mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
Displeased with mileage
- Thread starter Unobtanium
- Start date
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
As in, disconnecting the battery and re-connecting it? I used to do that kind of stuff with my 1980's Mustang GT when I played with the TPS settings. I figured that the Mazda with it's MAF and all that would be fine. Also, I have heard that on the Mazda, it's a real PITA because you have to re-do the tire sensor settings and all that jazz. It is weird and I've never had a modern car that had all those quirks when you disconnect the battery, so I have avoided doing so as it struck me as "don't go there, this is different..."
mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
I agree. Just grasping at straws.
Here in CA our pumps have recovery system that sucks out any overfill when you top-off, a lot of people don't understand you're only refilling the gas stations tank. So if you're trying to squeeze in an extra half gallon you're only wasting fuel and money.
On my cx5 four wheel drive anything above 65mph highway gets under 26 miles per gallon.
That assumes everyone's traffic congestion results in the same driving conditions as the city EPA rating, which just isn't true. Traffic is heavy in the core of our city, and you have to go through it to get to the other side - no ring road. There's plenty of stop and go traffic in which you creep along at a few km per hour, with a half dozen cars getting through each light. Frustrating as hell.
On my worst tank with the CX-5 I used 11.3 litres per 100 km (20.8 mpg), while on another - pure highway, I used only 7.64 litres per 100 km (30.8 mpg).
Overall, in my first 2000 km with the CX-5 I'm averaging 25.3 mpg. That's better than my 2010 Mazda 3 2.5L AT, which got a lifetime average of 23.75. I drive smoothly - my Mazda 3 still have 50% of its brake wear left at 58,000 km (36,000 miles).
I expect the mileage to improve now that I've got the low profile non-US spec headrests in the back seat. Less wind resistance. ;-)
Wow, that's really poor. My AWD CX-5 just took me to Seattle and back, about 190 miles of mostly Interstate with 30 minutes driving around the downtown area. Interstate cruising was 65 mph (up to 70) in moderate traffic and I got 33.6 mpg. I had about as many miles on the tank when I started the trip but the trip computer read 33.6 mpg at the beginning of the trip. The fact that it didn't change means I got the same mileage for the second half of the tank.
I would sell it if I could only get 26 mpg at 65 mph. Maybe you have a rack, roof box or other drag inducing add-ons?
mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
LOL
Sorry I wasn't clear Mike... when I go above 65 miles per hour , on flat level ground, maintaining that speed, the instant miles per gallon always reads 26 or less. if I go 45 to 55 mph I can get 32 to 34mpg .instantaneously.
The 2.5L motor uses a bit more fuel than the 2.0L you have. I got much better mpg with the 2.0 cx5. About 20-25%.
Last edited:
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
No, that is my point. You have 100's of people on Fuelly and other sites as well as this site with CX-5 milage within EPA guidelines for milage (taken at 21 for city and 48 for highway). You say your milage is off and Mazda should be held accountable for false advertisement. Yes, that is moronic.
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
That seems way off. I have a 2.5L that behaves very differently - are we talking about level ground? Lots of wind?
The 85MPH speed limit you speak of in Texas has only been around a couple years.
If you always set your cruise to the speed limit as you claim, I doubt that any of your older cars ever saw 85MPH.
Cruise control is never the most fuel efficient way to drive.
All cruise control systems are reactive. They don't predict terrain and they are not smooth with the throttle. An attentive drive should always be able to get better fuel economy than cruise control at any average speed.
What tires did you get? Different tires have significantly different rolling and air resistance. At least you stuck to OEM size I hope?
Some other factors to consider:
The CX-5's under-report mileage and speed by about 1%. If you're speedo is showing 80MPH you're really going almost 81
Many speedometers significantly over report speed. You're speedo might be showing 80, but you're really going 77.
This is an important factor. You've actually traveled 1% more distance than your ODO indicates and you've done so 1% faster than your speedometer indicates.
Your famously fuel efficient G20 may have over reported speed, so while you thought you were going 80 you may have been only doing 78.
As I'm sure you know, speed is the single largest factor affecting fuel consumption so 1% here and 2% there can make a significant impact.
You state that your v8 Jeep was able to match its highway fuel economy rating on long trips, but the CX-5 is not able to do so.
