Mazda -- Most Fuel Effieient Automaker

Here is Edmund story explaining EPA mpg rating.

Here's Why Real-World MPG Doesn't Match EPA Ratings
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/heres-why-real-world-mpg-doesnt-match-epa-ratings.html

Very helpful, thanks. To quote from the article:

"Real people drive real cars in the real world. There are so many variables that the idea of an absolutely accurate rating of average mpg is laughable. But to new-car buyers, it often feels as if the joke is on them."

"Almost all cars and trucks deliver better fuel economy while cruising at 55 mph on the open highway than they do while stopping and starting at low speed on city streets."

My wife is a careful driver, but she consistently gets worse mileage than I do with both of our cars. The reason? She uses the brakes more, leaves a shorter space to the vehicle ahead, and changes speed more. I drive faster overall, but get better mileage because I maintain a more consistent speed. Of course, we both get much worse mileage then the EPA ratings for our cars because we live in one of the most congested cities in North America.

If you are consistently beating EPA ratings with your vehicle(s), you're likely driving near-ideal routes that allow you to maintain constant speeds over long portions of your normal driving.

I did one trip with my CX-5 on which I got 31.5 mpg on a 155 mile trip that started at sea level, ended at 2200 feet, and went over two 4,000 foot summits, driving at an average of 70 mph most of the way. Of course, I had filled up beside the highway to start, and filled up at the end just off the highway, so there was very little city mileage - almost all highway. That's 7.46 Litres per 100 km, better than Mazda's quoted 7.9 L/100 km. So it will do it. But day to day, I'm down around 23.5 mpg all round, or 10.1 L/100 km, which is worse than Mazda Canada's quoted city mileage of 9.9 L/100 km (23.76 mpg). I think that's great for an AWD vehicle with a large frontal area and can do 0-60 in 7.8 seconds.

Mazda is a "cheap" car. Funny thing, though. I can afford to drive any car I want, and I'd never buy a BMW. A friend who's been a BMW mechanic for 20 years drives a Subaru. When I asked him why he said BMWs are overpriced and over-rated. I completely agree.
 
I think the EPA test requirement have changed over the years. Older cars likely used a different test so comparing them to newer cars may not be as relevant as you think. Perhaps we should be comparing the same year cars so they are using the same test to see if they are better than EPA or not...
 
I think the EPA test requirement have changed over the years. Older cars likely used a different test so comparing them to newer cars may not be as relevant as you think. Perhaps we should be comparing the same year cars so they are using the same test to see if they are better than EPA or not...

Apparently, the old EPA tests were even more out of whack with the real world than the more recent standard.
 
I averaged ~38 MPG during the summer, and ~34 MPG during the winter in my previous 2014 3i Touring Hatchback. However, on one 3 hour round-trip (Mid-September) where I could go about 50-60 MPH the entire way (due to speed limits), I averaged 44 MPG with casual driving (actual calculation). That's well above the 40 MPG on the window sticker.

I'm sure I could easily hit at least 30 MPG in my CX5 on the same route if I were to take it again.
 
The autoblog article that this thread referred to initially talks about Mazda's combined MPG. Am I safe to assume this is an average of all Mazda products compared to the overall/combined MPG of other manufacturers? I just wanted to make sure I understand the focus of the article....

you seem to understand the article correctly.

One of the reasons why Mazda does so well compared to others is that mazda doesn't really sell any gas guzzlers. No trucks and no large SUV's,
when the 2016 CX-9 goes on sale with drastically better MPG than the outgoing model, mazda's average will improve quite a bit.
 
I averaged ~38 MPG during the summer, and ~34 MPG during the winter in my previous 2014 3i Touring Hatchback. However, on one 3 hour round-trip (Mid-September) where I could go about 50-60 MPH the entire way (due to speed limits), I averaged 44 MPG with casual driving (actual calculation). That's well above the 40 MPG on the window sticker.

I'm sure I could easily hit at least 30 MPG in my CX5 on the same route if I were to take it again.
At 50-60mph, I think 30mpg is very do-able.
 
you seem to understand the article correctly.

