MPG Average

[Unobtanium]

I average 23-24mpg, 75% freeway, 25% City. Much worse than sticker. Disappointing. The only shortcoming of the CX-5 I have found. It required every hypermiling technique I know except drafting to match sticker on the freeway, in conjunction with driving 5mph under the limit. None of my other vehicles (Jeep GC, WS.6 Trans Am, 1988 Mustang GT, 2002 G20, C6 Z06, 1995 Trans Am, the list goes on...) EVER failed to meet EPA ratings when driven normally by me. Even the sports cars when I was a teenager.

Pure Freeway trips average 25-28mpg. As in, 500+ mile day trips with the cruise control on.

This will forever be a gripe of mine about the CX-5. Failure to meet expectation.

 

[Unobtanium]

I don't know why I'm getting 25mpg combined on my 2016 CX5 GT AWD? I drive freeway 60mph windows closed, and spend 70% of the time on freeway. I live in Northern California where weather is nice. Can someone please tell me?

These vehicles are STOOPID finicky. I have driven the same stretch of freeway in the same weather conditions and it varies by over 5mpg, how it will do, depending on if I hypermile it or not. If you drive like a normal human being you will get about what you are getting. If you hypermile it and coast up hills, GENTLY accelerate down hills, do 5 under, and in general, drive like a jerkoff with no reason to be going anywhere, you will get what the EPA rating claims.

 

[MikeM.]

I average 23-24mpg, 75% freeway, 25% City. Much worse than sticker. Disappointing. The only shortcoming of the CX-5 I have found.

In other posts you have described your driving style as aggressive, admitted to having a propensity to idle in your car while carrying on a phone conversation and making a lot of short hops. You get zero MPG while idling, short trips kill MPG and aggressive driving does the same.

Not surprising.

 

[Gio26NJ]

I have yet to see below 30 MPG when doing the majority of my driving on highways.

 

[Unobtanium]

In other posts you have described your driving style as aggressive, admitted to having a propensity to idle in your car while carrying on a phone conversation and making a lot of short hops. You get zero MPG while idling, short trips kill MPG and aggressive driving does the same.

Not surprising.

I fully agree that that can drive up the fuel cost, but driving with cruise control on one day, and the next day "hypermiling", and seeing 30ish mpg vs. 26.5-27mpg on the same stretch of road was a bit disgusting to me. Cruise control has ALWAYS returned near EPA ratings in my vehicles. Even my big bad Jeep. But in a Mazda, the EPA numbers are "THE BEST YOU WILL EVER GET!" as compared to "What you can probably expect on average" that my other vehicles demonstrated.

I don't even take into account that I would idle my jeep with its fuel sucking HEMI for 30+ minutes and still get near EPA numbers out of it, lol. This Mazda is just rated on "ragged edge" fuel mileage performance. I think Mazda gamed the driveline/vehicle dynamics for the EPA tests and not for real-world driving.

Also, I would note that my driving is less aggressive in my CX-5 than any other vehicle I've owned. On my road trips I was VERY conservative, never really breaking 80 for very often, and mostly doing 70-75 (average was in the low 70's) when I got barely 25mpg going to San Antonio. I've come to terms with the fact that I was...creatively marketed to...with this vehicle, and will next time get something more in-line with other matrices (the Forster Turbo, for example, gives a free 65hp for no extra fuel use...although it DOES require premium), compared to the CX-5. If I had known that, it may have swayed me a bit. Maybe.

Further, I would state that I am getting near identical numbers to many magazines which have tested the vehicle, such as Edmunds.
http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2...zda-cx-5-fuel-economy-update-for-january.html
^25.2 lifetime average
http://www.caranddriver.com/mazda/cx-5
^23, average
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2014/12/2015-mazda-cx-5-consumer-review.html
22.6, for a week, but in bad weather.
http://autoweek.com/article/car-reviews/2015-mazda-cx-5-grand-touring-review-notes
^23.9
https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...393432_753999722951_5395246610159914119_o.jpg
^25mpg avg from CR

I'd say my 23.5-24.5 "weekly average" is right on point, once you factor in a few minutes idling here and there! It certainly falls smack in the middle of what everyone else from Edmunds to C&D to CR to others got out of the vehicle, and quite a bit shy of these "forum claims". It leads me to think I am not the outlier, here...

You notice something? NOONE GOT WHAT THE EPA CLAIMED! NADA! NOT ONE! Only TWO got even as good as the EPA CITY ONLY RATING! This might be a clue that I am not the cause of the issue...

This IS the internet. Everyone here benches 405 and shoots 1/8" groups and has 9 inches in their pants and all that, so I'm not surprised at all the people claiming what they do, I just don't pay much attention to it when it runs contrary to every review I've ever seen or read, and my own experience.

