Mile Per Gallon!!!!
- Thread starter sp535
- Start date
CX9 SportOwner
Member
More proof VCM isn't worth the complexity and cost. You can drive a bit more conservative and see better improvement.
VCM doesn't work because when the cylinders are shut off, you end up with an undersized engine. And, as stated, it only happens when the engine is under the least amount of load anyway. Waste of time.
VCM doesn't work because when the cylinders are shut off, you end up with an undersized engine. And, as stated, it only happens when the engine is under the least amount of load anyway. Waste of time.
nazgul350r
Member
- :
- 03 MSP & 08 CX-9 GT
Does the difference in the milage have anything to do with the 3.7 being DI and the 3.5 not? The heads not having the detergents from the gas going through them. One poster mentioned the difference between gas stations brands.
Food for thought.
Food for thought.
We just pounded our new CX-9 taking a road trip from Michigan to Oregon, driving around in Oregon up the gorge and back, and to the coast and back, and then returning home to Michigan.
I filled up with various fuels in the midwest including the ubiquitous 10% ethanol 89 octane on a regular basis and the car ran fine no matter what I put in it. Even ran fine with 85 octane on one tank.
Mileage was horrible in the mountains....but like.... duh! Cruise control worked awesome and the trans would drop gears for you on the downslopes to keep the speed precisely set. I was very impressed. Passing trucks and campers on the uphills used a lot of extra fuel though. I probably averaged 17mpg here.
Driving the relatively flat Nebraska and South Dakota, I would get around 23 traveling at 75 to 80 most of the time, but honestly I didn't take a lot of time to keep track. I would typically get around 300 miles out of 13 gallons only letting the tank get down to 3/4 empty.
My overall impression is the digital display showing your average mileage is pretty damn accurate.
I think this is a great vehicle and I'm happy with it thus far.
About the only negative is some of the front chrome trim is beat up from rocks and I am concerned about it bubbling and flaking off later, especially after winter and salty road debris get on it.
I filled up with various fuels in the midwest including the ubiquitous 10% ethanol 89 octane on a regular basis and the car ran fine no matter what I put in it. Even ran fine with 85 octane on one tank.
Mileage was horrible in the mountains....but like.... duh! Cruise control worked awesome and the trans would drop gears for you on the downslopes to keep the speed precisely set. I was very impressed. Passing trucks and campers on the uphills used a lot of extra fuel though. I probably averaged 17mpg here.
Driving the relatively flat Nebraska and South Dakota, I would get around 23 traveling at 75 to 80 most of the time, but honestly I didn't take a lot of time to keep track. I would typically get around 300 miles out of 13 gallons only letting the tank get down to 3/4 empty.
My overall impression is the digital display showing your average mileage is pretty damn accurate.
I think this is a great vehicle and I'm happy with it thus far.
About the only negative is some of the front chrome trim is beat up from rocks and I am concerned about it bubbling and flaking off later, especially after winter and salty road debris get on it.
Are you talking about the 3.7 in the CX-9? If so, it's not DI. I believe the only DI engine Ford currently produces is the EcoBoost.
Multiport fuel injection is not direct injection.
I've had my 2011 CX-9 GT FWD since the 11th, and drive a lot daily (around 95 miles) of very mixed roads. Also had 3 longer roadtrips mixed in. Up to 1600 miles, and started tracking my mileage officially at just over 1000 miles. Before then, the in car readout only--said 22.3mpg the first time.
Now with my commuting & other trips, as well as around town, still always over 22mpg:
http://www.mpgtune.com/fillupHistory.php?carId=5216
Still not sure what was changed for the 2011 model year in regards to fuel economy ratings (+1mpg city, +2mpg highway for FWD's) but I'm pleased so far, especially on winter gas. I worried coming from a big GM SUV that got great mileage for a big truck the 9 wouldn't be much better...but so far, so good. Hope it only continues to improve, especially after the winter to summer blend switchover happens.