One of the reasons why Mazda does so well compared to others is that mazda doesn't really sell any gas guzzlers. No trucks and no large SUV's,
when the 2016 CX-9 goes on sale with drastically better MPG than the outgoing model, mazda's average will improve quite a bit.

Makes total sense. They have no real powerful vehicles, and no real heavy vehicles. The death of the RX8 helped tremendously, as well.
 
Just saying, ladies and gentlemen, let's keep this discussion on topic, without personal attacks. This forum doesn't seem to have a moderator, like other forums I have participated in. I love the spirited discussions and opinions and look forward to the many views presented here. Now back on topic.....

I have mostly mixed driving (75% in-town, 25% hwy) and average between 24-25 MPG. My highest MPG has been obtained on a trip from GA to PA, obviously mostly HWY miles - 31MPG. I have owned this car for 8 months and have been very pleased with the mileage. If the real world mileage is somewhat close to the advertised estimate, then I am a happy camper. I traded a 2015 Jeep Cherokee in for this CX-5 and couldn't be happier!

The Jeep Cherokee is a total pile, however, I am curious how its mileage was for you, compared to sticker?
 
I've owned many cars and none of them outperformed the EPA mpg rating.

Interesting. All of mine have on the highway how I drive them. Around town and "total average", I admit to not having paid much attention except in my Jeep, and it would meet or exceed the "average combined" by 1-2mpg unless I was romping on it all the time, in which case it would come out right about EPA average.
 
Below is a cut and paste article from Consumer Reports on EPA fuel economy, how they test, and how CR tests. On average Mazda as a company beat the EPA tests by 2%, putting Mazda near the top as an automaker. Their combined fuel economy for the CX5 AWD 2.5 was also 25 mpg and it was 25 mpg for the 2.0 as well. Their highway testing with a steady 65 mph matched the EPA figure with a top speed of 60 mph and stop and go driving as part of the EPA cycle. No anecdotal material, just facts.

Why You Might Not Be Getting the Efficiency Promised
Some window stickers promise too much
Consumer Reports magazine: August 2013
Find Ratings blob logo

Hybrids/EVs
See Dealer Pricing

When comparing the fuel economy of cars, consumers often rely on window stickers that display mpg estimates from the Environmental Pro*tection Agency. But in our testing, weve found that the figures for certain vehicles can be far higher than many drivers will actually get. And the largest differences involve some of the most fuel-*efficient cars, particularly hybrids. So the people who care most about gas mileage could feel the most shortchanged.

When we compared the EPA estimates of 315 vehicles with the results of our real-world fuel-economy tests, we also found notable gaps in cars that use small turbocharged four-cylinder engines, intended to provide the power of larger engines and the gas mileage of smaller ones.

Sticker shock
In our testing, hybrids generally get some of the best overall gas mileage in their classes, led by models such as the Toyota Prius (44 mpg) and hybrid versions of the Honda Civic (40), Ford Fusion (39), and Toy*ota Camry (38). But an owner expecting to get the same mpg shown on the window sticker and in advertising for some of the cars might be disappointed.

Of the hybrids weve recently tested, 55 percent fell short of their EPA combined city/highway estimates by 10 percent or more, with hybrids built by Ford showing the largest discrepancies.

At 34 mpg overall, the Lincoln MKZ Hybrid is invitingly thrifty. But it gets 11 mpg less, or 24 percent lower, than its 45-mpg EPA figure. The C-Max and Fusion hybrids fall 10 and 8 mpg, respectively, below their advertised 47 mpg. Similarly, the Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid also falls 8 mpg short. For consumers who buy the MKZ, for example, that can amount to paying $1,510 more in gas over five years than they might have expected (assuming gas costs $3.50 per gallon and the car is driven 12,000 miles annually).

We believe the current testing regulations account for some variability of driving styles, patterns, and environmental conditions, Ford spokesman Todd Nissen told us in an e-mail. The latest-generation hybrids may be more sensitive to driving consistently outside of these factors.

Similarly, we found that 28 percent of cars with small turbo engines also fell short of their EPA estimates by 10 percent or more. Those include models such as the Buick Encore, Ford Fusion, and Nissan Juke.

