Archives

I'm back from my recent expedition to western Kentucky and southwestern Indiana, which added just over 1K miles to the 570K already on my GLC's odometer. Average mpg for the trip overall was about 48, a few less than sometimes. The car can do better, but I made too many short side trips, and felt pressured to go faster than I'd prefer on the Interstates to avoid getting run over. When this model was introduced, Mazda bragged about its drag coefficient of 0.44, vs. 0.49 for the previous generation GLC. Original EPA ratings were 35 city, 45 highway, but if "adjusted" by the circa 1985-2007 fudge factors, those numbers correspond to 31.5 and 35.1 mpg ratings. Actual real-world mpg rarely drops below 42 or so.

"It's a great little car!"... ("Lotta car")

Congrats on getting such great mileage and miles! Sounds like you were near "my neck of the woods!"

Wow ! My first Japanese car was a 1981 Mazda GLC Sport. As far as I can recall, the "Sport" part was just a trim package that included wheels,tires,maybe stiffer suspension, map lights. Yeah it was as aerodynamic as a barn , but at 55-57 mph it wasn't THAT bad(46-49 MPG). The quartz analog clock kept perfect time,which is more than I can say about my 2008 Civic. I sold it after eight years cuz I felt I "needed" the extra power of the 89 Civic Si. The GLC was a good little car.

I'm back from my recent expedition to western Kentucky and southwestern Indiana, which added just over 1K miles to the 570K already on my GLC's odometer. Average mpg for the trip overall was about 48, a few less than sometimes. The car can do better, but I made too many short side trips, and felt pressured to go faster than I'd prefer on the Interstates to avoid getting run over. When this model was introduced, Mazda bragged about its drag coefficient of 0.44, vs. 0.49 for the previous generation GLC. Original EPA ratings were 35 city, 45 highway, but if "adjusted" by the circa 1985-2007 fudge factors, those numbers correspond to 31.5 and 35.1 mpg ratings. Actual real-world mpg rarely drops below 42 or so.

570,000 miles!?! Are you kidding me, that's incredible! :thumbs_up: Are you the original owner? I have to imagine that a lot of the mechanicals have been replaced by now. By the way, how much does that GLC weigh. Upper 40's for such old technology sounds pretty impressive.

Congrats on getting such great mileage and miles! Sounds like you were near "my neck of the woods!"
Sorta near ... as near as Evansville.

... As far as I can recall, the "Sport" part was just a trim package that included wheels,tires,maybe stiffer suspension, map lights. ...
That's right. Your "Sport" was the top one of the four trim levels. My "Custom L" was the 2nd highest, and did include the fancy map lights, along with a bunch of other features lacking in the cheaper versions.

570,000 miles!?! Are you kidding me, that's incredible! :thumbs_up: Are you the original owner? I have to imagine that a lot of the mechanicals have been replaced by now. By the way, how much does that GLC weigh. Upper 40's for such old technology sounds pretty impressive.

No, I'm not kidding you (except to the extent that the odometer exaggerates, typically by around 1.8%, depending on the tires). It currently shows 571,424.
Yes, I'm the original owner.
Yes, several items have been replaced. Still has the original rings and PCV valve; original honing marks were still visible on cylinder walls when head was off (first time) at 476,402.
The original Mazda brochure claimed it weighs 1915 pounds---well under the Mazda2, which offers less room; several pieces have been added, and several subtracted over the years.
Upper 40's is normal. Occasionally it hits lower 50s---or lower 40s.

Pics or it didn't happen. ;)

Basically, I wanna see it! :)

Wow, way to go!

I recall that the 81 GLC Sport weighed 1980 lbs.

Good job.

I have an '88 Ford Escort that will also get in the mid-upper 40's on the highway and have broke into the low 50's once or twice. My Escort has 516K+ miles on it and has never had the head off of it. I guess we'll just have to see who can keep their faithful little cars going the longest.

Hi Ford Man,
"Good job" to you, too! When I bought the GLC, I considered an Escort, which had just been introduced in the U.S. The Ford salesman annoyed me by assuming I was naive enough to be impressed that the '81 Escort had sophisticated features such as rack & pinion steering and independent rear suspension, which may have been novelties to him, but were in my then-8-year-old Subaru. My North Carolina boss had two 80s Escorts before upgrading(?) to a Tempo.

A lesson of your car and mine is that, if properly designed, manufactured, operated, and maintained, ordinary gasoline car engines last far longer than people commonly assume. When the head on my GLC had to be replaced at 476,402 miles, that was due not to mechanical wear, not to loss of compression, but to severe erosion of coolant passages. Said the small-town parts-store machinist involved in a vain attempt to save the original head, before I informed him it was from a Mazda, "Them little Toyotas do that all the time!"

Wow, sorry to dig up this old post, but I just saw it and had to say something.

That's a great story. And a good example of why most modern cars just don't impress me. Simplicity is king - hybrid-like MPG in a 30-year old car with 30-year-old technology. It's something to think about.

Thanks, jcp!

At somewhere around 578K now, the GLC still likes long road trips, but is currently taking a long break while I recuperate from a broken clavicle, broken ribs, etc., etc., incurred when I took a U-turn too fast on the Trek.

Still want to see pictures! :)

:biglol:
Pics or it didn't happen. ;)

Basically, I wanna see it! :)

Still want to see pictures! :)

It would be kind of cool to see some pics if you have them. Some one over at Insight Central has a car with just over 448K, but in all fairness, it is a '00 car. I did hear of a Saturn SL that had 670K on it but again, it was at least 10 years newer than the OP's GLC. These are examples of why I don't have much faith in automakers who complain about how hard it will be to meet new mileage standards...when it was being done 30 years ago...and more. My aunt had a '62 Studebaker Hawk with the 289 V8 with a 4-barrel and a 3-speed manual with overdrive and could get 25-27 mpg at 70-80+ mph on trips to Oregon. Automakers just don't want to do it nowadays.

I have a few old snapshots of the car with me when we were both younger and better looking. I might try to find and post one when I'm physically back nearer normal. Or did you want to see a recent odometer photo? That will have to be taken.