Now with my commuting & other trips, as well as around town, still always over 22mpg:
http://www.mpgtune.com/fillupHistory.php?carId=5216
Still not sure what was changed for the 2011 model year in regards to fuel economy ratings (+1mpg city, +2mpg highway for FWD's) but I'm pleased so far, especially on winter gas. I worried coming from a big GM SUV that got great mileage for a big truck the 9 wouldn't be much better...but so far, so good. Hope it only continues to improve, especially after the winter to summer blend switchover happens.
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
From what I learned on other Mazda forums, what changed for 2011 is purely computer control programming.
My guess is that Mazda used Ford's programming from the beginning (2007), and now, their engineers decided
to modified it for better MPG. And, it works.
Some points I recall are about
- idling control
- down shifting fuel control
etc. Can't be precise, but you get the ideas....
My guess is that Mazda used Ford's programming from the beginning (2007), and now, their engineers decided
to modified it for better MPG. And, it works.
Some points I recall are about
- idling control
- down shifting fuel control
etc. Can't be precise, but you get the ideas....
- :
- 2010 Mazda CX-9 GT Dolphin Gray
If it's firmware then is it possible to have the same flash applied to the earlier 3.7?
Anyway, after about 3 weeks our CX-9 GT AWD is averaging about 17.5 with mixed driving. By comparison my Mazda6 sGT with the same engine (less some difference in programming) averages about 18.5. I'm guessing weight is the main variable here. I'm finding that, unlike my 08 MS3 GT, the trip computer is pretty accurate in both cars.
Our Mazda 5 averaged about 25mpg, but the trade off in fuel economy is well worth the vast improvement in luxury and drivability. Not that the 5 was a slouch- it was a great car at it's price point- but the 9 is an absolute pleasure to drive. At 6'3" I'm incredibly comfortable and relaxed when I'm zoom-zooming.
Anyway, after about 3 weeks our CX-9 GT AWD is averaging about 17.5 with mixed driving. By comparison my Mazda6 sGT with the same engine (less some difference in programming) averages about 18.5. I'm guessing weight is the main variable here. I'm finding that, unlike my 08 MS3 GT, the trip computer is pretty accurate in both cars.
Our Mazda 5 averaged about 25mpg, but the trade off in fuel economy is well worth the vast improvement in luxury and drivability. Not that the 5 was a slouch- it was a great car at it's price point- but the 9 is an absolute pleasure to drive. At 6'3" I'm incredibly comfortable and relaxed when I'm zoom-zooming.
Well sp535, we have had our 09 CX9 since Feb./09 and now have rolled up about 45K miles on her. Our best MPG on an extended trip was 23.8 and the usual around town it gets about 16-17. Like many have stated before, this is a heavy vehilce and add to that a heavy foot because it is so much fun to drive makes your MPG what it is. I wish it were better but after this amount of time we don't expect it to. Your low mpg is really poor and someone more knowledgeable than us should take a hard look at the mechanicals! Happy New Years!
MPG difference between 3.5 vs 3.7 liter engines
Don't know why Mazda felt they had to upgrade to the 3.7l engine but our 07 CX9 got 24-28 mpg highway and 16-18 city with the 3.5l and our 2010 with the 3.7l we get at best 21 on the highway and only 15 in city. No perceptible difference in performance between the two engines.
I do not buy the weight theory as our Honda Odyssey minivan which is shaped like a brick and weighs more gets 28 highway mpg at 75-80mph.
anyone care to explain the move to the 3.7l engine?
Don't know why Mazda felt they had to upgrade to the 3.7l engine but our 07 CX9 got 24-28 mpg highway and 16-18 city with the 3.5l and our 2010 with the 3.7l we get at best 21 on the highway and only 15 in city. No perceptible difference in performance between the two engines.
I do not buy the weight theory as our Honda Odyssey minivan which is shaped like a brick and weighs more gets 28 highway mpg at 75-80mph.
anyone care to explain the move to the 3.7l engine?