Whats going on?
EPA estimates dont always reflect real-world driving performance largely be*cause they are based on outdated tests de*signed to measure vehicles with conventional pow*ertrains in particular driving situations rather than todays increasing*-ly sophisticated gas/electric systems. In fact, according to Mike Duoba, a research en*gineer at Argonne National Laboratory who works on keeping the tests up to date, the EPA tests were originally designed to test emissions, not fuel economy. They wanted to test a variety of speeds and accelerations.

The EPA test for city fuel economy is conducted at very low speeds, with gen*-tle acceleration and minimal idling. The highway test includes quite a bit of stop-and-go driving, with a maximum speed of 60 mph and an average speed of 48.

Hybrids are most efficient in those conditions. With a light foot on the throttle, the latest models can often cruise in electric mode up to about 60 mph, so they can perform portions of the EPA tests without consuming a drop of gas. By contrast, Consumer Reports highway mpg tests are performed by driving at a steady 65 mph, reflecting a driver cruising on an interstate highway. In that situation, a hy*brid is constantly running its gas engine, so it doesnt get the full benefit of using its electric power. Thus, it gets fewer mpg than in the EPA test.

Similarly, small turbocharged engines rarely need to spool up their turbos to develop sufficient power for the EPA tests. Our test calls for larger throttle openings so that cars can accelerate from, say, 20 to 40 mph within 500 feet, which results in more turbo use and more air and fuel being pumped into the engine.

Closing the gap
Overall, fuel-efficiency shortfalls have narrowed considerably over the years. When Consumer Reports conducted a similar study in 2005 that compared our gas-mileage results with the EPA estimates, we found that most cars got significantly fewer mpg than their window stickers promised. Conventional gas-powered vehicles missed their EPA estimates by an average of 9 percent, and hybrids by 18 percent.

For 2008 models, the EPA updated its testing formula, which brought most vehicles closer in line with our measurements. Now we find that, on average, conventional cars missed their EPA estimates by only about 2 percent in our tests, and hybrids by about 10 percent.

Enesta Jones, an EPA spokeswoman, says that the 2008 revision reduced the mpg estimates for hybrid vehicles by up to 30 percent for city driving and 25 percent for highway use. This is a significant reduction that clearly better reflects real-world operation.

In our tests, most cars exceed their EPA highway estimates but fall well short in city mpg. That is especially true for hybrids, which have fallen an average of 28 percent short of EPA city estimates.

Of course, automakers try to put their best foot forward in the EPA tests, taking advantage of any variables that might improve their results. Duoba notes two ways to get the best result: using the best car, optimized for the test, and driving efficiently. How much the driver can improve the mpg can vary a lot from car to car, he says. Some hybrids are very sensitive to how they are driven.

Those factors can further increase the difference in a vehicles performance between the EPA estimates and real-world driving. Many times, your average car off the lot will not perform as well as a certif*ication test car, Duoba adds.

We have discussed our findings with the EPA, and the agency says it is reviewing its tests and is considering updating them. In the meantime, consumers should be aware that they might not get the efficiency promised on the window sticker. You can see our fuel-economy test results in our road tests. Also, check out our lists of the best and worst vehicles for fuel economy.


The governments tests vs. ours

Lab measurements. The EPA estimates you see on a cars window sticker are the result of fuel-economy tests run in a lab on a rolling treadmill called a dynamometer.

They are performed by the automakers, using test protocols formulated by the EPA. The agency then spot-checks about 15 percent of the models in its own lab.

The automakers pick the cars they test. Protocols require test results for every major variation of engine, transmission, and drivetrain, but minor variations such as different axle ratios on pickups and a special performance version of a model are often lumped into the results of higher-selling versions.

On the dynamometer, cars are driven on precise simulated routes. But maximum speed and acceleration in the tests are slow by the standards of modern traffic. To help bring the results for most cars in line with real-world driving, three new routes were added in 2008, reflecting higher speeds, more use of air conditioning, and driving in colder temperatures.

But automakers are allowed to comply with the new ratings for many models using mathematical simulations of the new tests. And because those simulations were developed before many modern hybrids were on the road, they might be inaccurate for todays drivetrains.

