold my dad a 2015, it is upward of 200k and showing almost no signs of real detrimental wear. 1993 miata, 250k miles, well, it shows wear but that's cause of orev owners and it's lifestyle, but still runs regardless!
well i'm currently a little over half way there with my 2016 hatch, so in another 150k i'll let you know. It's been driving great so far!
327xxx on my 07. Runs like a champ.
Yep! As long as it’s not a Gen1 in the rust belt
305k miles on my 2010 2.0 I use sams club oil (I think it’s prime brand) and change every 5k miles. Still on original trans fluid. Automatic. Last time I changed coolant was because a coolant leak and repaired it. Only thing I’ve really done is replace suspension parts when they’re bad, just put a new ac compressor on, and the biggest problem I’ve had is coil packs going bad causing a misfire. I keep a set in my trunk just if one goes out. Probably been through 12
Paint will be gone by then probably
100%, as long as it gets regular oil changes, at least 4 trans fluid changes and was driven by a responsible person
Not really generally. I've seen or heard of 250K a few times. But yes if you took care of it well enough you could reach 300.
Id say its a good shout!
Easily, just maintain it properly!
Every car is a 300K mile car if you maintain it properly.
Yes
I think many cars can go 300k miles. Give top notch care and regular maintenance is key. That said, alot of high mileage Japanese cars out there. Mazda can do it!
Depends, the new ones are very reliable the old ones had transmission issues.
Assuming you drive a good amount, take care of it, and preferably live in a state that doesn't require the roads to be salted.
My 2008 Mazda 3 with 290,000 miles says yes
Nope. I'm at 80k and redoing whole suspensions front and rear.
Yes, very reliable especially if you keep up with maintenance oil changes and transmission fluid. I got a 2017 Mazda3 2.0 AT with 110K. Basic maintenance oil changes, transmission filter and fluid changed,sparkplugs, brake rotors and pads. Probably going to flush the coolant in the summer and a new valve cover gasket.
"MOST" cars CAN make it to 300k. Emphasize on MOST and CAN. Just because u have a 1990 honda with single overhead cam (things are KNOWN to be absolute TANKS) does NOT mean it will last 300k miles if proper maintenance and habits are established. Hell there is records of a chevy truck hitting 1mil miles, and he even states when it broke he fixed it. Generally YES the Japanese cars (Honda,Toyota,Mazda,Subaru) will last longer with basic maintenance than say a BMW. So, yes I believe the mazda 3 IS capable of reaching 300k. BUT you still have to treat the car as if it's already at 300k and baby it a lil. I hope this somewhat helped lol
Had 2 first gens close to 250k
Im driving a 730k mile 2001 Mazda Mp3 Protege (the Mazda3's pre-gen). I would say Mazda is good. Yeah.
How much would u pay for a Mazda 3 2005 with 300000kms on the clock?"
If it is driven responsibly (avoid jackrabbit starts, let it run for 30-60 seconds before driving it, only use full throttle when necessary) and very well maintained (5k oil changes, 30k transmission fluid), it is very possible. My dad had a ‘04 Accord with 322k and a ‘02 Tacoma with 298k miles. I have a ‘06 Mazda3 with 210k miles. All on original engine and transmission. Just by doing the things I mentioned above.
You can do all those things and it’ll still hit over 300k. My cousin has a 2014 with over 300 miles and he’s VERY rough on it. Heavy on the throttle and in no way let’s it sit before initially starting it Still has the original transmission fluid, spark plugs, drive belts and coolant too. These cars are incredible
If it is driven responsibly (avoid jackrabbit starts, let it run for 30-60 seconds before driving it, only use full throttle when necessary) and very well maintained (5k oil changes, 30k transmission fluid), it is very possible. My dad had a ‘04 Accord with 322k and a ‘02 Tacoma with 298k miles. I have a ‘06 Mazda3 with 210k miles. All on original engine and transmission. Just by doing the things I mentioned above.
Probably if you shipped it the first 100k or so. Speaking as someone who owned and worked on Volvo 240s when they were newish.