 

[MikeM.]

But in a Mazda, the EPA numbers are "THE BEST YOU WILL EVER GET!"

You must be doing something wrong or have an issue then because my lifetime AVERAGE mpg is well above the EPA numbers and if I hypermile I blow away the EPA numbers. You can see every tank since my car was new almost three years ago by clicking my Fuelly badge.

Maybe you're doing something wrong, your brake pads are dragging or there is another fault with your particular car..

 

[Unobtanium]

You must be doing something wrong or have an issue then because my lifetime AVERAGE mpg is well above the EPA numbers and if I hypermile I blow away the EPA numbers. You can see every tank since my car was new almost three years ago by clicking my Fuelly badge.

Maybe you're doing something wrong, your brake pads are dragging or there is another fault with your particular car..

Nothing is wrong with me, or my vehicle. I get exactly the same mileage, on average, that CR,C&D,AW,Edmunds, and everyone else gets. That excuse is pretty weak and done for now that I've pulled every long-term test on the vehicle I could find...and saw that my numbers are identical. The pads are not dragging, I'm not racing it down the freeway, and I don't weigh 500#. It's just doing what it naturally does and should be expected to do in the real world.

 

[MikeM.]

Nothing is wrong with me, or my vehicle. I get exactly the same mileage, on average, that CR,C&D,AW,Edmunds, and everyone else gets. That excuse is pretty weak and done for now that I've pulled every long-term test on the vehicle I could find...and saw that my numbers are identical. The pads are not dragging, I'm not racing it down the freeway, and I don't weigh 500#. It's just doing what it naturally does and should be expected to do in the real world.

Which begs the question: "Why are you so eternally disappointed with your MPG when you get exactly the same mileage, on average, that CR,C&D,AW,Edmunds, and everyone else gets?"

Didn't you read the reviews and road tests from the motor journalists before you made your purchase decision? If you had, there would have been no disappointment and we wouldn't have to listen to you constantly moan about how you thought the mpg would be so much better than it turned out.

 

[GP 2004]

I'd say my 23.5-24.5 "weekly average" is right on point, once you factor in a few minutes idling here and there! It certainly falls smack in the middle of what everyone else from Edmunds to C&D to CR to others got out of the vehicle, and quite a bit shy of these "forum claims". It leads me to think I am not the outlier, here...

You notice something? NOONE GOT WHAT THE EPA CLAIMED! NADA! NOT ONE! Only TWO got even as good as the EPA CITY ONLY RATING! This might be a clue that I am not the cause of the issue...

This IS the internet. Everyone here benches 405 and shoots 1/8" groups and has 9 inches in their pants and all that, so I'm not surprised at all the people claiming what they do, I just don't pay much attention to it when it runs contrary to every review I've ever seen or read, and my own experience.

Thanks for posting this. That is right around the mileage that I'm getting. I thought my CX-5 was defective, because it got worse mileage than EPA estimates. The wife's Honda meets EPA estimates, The Mazda is a disappointment here.

Oh, for truth in posting: I can easily bench 105 and shoot 8" groups all day and the wife wishes I had 9 inches in my pants(boom05)

 

[MikeM.]

This IS the internet. Everyone here benches 405 and shoots 1/8" groups and has 9 inches in their pants and all that, so I'm not surprised at all the people claiming what they do, I just don't pay much attention to it when it runs contrary to every review I've ever seen or read, and my own experience.

LOL! I know what you mean but I could only bench 225 at my prime (and probably more like 170 now), at 50 yards my groups can only consistent fit within a quarter sized grouping and I'm a full 2" shy of that. But at least I'm honest and you can see every gallon I've put in my car, the date I put it in, where I bought the fuel, what I paid, what my odometer read and a rough approximation of city/hwy ratio.

In fact, I've tested my odometer and it reads .9-1% too low so you can add .3 mpg to my lifetime average if you want to be pedantic about it.

 

[KCSam]

LOL! I know what you mean but I could only bench 225 at my prime (and probably more like 170 now), at 50 yards my groups can only consistent fit within a quarter sized grouping and I'm a full 2" shy of that. But at least I'm honest and you can see every gallon I've put in my car, the date I put it in, where I bought the fuel, what I paid, what my odometer read and a rough approximation of city/hwy ratio.

In fact, I've tested my odometer and it reads .9-1% too low so you can add .3 mpg to my lifetime average if you want to be pedantic about it.

Hey Mike. Do you actively use cruise control when on the freeway? Personally, I am not having any issues with MPG. I'm getting on average 29.5 - which is fine with me. That's probably 50% hwy and 50% city. I'm just wondering how much of a difference cruise control may play into the MPG disparage amongst some posters on here. Just curious.

 

[MikeM.]