Road tests. Consumer Reports fuel-economy tests are conducted on our track and on public roads. Testers splice a precise fuel meter into each test cars fuel line to measure how much gas is consumed. Each car is then run through highway and city drive loops, with each performed multiple times by two drivers.

The city test is conducted on a loop thats set up on our track to reflect driving in a suburban area. Its marked so that a driver must maintain specific speeds in certain sections and stop the car at specific points for set idling times. Highway mpg is measured by driving on a particular stretch of sparsely used freeway near our test track at a steady pace of 65 mph. Each driver runs the test in both directions to compensate for wind and the slight difference in grade.

Our raw results are corrected for temperature using a formula established by the Society of Automotive Engineers. But we dont test if its too hot, too cold, too wet, or too windy. Our overall mpg is a weighted composite of city and highway mpg measurements.
 
Want to add one more thing. When you consider the performance you get in terms of acceleration for the fuel economy you get; the CX5 achieves a milestone here. For example mine does 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds (verified with my G-tech) and at least for me, I consistently exceeded the EPA fuel economy numbers. I do not drive slow either but do pay attention to whats going on around me so that I maintain my momentum with as little braking and accelerating as possible. The 2.0 liter engine is even greater at exceeding those EPA numbers. I was getting consistent 36 mpg all highway driving with the cruise control at 69 mph with the FWD automatic sport I once had. A few times I achieved over 38 mpg. That Sport model could do 0-60 mph in as little as 8.44 seconds, again verified with my G-tech. This is in my mind an amazing feat and solidifies for me, and I think most of us here, that the CX5 is a great vehicle.
 
Want to add one more thing. When you consider the performance you get in terms of acceleration for the fuel economy you get; the CX5 achieves a milestone here. For example mine does 0-60 mph in 7.5 seconds (verified with my G-tech) and at least for me, I consistently exceeded the EPA fuel economy numbers. I do not drive slow either but do pay attention to whats going on around me so that I maintain my momentum with as little braking and accelerating as possible. The 2.0 liter engine is even greater at exceeding those EPA numbers. I was getting consistent 36 mpg all highway driving with the cruise control at 69 mph with the FWD automatic sport I once had. A few times I achieved over 38 mpg. That Sport model could do 0-60 mph in as little as 8.44 seconds, again verified with my G-tech. This is in my mind an amazing feat and solidifies for me, and I think most of us here, that the CX5 is a great vehicle.

It's impressive for a suv at least, for sure. I've hypermiled 31mpg out of mine before. It sucked, but it was possible.
 
Where are you getting those Fuelly averages??
I'm seeing:
KhxNuwo.png

2hE5Kpf.png


Our vehicles:

1998 Honda CR-V AWD 4-speed automatic: EPA 19/23/20 city/highway/combined MPG.
Fuelly.com real-world MPG: ~24 MPG.
FuelEconomy.gov average real-world MPG: 23.8 MPG

2000 BMW 528i 5-speed automatic: EPA 16/24/19 city/highway/combined MPG.
Fuelly.com real-world MPG: ~24 MPG
FuelEconomy.gov average real-world MPG: 26.3 MPG

2016 Mazda CX-5 AWD 6-speed automatic: EPA 24/30/26 city/highway/combined MPG.
Fuelly.com real-world MPG: ~27 MPG
FuelEconomy.gov average real-world MPG: 27.3 MPG

The real-world average MPGs are better than EPA highway estimates on CR-V and 528i, just like I experienced. And both have pre-2008 EPA fuel economy estimates which are 22% over-estimated highway rating than current calculation!