As others have said:
The CX-5 is not a good high speed cruiser because it has a large frontal area.. but so did your Jeep.
However,
The EPA highway test cycle involves a LOT of acceleration and deceleration.
Compared to the Jeep, the CX-5 does not use much fuel to accelerate because it's light.
The heavy Jeep uses ALOT of gas to get all that mass up to speed, but once it's there the V8 only uses maybe 20% more than the CX-5.
TLDR:
Adding weight to a car DOES NOT have a big impact on a cars steady speed highway fuel economy, but it has a large impact on the EPA HWY rating.
I really wish the EPA would just publish a simple steady speed fuel economy at various speeds (say 45, 65 and 85) instead of using overly complicated test cycles.
I find it intersting that every one talks about Hyundai over rating their cars, but that was only a couple MPG difference.
No-one seems to remember Ford and their silly hybrids.
The 2013 C-MAX first sold with 47 HWY and 47CITY mpg...
With the most recent update that POS is now rated at 37HWY and 42CITY
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/updates.htm
Hey guys - first time posting here, and figured I'd jump right into a appropriate topic and maybe someone can give me some real-world numbers. I currently drive a 2003 VW GTI (1.8t), and no matter what I do with it, I'm usually in the 27-29 mpg range. I would say my driving is probably 85% highway if not more (PA turnpike with little traffic). Speeds are typically on the high side 75-85.
I'm looking into a 2016 CX-5 AWD 2.5l - does anyone think I wouldn't at least match what I have now? One of the biggest reasons I"m looking at the CX-5 is mileage - I drive close to 25k a year (60 mile round trip commute) so it definitely makes a difference. I've been highway driving for years so I'd like to think I'm usually doing pretty good.
The AWD part is what I'm not sure of - I've never "needed" it before...and even now if it snows bad enough I can usually work from home, but we definitely get our share of snow in PA.
I'm looking into a 2016 CX-5 AWD 2.5l - does anyone think I wouldn't at least match what I have now? One of the biggest reasons I"m looking at the CX-5 is mileage - I drive close to 25k a year (60 mile round trip commute) so it definitely makes a difference. I've been highway driving for years so I'd like to think I'm usually doing pretty good.
The AWD part is what I'm not sure of - I've never "needed" it before...and even now if it snows bad enough I can usually work from home, but we definitely get our share of snow in PA.
- :
- Mazdaspeed6
Any reason why you aren't considering a Mazda 3?
With AWD and the 2.5l, if you can't better your current efficiency, you can sure match it. Leave earlier in the day and knock 10 mph off of your speed and you're golden.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
With AWD and the 2.5l, if you can't better your current efficiency, you can sure match it. Leave earlier in the day and knock 10 mph off of your speed and you're golden.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
I too am getting a low of 30.1 and a high of 32.9 out of my first 4 fill ups. I was only getting 33 in my Honda Fit, so I am most pleased at the moment. Mine is 2016 CX5 GT with AWD. I have been driving conservative until I break it in a bit more.
Actually I first looked at the 3...and had no issues with it except for the cramped back seat, and with my parents getting older I was hoping for a little more room plus the ability to possibly pull a small trailer once in a blue moon. I'm 5'8" and could only put two fingers between the top of my head and the roof (in the back seat). I dont drive people that often but I wanted something a little bigger (always wanted a truck), so with the mileage of the Cx5 I'm hoping to have my cake and eat it too - kinda.
Hoping to see if I can get an extended test drive and see how they do on the highway - these dealers think that driving around the block will give me a good idea of how the car runs when most of my driving is at 70+ on a highway.
Hoping to see if I can get an extended test drive and see how they do on the highway - these dealers think that driving around the block will give me a good idea of how the car runs when most of my driving is at 70+ on a highway.
- :
- 2014.5 CX-5 GS FWD 2.5L
FWIW, up here in Canada, Mazda has changed their EPA numbers for the CX5.
When I bought our 2014 CX5, the manufacturer window sticker read 46mpg highway (6.2L/100km).
Parked right next to it was a 2015, same model, but the window sticker read 39mpg (7.1L/100km).
That's a whopping 14% decrease and made it real confusing when shopping, trying to figure out why one vehicle had way different performance than the other. (Sales people didn't even know).
Mazda changed the EPA numbers between 2014 and 2015. The exact reason is unknown, but the new numbers were more realistic of regular driving. Apparently the government had something to do with it and maybe it was just a new way of recording the numbers.
