CX-5 Fuel economy

[mazdadude]

I have monitored this closely for over 1 year now on our CX-5. 17" wheels, stock tires, inflated at 35-36psi. Temp varied between 40-110F

After a year and 12k miles, the city/freeway average is 27 mpg, freeway only is 31 mpg, and if I can keep the speed around 55mph on the backroads, I can get 34 mpg.

 

[MikeM.]

My first tank was a bit over 24 and my second was around 25. That's with about 60/40 Hwy/City driving. Hopefully the trend of it going up continues.

On the highway I'm keeping it around 70-75 (big difference from the BMW where I'd zip along at 80, safely of course). I notice that the instant gauge at the 70-75 range is reading around 27mpg. That's a pretty big drop off from the 32 rating.

The bigger annoyance to me is that I think the range to empty is very pessimistic. With both fill ups I've had so far the car has only taken 12 or so gallons, meaning there is another 2.8 left in the tank.

Yes, if the 2014 is the same as the 2013 then there is quite a bit of range left when the Trip Computer shows "0 miles to empty". I think Mazda set it up this way because it's not a good idea to start sucking air on a direct injected engine. But whatever your fuel economy for your driving style/conditions, there are a number of benefits to tracking consumption on Fuelly. It can alert you to sub-standard fuel, changes in the way your car is running, etc. Simply taking off the cross-rails of a roof-rack can make a big difference to your HWY MPG. If you click on my Fuelly signature it will take you to a page where you can see the MPG of my CX-5 since it was new. You will notice one particular spike up to 36.3 MPG. This was not a fluke caused by not filling the tank all the way the next fill or by using hypermiling techniques - it was an extra good load of fuel. I remember it well. I fueled up at a different station than usual (not on my usual route) and, shortly after pulling away from the pumps the engine started running amazingly smoothly, much sweeter than usual. I commented to my wife and she even noticed it. I had rest the Average MPG as is my standard practice when fueling and watched in amazement as it climbed all the way over 37 mpg (I was on the Interstate going 60-65 mph). I would have thought it was a glitch or error in the trip computer software but for the smoother running engine. The proof was when I filled next time my manual calculations agreed with the trip computer. But the new load of fuel caused my MPG to plummet.

Yes, the fuel does matter and Fuelly is a valuable tool to help you identify stations that tend to have better or worse fuel. But it's not consistent from month to month and year to year. Still, I want to get back over to that Conway 76 to see if the load of extra good fuel they had was just a fluke or if they still have the good stuff. I always fill with regular.

 

[Bombadil]

FYI

The EPA derives its estimates from driving simulations done in a laboratory. The highway simulation covers 10.3 miles at an average speed of 48.3 mph, with about half the time spent at 55-60 mph. They do not test mileage at all at speeds above 60. People assume that the highway mileage estimate is for driving at 65 to 70 on an interstate, but it's not. I know some people complain when they don't hit EPA highway estimates when doing 70, feeling that they had some kind of guarantee.

Mazda is one of the companies which tend to measure better vs EPA estimates. Volkswagen does too. Whereas Ford and Chrysler tend to measure poorly in real life.

But it does go that if you purchase a vehicle with a highway estimate of 32 or 36 or whatever, that you will likely not achieve that number while on an interstate with your cruise control set to 72.

 

[HandA]

a quick overview of the process: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

I was surprised when I found out the car manufactures get to perform the test and the EPA only rechecks 10-15% of them but then I was even more shocked when I read in the last issue of car and driver that the manufactures, if they want, get to do a calculation based on their results from one of the tests to come up with some of the numbers for another test in place of actually running the test. The test they skip on the hybrids is one that they typically wouldn't do well on, yet running the calculation gives them numbers that aren't realistic in the real world.

and a great chart illustrating bombadil's point (not CX-5 specific):

probably even worse with less aerodynamic cars where the wind resistance has more imact.

 

[Seminole]

I'm not really upset about my mileage as I get reimbursed $0.56 for every mile I drive (90% of my miles are work related) but it's more that I didn't experience that big of a drop off in MPG from 65-75mph in the 328i I drove previous to the CX-5. I think the 328i was rated at 28 or 29 hwy and I would get right around that doing 80.