nope.. the numbers you quoted are not the original EPA numbers.
e1SQRPp.png

h14xvAx.png

The point here is our two other vehicles can easily beat EPA highway estimates which were already 22% over-estimated even at 75 mph from my personal experience. Even the average real-world MPG is better than EPA highway estimates! This is definitely not the case for Mazda CX-5!
Looks like your numbers were way off..
The CRV gets an average of 20.4MPG which is 18.4% below the 25MPG HWY it was originally rated at.
The BMW gets an average of 21.8 which is 16.2% below the 26MPH HWY it was originally rated at.
meanwhile the 2014 ( I choose the 2014 because it has the most samples) CX-5 gets an average of 27.2 MPG which is between 9.3% and 15% less than the HWY rating of 32MPG FWD or 30MPG AWD.
I don't think my numbers were "way off". I did read it wrong on Fuelly's data due to its complex and confusing categories and you can't distinguish the difference between the FWD and AWD. But you also filtered it wrong on 1998 Honda CR-V and low-balled the real-world MPG from Fuelly:

Fuelly%2525201998%252520Honda%252520CR-V.jpg


For some reason you totally ignored the easy-to-read real-world fuel economy data from Department of Energy which does distinguish the FWD and AWD.

I didn't realize the EPA data for pre-2008 vehicles from DoE website have adjusted to current calculation for fuel economy estimates. But by using pre-2008 original EPA inflated estimates on 1998 Honda CR-V and 2000 BMW 528i, but using current EPA estimates on CX-5, all the calculations from you were unfair and "way off" by at least 22%! Not to mention you'd used wrong Fuelly number on CR-V.

According to DoE, my statement still stands corrected. The real-world average MPGs are better than EPA highway estimates on CR-V and 528i! My personal experience also supports that and our older and less-efficient vehicles such as CR-V and 528i constantly beat EPA highway estimates while driving on the interstate highways, even with original inflated estimates, only CX-5 failed to do so, and way off too!
 
Last edited:
OK, let's say the '98 Honda CR-V was a marvel of modern engineering. What has happened to the CR-V since then? Let's look at the comparison from the DoE:

View attachment Compare Side-by-Side.pdf

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=14730&id=35787&id=35993&id=33404

Hmmm, it seems the 2015 CR-V doesn't fare so well. For 2015 the CR-V had EPA numbers of 26/33/28 (city/highway/combined) but the average reported by owners is only 24.6! Oh the horrors! Honda is as bad as Mazda. Maybe even worse.

So what has changed? CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards! Because of ever increasing CAFE numbers that have to be met, all manufacturers (not just Mazda) are not being as conservative with their estimates as they used to be.

The bottom line of all this is that I don't know of any present day vehicle in the CX-5's class that will get its EPA highway estimate at 75+ mph.
 
OK, let's say the '98 Honda CR-V was a marvel of modern engineering. What has happened to the CR-V since then? Let's look at the comparison from the DoE:

View attachment 212936

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=14730&id=35787&id=35993&id=33404

Hmmm, it seems the 2015 CR-V doesn't fare so well. For 2015 the CR-V had EPA numbers of 26/33/28 (city/highway/combined) but the average reported by owners is only 24.6! Oh the horrors! Honda is as bad as Mazda. Maybe even worse.

So what has changed? CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards! Because of ever increasing CAFE numbers that have to be met, all manufacturers (not just Mazda) are not being as conservative with their estimates as they used to be.

The bottom line of all this is that I don't know of any present day vehicle in the CX-5's class that will get its EPA highway estimate at 75+ mph.
Sensible conclusion. I liked it when I got "something extra" for my money, though. *sigh*
 
So what has changed? CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards! Because of ever increasing CAFE numbers that have to be met, all manufacturers (not just Mazda) are not being as conservative with their estimates as they used to be.

The bottom line of all this is that I don't know of any present day vehicle in the CX-5's class that will get its EPA highway estimate at 75+ mph.
I do agree your assessments. And we shouldn't expect to meet or exceed EPA highway estimates like used to be. So my conclusions are your (gas) mileage may vary a lot on SkyActiv-G engines, and the CX-5 AWD system is not as fuel efficient as others.
 
this thread has become interesting. I apreaciate the links to articles about how the EPA tests are done. I enjoyed learning about the tests. They have been around for a while but they were from the government. So I assumed they were meaningless. It is unfortunate that because automakers build to the EPA we don't get features like shutting off the engine in stop and go traffic. Bottom line for me, I bought the CX-5 based on comfort fit and fun. (Zoom Zoom). I never looked at the EPA numbers.
 

New Threads and Articles

Back