Depending if you purchased a 2014 or 2015-16, the mileage is no different on these cars, but they are advertised totally different. I can see why some people would be upset that they are not making the advertised number.
So after one year of driving, it would be pretty tough to hit that 46 mpg mark, but have had several tanks in the 42-43 mpg range. Not mad that I can't hit the advertised mark, since I know how these numbers were generated. Figured if I could get close (90%) I'd be happy.
But when using the 2015-16 EPA numbers, we can beat it no problem, both city and hwy.
I'm happy with the numbers, just hope there is some regulation to make it fair across the board with all brands.
Anyways, just some trivia for you.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Well, South Korea Hyundai Motor Group, which owns 33% of Kia, got fined a record $100M cash, $200M worth of gas emissions credits, and $50M to set up an an independent test unit last November because they were understating greenhouse-gas emissions. I knew Ford C-Max overestimated its MPG but got away with it. Was it because Ford is a domestic car company? Or Ford has a better lobby system? Or something else?
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
You have two issues here.
Firstly, you got confused between Imperial Gallon and US Gallon:
1 Imperial Gallon = 4.546 Liters
1 US Gallon = 3.785 Liters
6.2 L/100 km = 37.94 MPG (US)
7.1 L/100 km = 33.13 MPG (US)
Secondly, You might get confused the gas mileages between 2.0L and 2.5L CX-5's. EPA fuel efficiency ratings for CX-5 have never changed since CX-5's were available in North America market from MY 2013 ~ 2015.
- :
- 2014.5 CX-5 GS FWD 2.5L
Actually I have no issues at all.
Yes I know our gallon is a little bigger so my mpg are higher. Since I live up here, I post in our mpg. Sometimes I post all 3 versions so everyone gets the correct number, but there's just too much info listed that way.
46 Canadian mpg = 6.2L / 100 km = 38 US mpg
No confusion here...........2.5L all the way
As for the EPA rating never changing...........well lets see, go to a mazda CA website and check out the fuel economy specs which are listed at 8.9 / 7.1 hwy/city per 100km.
My window sticker reads 8.3 / 6.2L per 100km. It also says 2014 CX5 GS 2.5L. (for southern folks, GS stands for touring)
Nothing to argue about, just listing the facts.
The point of my previous post was to show when using my 2014 EPA numbers, it would be very difficult to get those results in actual driving. But using the newer '15/16 numbers, they are easily achieved. Mazda plays the EPA game just like other brands.
Yes I know our gallon is a little bigger so my mpg are higher. Since I live up here, I post in our mpg. Sometimes I post all 3 versions so everyone gets the correct number, but there's just too much info listed that way.
46 Canadian mpg = 6.2L / 100 km = 38 US mpg
No confusion here...........2.5L all the way
As for the EPA rating never changing...........well lets see, go to a mazda CA website and check out the fuel economy specs which are listed at 8.9 / 7.1 hwy/city per 100km.
My window sticker reads 8.3 / 6.2L per 100km. It also says 2014 CX5 GS 2.5L. (for southern folks, GS stands for touring)
Nothing to argue about, just listing the facts.
The point of my previous post was to show when using my 2014 EPA numbers, it would be very difficult to get those results in actual driving. But using the newer '15/16 numbers, they are easily achieved. Mazda plays the EPA game just like other brands.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
So it sounded like Mazda didn't change EPA fuel efficiency estimates in the US, but tuned down a bit in Canada in 2015?
These are EPA MPG's in the US for MY 2013 ~ 2015:
[table="width: 650, class: grid"]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]2013 ~ 2015 Mazda CX-5 SkyActiv-G 2.0L[/td]
[td]2014 ~ 2015 Mazda CX-5 SkyActiv-G 2.5L[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]EPA MPG[/td]
[td]MT FWD: 26 City/35 Hwy
AT FWD: 26 City/32 Hwy
AT AWD: 25 City/31 Hwy[/td]
[td]AT FWD: 25 City/32 Hwy
AT AWD: 24 City/30 Hwy[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
A new testing method started being used for 2015 models and beyond here in Canada: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/transportation/cars-light-trucks/buying/7491
The previous numbers were not realistic in the real world. I believe the new method is more in line with EPA ratings.
