Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Mazda 121 fuel consumption

Of all Mazda 121 modifications produced from 1996 to 2000 real fuel consumption according to user ratings is similar compared to advertised consumption. Since 1996 the Mazda 121 average difference between owner-reported real-world fuel consumption and declared fuel economy has been less than industry average.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline cars
All carmakersMazda 121
1996+4%insignificant
Show all years
1997+3%insignificant
1998+3%insignificant
1999+3%insignificant
2000+4%insignificant
1996 - 2000

Mazda 121 1996 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines33.9 MPG
6.9 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *insignificant
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Mazda 121 1996 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.4 liters per 100 km or 6% less fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox.

Of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Mazda 121 with 1.2 petrol engine and automatic transmission (Mazda 121 1996 1.25i 75 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.2 liter petrol engine
Mazda 121 1996 1.25i 75 HP manual 33.1 MPG
7.1 l/100km
32.7 MPG
7.2 l/100km+1%
Mazda 121 1996 1.25i 75 HP automatic 35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km
1.3 liter petrol engine
Mazda 121 1996 1.3 50 HP manual 39.2 MPG
6.0 l/100km
Mazda 121 1996 1.3i 60 HP manual 33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km
1.8 liter diesel engine
Mazda 121 1996 1.8 D 60 HP manual 38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.