Very disapointing fuel economy from recent roadtrip...

[edhchoe]

55mph is the most efficient speed for gas engine, I read somewhere...

 

[Unobtanium]

55mph is the most efficient speed for gas engine, I read somewhere...

It depends on a lot of things. Many vehicles from Domestic manufactures actually prefer 70+. Especially Chrysler and GM.

 

[mpkav]

I am just under the 30 mpg EPA highway for my 2.5L AWD, but my city mileage is pretty bad. I can get 22 or 23 mpg if I drive like a monk, but I'm usually lucky to get 21 mpg. My worst was 17 mpg, although this was in February and I seem to recall being stuck behind a few accidents that week.

From a recent thread:

I get 21 mpg in the city because it is a stop and go parking lot. For reference, I hit 30 lights and 7 stop signs on my trip to work and 24 lights and 7 stop signs on my return trip (it is somewhat depressing that I just counted).

I get around 29-30 mpg on aggressive mountain highways, should be even higher on a decent flat interstate.

My commute is also pretty hilly.

I haven't been down to Oregon since selling my Mazda 3, that car pulled 37 mpg over one tank that trip (a little city driving, mostly highway) so that might be the place to see what my CX-5 can do.

 

[Unobtanium]

I am just under the 30 mpg EPA highway for my 2.5L AWD, but my city mileage is pretty bad. I can get 22 or 23 mpg if I drive like a monk, but I'm usually lucky to get 21 mpg. My worst was 17 mpg, although this was in February and I seem to recall being stuck behind a few accidents that week.

From a recent thread:



My commute is also pretty hilly.

I haven't been down to Oregon since selling my Mazda 3, that car pulled 37 mpg over one tank that trip (a little city driving, mostly highway) so that might be the place to see what my CX-5 can do.

I typically get better mileage in town than on the highway. For instance, when highway traffic is stopped, and we crawl along at 5-25mph, my average goes up for the trip vs. if I took it all at 75-80.

 

[B-ham Gary]

Wow, just wow. Instead of accepting what I'm telling you, you think my vehicle has some "mystery issue". Not that you can think of what that issue is...its...just something?

What you're telling me, and others, is that we're dishonest. You are correct, however, in your assessment that it's "something". That something appears to be you. Sorry.

It's just a car; if it's causing you that much stress, get rid of it.

 

[Unobtanium]

What you're telling me, and others, is that we're dishonest. You are correct, however, in your assessment that it's "something". That something appears to be you. Sorry.

It's just a car; if it's causing you that much stress, get rid of it.

I'm not stressed out about it. Just a bit irritated. No, I'm not going to sell it, rofl!

Where did I call you a liar?

If by "me", yeah, you're probably right. I drive normal freeway speeds. The CX-5 doesn't like that. It lets me know with terrible MPG compared to 60, where it hits 31-32mpg in my experience.

Go back and re-read the first post in this thread. Seems OP and I get the same results...

 

[mpkav]

If by "me", yeah, you're probably right. I drive normal freeway speeds. The CX-5 doesn't like that. It lets me know with terrible MPG compared to 60, where it hits 31-32mpg in my experience.

I have had similar experience to this. When we crossed the border last week there was a noticeable dip in efficiency between the 100 km/h speeds up here and the 115 km/h speeds in Washington state. The CX-5 doesn't seem to naturally like being at 115. I don't recall the numbers exactly but it was at least a couple of mpg.

 

[ALafya]

I challenge anyone to take their AWD 2.5L CX5 out, and make a 2-way trip over the same stretch of highway averaging 70+mph speed, and then to post up pictures of the mileage and average speed showing 29+mpg.

Results from at the pump calculation by nearly 130 different drivers and nearly 5,500 fuel-ups are far more convincing than a single gauge-only measurement, which might be inaccurate, of a single car over a short distance.
You seem to think everyone gets the same experience as you. The data overwhelmingly shows this is not the case.