Last edited:
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
jrtouareg,
Several factors contribute to Odyssey's 28mpg rating
- narrower tires
- smaller/lighter wheels/tires
- lower to the ground (better Cd drag coefficient) and also longer shape (helps Cd value)
- smaller engine (3.5L as you mentioned vs 3.7L)
- Honda's VCM involved? (capable of running with 3/ 4/ 6 cylinders)
A better comparison is to Pilot or Highlander.
The CX9 (with 2011 model) actually have better or equal MPGs than Pilot even with bigger engine.
However, the Highlander still have better MPG thanks to narrower tires and being 200lb lighter.
For AWD, the CX9's drive shaft is rotating all the time in drive even if the rear wheels get no power.
The is designed to get "seamless" transfer of power to the rear (less starting mass).
This also costs some MPG, though I don't know how much.
Just got back from a skii trip to Lake Tahoe (reached 7000+ft elevation) - 220 miles
5 persons + gears.
going there: 21.5mpg
coming back: 23.5mpg
(follow or lead traffic all the way)
Not too bad for an AWD.
Just my two cents.
Several factors contribute to Odyssey's 28mpg rating
- narrower tires
- smaller/lighter wheels/tires
- lower to the ground (better Cd drag coefficient) and also longer shape (helps Cd value)
- smaller engine (3.5L as you mentioned vs 3.7L)
- Honda's VCM involved? (capable of running with 3/ 4/ 6 cylinders)
A better comparison is to Pilot or Highlander.
The CX9 (with 2011 model) actually have better or equal MPGs than Pilot even with bigger engine.
However, the Highlander still have better MPG thanks to narrower tires and being 200lb lighter.
For AWD, the CX9's drive shaft is rotating all the time in drive even if the rear wheels get no power.
The is designed to get "seamless" transfer of power to the rear (less starting mass).
This also costs some MPG, though I don't know how much.
Just got back from a skii trip to Lake Tahoe (reached 7000+ft elevation) - 220 miles
5 persons + gears.
going there: 21.5mpg
coming back: 23.5mpg
(follow or lead traffic all the way)
Not too bad for an AWD.
Just my two cents.
Last edited:
But why did they need to go to the larger, less efficient engine? Certainly not performance, because there wasn't any gained. 12hp? and 10% less mileage. Hmmmm
ord-las CX9
Member
- :
- 2010 CX-9 Touring AWD/Liquid Silver w Moonroof Bose
I'm getting 11 in the city and 16 highway with my awd. It is still new and running winter gas. Hopefully it will improve as time goes by..
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
Distance of your drives and use of A/C are two biggest factors of MPG.
Check tire pressure also.
Winter formula affect a about 5% only according to my ScanGaugeII-X.
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
The increase in horsepower is not much, but torque increase is significant.
My guess is that Mazda wanted to distinguish CX9 from other competitors which have 3.5L engines (Pilot, Highlander) and 3.6L (GM Triplets).
IslandTractor
Member
- :
- 2010 CX9 GT Silver/Blk
I agree with your analysis but would respectfully suggest to Mazda that to really distinguish themselves they should offer a 3 liter turbo diesel with 25-28MPG combined. That would get a lot more notice from the auto press.
Yep, my V10, 0-60 in 6 sec, 5400 lb all wheel drive VW Touareg TDI gets 25 mpg at 80 mph all day long. City mpg is 18. I don't buy ceric's explanation on the Odyssey as we've had 3 Odysseys. They all weigh more than the CX-9 and cd coefficient is higher also. It is over 4" taller taller than the CX-9 and only a 5 speed transmission. Not bashing the CX-9 as we just got our 3rd one (Xmas present to my wife 2011 GT FWD). Our 07 GT FWD we got at least 25mpg highway with a Thule car carrier on top with 5 passengers in our summer vacation. We got a best of 28mpg on a couple of tankfulls of 95% highway driving at 74mph.
jdmitchell
Member
- :
- 2009 CX-9 GT with everything except nav
Direct injection is another thing that could help the 3.7 get better fuel mileage. I don't know why Mazda chose not to use it since the price to manufacture a direct injection motor isn't much more than a regular fuel injected motor. 25-27 mpg would be attainable with it, but I only get around 20 mpg out on the highway.