I've never had a car that got better mpg on cruise rather than manually. I've tried the CX-5 on cruise control but I get at least 1 mpg less, more in hilly areas. There's a feel to modulating the throttle just right that no cruise control can duplicate. I do it without even being aware of it.

 

[Unobtanium]

Which begs the question: "Why are you so eternally disappointed with your MPG when you get exactly the same mileage, on average, that CR,C&D,AW,Edmunds, and everyone else gets?"

Didn't you read the reviews and road tests from the motor journalists before you made your purchase decision? If you had, there would have been no disappointment and we wouldn't have to listen to you constantly moan about how you thought the mpg would be so much better than it turned out.

Actually, no, I didn't, you know why? *memory bubbles and music*

I had had the transmission out of my Grand Jeep Cherokee not 8 months prior, when I noticed it leaking. Again. So I had some dye put in it, and checked it that night with a UV light. It looked like a gay-pride jackson pollock on the underside. Sigh. So I went to the gym to burn off some hate, and when I left, I figured...ya know, it's made it 90K miles leaking and all...it leaked when I got it...maybe I should shup up and drive it, ya know? Maybe...and then the check engine light came on. I had been toying with the idea of another SUV for a long time, looking at Forester's, and everything else. I was in a rage when I got home. I parked the Jeep and didn't look at it. Went inside, cleaned a rifle, played some XBOX, vacuumed the floor. Did EVERYTHING but think about the Jeep until about 0600hrs. Then I faced up to the issue: I had a POS that was going to BLEED ME DRY! and I want to build a house in a year. Something had to give. I got on Autotrader, punched in "AWD, SUV, 2013 and newer, 50K miles and less" and saw what came up. Low and behold! A 2.5L Touring AWD CX5, 2015, with 28K miles, for $21,9XX. Well, I figured I'd at least go look at it, it looked decent, and it was a Mazda, a quick Google showed that it got good reliability ratings, so I went to look at it. The rest is history...

So no, I didn't go reading every review before I bought it.

Why am I dissapointed? Because it's not what it's advertised as. Remember the Mazda RX8? Mazda bought a bunch back because they sucked and Mazda over-sold the horsepower numbers. I recall that from when I was in highschool. Same thing with the CX-5, except no buy-back (not that I'd sell it back just because it's 2 mpg shy on average).

 

[Unobtanium]

LOL! I know what you mean but I could only bench 225 at my prime (and probably more like 170 now), at 50 yards my groups can only consistent fit within a quarter sized grouping and I'm a full 2" shy of that. But at least I'm honest and you can see every gallon I've put in my car, the date I put it in, where I bought the fuel, what I paid, what my odometer read and a rough approximation of city/hwy ratio.

In fact, I've tested my odometer and it reads .9-1% too low so you can add .3 mpg to my lifetime average if you want to be pedantic about it.

Haha, well, honesty counts! My best bench with no lift-off was 275# back when I weighed 173#. I don't lift heavy anymore though, the heaviest I go on bench is 100# dumbells x6.
I shoot around 1" at 50 yards. beyond that (that's my "zero range" for my rifle), I simply try to hit the target. Hits and misses only.

My speedometer reads 1mph fast compared to actual speed, I've found. I haven't thought too much about it (at 60mph).

GP2004, yeah, man, I know I'm not the only one. but ya know, the one thing that does make me smile is that I get 24.5mpg (driving normally) and it takes regular, and my Jeep averaged around 14.5mpg if I flogged the hell out of it and let it idle in the cold to warm up, etc. with the remote start, (16mpg, if I was super gentle), and it took mid-grade. This vehicle is reliable and all that, as well. So it could be far worse. I'm just frustrated at failing to meet EPA rating is all. Not at the actual performance of it.

 

[mazdadude]

I'm just frustrated at failing to meet EPA rating is all. Not at the actual performance of it.

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/heres-why-real-world-mpg-doesnt-match-epa-ratings.html

Well I have learned a lot. Looks like the changes in testing criteria happened in 2008/2009. Also, I used to think that the EPA did the testing, but it looks like they leave it up to the Manufacturer, unless there are enough complaints to warrant a test by the EPA.(eek)

 

[MikeM.]

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/heres-why-real-world-mpg-doesnt-match-epa-ratings.html

Well I have learned a lot. Looks like the changes in testing criteria happened in 2008/2009. Also, I used to think that the EPA did the testing, but it looks like they leave it up to the Manufacturer, unless there are enough complaints to warrant a test by the EPA.(eek)

Good article! Here's the part I find most relevant:

Individual driving style can cause the second biggest variation, lowering fuel efficiency by up to 18 percent. Edmunds testing supports these conclusions. "Calm" drivers, those motorists who don't accelerate constantly and who avoid unnecessary lane changes, get 35 percent better fuel economy than other drivers.