The bigger annoyance is the range at which the car indicates it's empty. I've been averaging around 300 miles per tank (only 2 tanks so far), which is a lower than the 400+ I could get out of the BMW. Now, the CX-5 has a smaller tank, so some decrease is to be expected, and in the end it's not necessarily more money, just more frequent fill ups, but the visiting the gas station once every 6-7 days instead of once every 8-9 days is a change for me.

 

[loximoto]

So, here I am with my awesome MPG average...
But, as I already told, my first 400km were all made in very short trips (3-5 km) in the city. Let's see what will happen with next fuelings.

 

[jtl]

Doesn't sound to me that this is any great economy car. My 11 year old Passat would get 29 on the highway. I was hoping for better.

 

[STE92VE]

Doesn't sound to me that this is any great economy car. My 11 year old Passat would get 29 on the highway. I was hoping for better.

John,

I don't think (and I may be wrong), that anyone is touting the CX-5 as any sort of economy car. Mazda (and all other car companies) uses their mileage numbers for marketing purposes for comparisons to vehicles in the same category. It also might be a question of perspective as I'm coming out of a 6 cyl premium gas user, so to me, the CX-5 seems like an economy car but I would never say it was one.

OTOH, if you're not getting the advertised gas mileage, than you might have an issue with Mazda if your driving habits are similar to those that the touted numbers are based on. But we all know that real world and test conditions are not the same.

Since your CX-5 is so new, maybe give it a little time for break-in, which usually yields better mileage numbers. I signed up with Fuelly to track my MPG numbers for schnitzel and giggles since that seems to be popular with folks on the forum. Don't know how I'll use the info but it will be interesting to see how it changes as break-in advances.

Steve

 

[Zeal Red]

Doesn't sound to me that this is any great economy car. My 11 year old Passat would get 29 on the highway. I was hoping for better.

I popped off 29 mpg doing mostly city driving. Your Passat weighed about 75-100 pounds less and was a sedan (guessing). Comparing it with the CX-5, not apples to apples.

 

[STE92VE]

So, here I am with my awesome MPG average...
But, as I already told, my first 400km were all made in very short trips (3-5 km) in the city. Let's see what will happen with next fuelings.

Thanks for posting. I have a similar commute and with the 2.5L, my mileage looks OK!

 

[ta240]

exactly, it isn't an 'economy car' it is a small crossover that gets good gas mileage for that type of vehicle.
Being a taller vehicle it lacks the aerodynamics of a regular car. A new Mazda6 will really outdo a Passat but it isn't the same type of vehicle as a CX-5
Autoweek pulled off over 31 mpg on their short test and they usually get well below the rated average mpg: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130310/CARREVIEWS/130309853 (they got 23.9 out of a Rogue recently)

 

[STE92VE]

I'm not really upset about my mileage as I get reimbursed $0.56 for every mile I drive (90% of my miles are work related) but it's more that I didn't experience that big of a drop off in MPG from 65-75mph in the 328i I drove previous to the CX-5. I think the 328i was rated at 28 or 29 hwy and I would get right around that doing 80.

The bigger annoyance is the range at which the car indicates it's empty. I've been averaging around 300 miles per tank (only 2 tanks so far), which is a lower than the 400+ I could get out of the BMW. Now, the CX-5 has a smaller tank, so some decrease is to be expected, and in the end it's not necessarily more money, just more frequent fill ups, but the visiting the gas station once every 6-7 days instead of once every 8-9 days is a change for me.

Interesting, that's almost the exact opposite of what I'm experiencing. Less frequent fill ups with the CX-5 than the BMW..(uhm)

 

[Bombadil]

exactly, it isn't an 'economy car' it is a small crossover that gets good gas mileage for that type of vehicle.
Being a taller vehicle it lacks the aerodynamics of a regular car. A new Mazda6 will really outdo a Passat but it isn't the same type of vehicle as a CX-5

It is worth noting that when using the same engine and comparing the FWD models, that a CX-5 is rated to get 25/32 EPA vs the Mazda 6 getting 26/38. The CX-5 has a higher drag coefficient, more frontal area, and is heavier. All of this is going to work even more against the CX-5 at higher speeds. And even more so if your CX-5 is AWD, as that adds more than 150 pounds to its weight.