Wow! Who woulda thunk it? (wink)

 

[edj_03]

40+40 is the rule with the CX5.

40mpg at 40mph. I see the sweet spot at 1800-2100 RPMs at 38-42mph. I am sippin' at this combo. On the highway I can only do about 28 based on a mental calculation from watching the on board MPG meter display on the dash while driving. Sure, down hill, drafting a semi, etc will get me higher but usually factoring the mean curve, I'd say I'm at 28-ish on the hwy. The cold starts have been killing me. Last fillup I had a 85minute highway "event" where I was in park. Had my engine off quite a bit of that time but that hurt. So in summary I'd say with the city stop/go, highway stop/go, and cold starts...the CITY driving has been bumping me back up to the 27mpg average! 40/40 my friends. Watch your tach.

I have the similar experience with mixed/highway driving with a mix of mostly small hills and two pretty steep ones, driving for the most part with air conditioner running at the halfway level.
Been playing with down shift and let engine compressing do its thing and shifting into neutral at stop lights. But admittedly my normal city driving is very small. I'm getting between 22 th 35 mpg on my 2.5L AWD, but really takes a bit of effort monitoring myself and making small adjustments along the way to get at the higher end. I can say it is possible. I've also been experimenting with how deep into accelerating affects this, but at less then 2000 miles, I haven't had enough time to tell if it really matters in the end. I do have a very steep short driveway that consistently drops my mph 1 to 2 every time...
Over all, I'm satisfied with the mileage, waiting to see if this continues when thing get colder this winter.

 

[johnygfunk]

I have tracked my 2.0L 2013 touring fwd mpg for 118 fillups - by hand. I should have started out tracking my average mph per tank but didn't start that until recently. Over 118 fillups and a total of 43404.3 miles I have an average of 30.68 mpg. My best mpg tank is 36.155 mpg over 401.9 miles using 11.116 gallons. I also have gone 445 miles on 12.503 gallons for an average of 35.62. My worst tank is 25.67 mpg over 217.5 miles using 12.368 gallons.

The last 15 tanks I have started tracking my mph average as reported on the dash. I started doing this because I noticed my tanks and mpg were dropping and I didn't know exactly why. It was entirely due to me driving significantly more in the city. As soon as my mph average drops below 30 mph I see a considerable drop in mpg. My worst tank in these last 15 has been a 25.799 (324.4 miles on 12.574 gallons) with an average of 23 mph. By comparison at an average of 32 mph I got 31.3 mpg on 11.681 gallons.

Also, religiously checking my tire pressure makes a large difference. I now have Conti TrueContacts on the stock 17" rims. At 32lbs they get significantly (3mpg) worse mileage than at 34lbs. I am debating trying 36lbs for the next month to see how much if any benefit I get.

Also, recently did a blackstone lab report on the 5250 mile usage on the Mazda Moly oil. Engine report was fantastic and the Moly count was extremely high.

Edit: it was 5250 not 5700

 

[MikeM.]

Also, recently did a blackstone lab report on the 5700 mile usage on the Mazda Moly oil. Engine report was fantastic and the Moly count was extremely high.

That's cool (pics)

I'd love to see it if it's not too much trouble.

 

[MikeM.]

I have tracked my 2.0L 2013 touring fwd mpg for 118 fillups - by hand. I should have started out tracking my average mph per tank but didn't start that until recently. Over 118 fillups and a total of 43404.3 miles I have an average of 30.68 mpg. My best mpg tank is 36.155 mpg over 401.9 miles using 11.116 gallons. I also have gone 445 miles on 12.503 gallons for an average of 35.62. My worst tank is 25.67 mpg over 217.5 miles using 12.368 gallons.

Statistics are fun and all I do is get a receipt every time I fuel and write down my odometer reading and the mpg as reported by my trip computer to compare with the calculated mpg. Then I enter my results into Fuelly.com. Currently, my three month average is 449.2 miles per tank (spin)


My absolute worse MPG since new was 28.8 mpg but that was doing multiple ski trips in the middle of January with a lot of idling, warming up and driving through snow and mountain passes. The $$ I save on gas I use for fun adventures like winter trips to snorkel Hawaii in between ski trips. It's amazing going from skiing two feet of fresh pow-pow one day to stepping off the plane in Kauai the next day and smelling the tropical flowers and pleasant breezes. That's why I never complain about not having 300 useless HP on tap. Snorkeling in perfect water with the turtles and colorful fish is far better. I had to drive my F-150 the other day and noticed the trip computer was down to 15.2 mpg! I drove it 40 miles trying to get the MPG reading to move higher but it wouldn't budge because it hadn't been reset for ages. It holds 38 gallons of fuel and, when gas prices were high, it would cost over $150 to fill-up. Needless to say, the pick-up remains parked as much as possible.