I still think the CX-5 does really well on gas mileage considering its vehicle class. And the Mazda 6 has an excellent performance:mileage ratio. But it isn't going to be as fast as an Accord or Camry equipped with a V-6. Which is a shame, as I think a 6 with a V-6 would be such an excellent driving machine. I wonder if they will release a 6 with an engine along the lines of a 2.0L Turbo? Something making 240-260 hp?

 

[Dr_Watson]

First fill up today after 2.5 weeks of owning the car. Still had 100km showing on the range and only got 45 ltrs in, seems to be that at zero range, there must be at least 100 km worth still in the tank giving a range of around 850km or 530 miles, which is what the new range is showing.

Around 43 Uk MPG, 6.6L for us Euro mainlanders. Quite happy with this, I didnt buy it for economy, but it beats my old golf TSI by a few MPG and the CX5 is pretty big and blunt compared to it.

Can someone confirm what the tank size is in Europe, same as US I guess, around 56 or 58 litres I heard??

 

[dad of jon]

First fill up today after 2.5 weeks of owning the car. Still had 100km showing on the range and only got 45 ltrs in, seems to be that at zero range, there must be at least 100 km worth still in the tank giving a range of around 850km or 530 miles, which is what the new range is showing.

Around 43 Uk MPG, 6.6L for us Euro mainlanders. Quite happy with this, I didnt buy it for economy, but it beats my old golf TSI by a few MPG and the CX5 is pretty big and blunt compared to it.

Can someone confirm what the tank size is in Europe, same as US I guess, around 56 or 58 litres I heard??

56 liters for FWD and 58 for AWD - I'm getting 50+ UK mpg. awesome!

I drove a polo 1.2 TDI bluemotion yesterday and it was getting 65 UK mpg with similar mix of city / highway driving. However it had no go whatsoever.

 

[Dr_Watson]

Ta for the info, feels good having 60 miles range and 14 litres still in the tank! My economy was better until a couple of days during the week I had to drive to the other side of Zrich and I hit the dreaded Gbrist tunnel at rush hour, 30 mins of crawling didnt help at all. Tomorrow Im off to Siebnen at the bottom of Lake Zrich, should be a nice drive on the autobahn so will see what mileage I can expect.

 

[Exspeedaway]

I really need to know what am i doing so wrong, just look at my "sig" to understand what im talking about.(rolleyes)

 

[Dr_Watson]

56 liters for FWD and 58 for AWD - I'm getting 50+ UK mpg. awesome!

I drove a polo 1.2 TDI bluemotion yesterday and it was getting 65 UK mpg with similar mix of city / highway driving. However it had no go whatsoever.

Just back from a drive to Siebnen and back, just at the foot of the Alps, beautiful place.

Autobahn 99%, some steep up hills and downhills, set cruise to 115km/hr ( 72 mph ) on GPS and got 49 mpg which is a nice improvement. If the road was dead flat, mid 50's would be possible but not many roads are like that. I'm really enjoying the great visibility from the car, helps a lot while driving amongst the mad Swiss! Their motorway driving leaves a lot to be desired!

 

[bamirault]

I really need to know what am i doing so wrong, just look at my "sig" to understand what im talking about.(rolleyes)

You may be doing nothing wrong. A funny thing happened on the way to the NAC (National Arts Center) this afternoon while driving in "auto" mode in my GT. Noting that the engine note was a tad high while preparing to take the appropriate exit, I pulled the stick over to manual mode. This changed the gear display from "D" to the current gear selected by the transmission - which was 5 rather than the 6 I was expecting. While in manual I selected 6 and the truck made no objection to shifting to the higher gear.

Have you ever thought to periodically while in operation check the gear the truck has selected for you? Unless of course you own a manual - leaving me to sound pretty stupid.

Brian

 

[SayNoToPistons]

Check the sig. Located in NYC too.

For those who consistently get significantly lower than me, you have no excuse other than to change your driving style.