 

[freys]

I'm with unobtainium. Same exact thing as he stated. Not a b**** so much for me since i rarely drive fwy stretches at 75-80ish. But when i do it drops fast after 70. Fact is they still are going by 55 mph limits. Now we do 75. The car just isn't tuned for that. With that being said if you do drive lots at 75+ it isn't the car for you. 45-65 it kicks ass.

 

[caverunner17]

I'm with unobtainium. Same exact thing as he stated. Not a b**** so much for me since i rarely drive fwy stretches at 75-80ish. But when i do it drops fast after 70. Fact is they still are going by 55 mph limits. Now we do 75. The car just isn't tuned for that. With that being said if you do drive lots at 75+ it isn't the car for you. 45-65 it kicks ass.

Agreed. I've pulled off 40+ MPG at around 50-55MPH on country roads.

 

[jhu8]

I'm with unobtainium. Same exact thing as he stated. Not a b**** so much for me since i rarely drive fwy stretches at 75-80ish. But when i do it drops fast after 70. Fact is they still are going by 55 mph limits. Now we do 75. The car just isn't tuned for that. With that being said if you do drive lots at 75+ it isn't the car for you. 45-65 it kicks ass.

ALL cars will drop in mpg if you drive 75-80mph. This is fact, it is physics. How much each car drops, will of course vary.

 

[craigo]

I think its a matter of expectation. Being in Texas, I'm usually driving around 80 between cities. This means I get about 28mpg with summer gas and slightly lower with winter blend. I expect this because its an suv with a large posture in the wind. Wind resistance increases to a square power. This actually matches what my 2006 Mazda 3 did, despite being larger, heavier and more powerful.

Some people have unrealistic expectations, or perhaps misunderstand the "highway" EPA rating, which is more like driving a few miles down a local highway with varying speeds and not like a high speed road trip over dozens or hundreds of miles. Although the EPA does now have a high speed test that they factor in to the results.

I've gotten 34 on the Austin to Dallas trip, but it was rainy so speeds were in the 60s.

 

[B-ham Gary]

I think its a matter of expectation. Being in Texas, I'm usually driving around 80 between cities. This means I get about 28mpg with summer gas and slightly lower with winter blend. I expect this because its an suv with a large posture in the wind. Wind resistance increases to a square power. This actually matches what my 2006 Mazda 3 did, despite being larger, heavier and more powerful.

Some people have unrealistic expectations, or perhaps misunderstand the "highway" EPA rating, which is more like driving a few miles down a local highway with varying speeds and not like a high speed road trip over dozens or hundreds of miles. Although the EPA does now have a high speed test that they factor in to the results.

I've gotten 34 on the Austin to Dallas trip, but it was rainy so speeds were in the 60s.

Perfect summary, craigo. EPA highway mileage is a narrowly defined test, useful for vehicle comparison and not an absolute indicator of what the entire range of users will obtain... or Unobtain. ;-)

 

[ALafya]

I'm with unobtainium. Same exact thing as he stated. Not a b**** so much for me since i rarely drive fwy stretches at 75-80ish. But when i do it drops fast after 70. Fact is they still are going by 55 mph limits. Now we do 75. The car just isn't tuned for that. With that being said if you do drive lots at 75+ it isn't the car for you. 45-65 it kicks ass.

Nobody is claiming that MPG does not drop with high speed. However,

these cars get s*** for mileage after 60mph.

and video showing claim of MPG of 21 while doing 70 is not the norm. I think many owners regularly drive 65~70 and get respectable MPG 27~30 doing that.
What is your average MPG, what is your average commute like and how fast do you drive on the highway?

 

[Unobtanium]

If anyone is butthurt here, it's you. I agree the mpg deal isn't a big deal. I think you just need to drive more appropriately. Everyone else seems to be doing just fine except you and a couple outliers. Those exist in every car forum so no worries. But with how much you ramble on about your mpg "issue", you seem rather butthurt. So my suggestion is, sell the car. I want to test your 75-80mph claim, but I tend to follow the law and quite frankly on my stretch of highway, cops love to live.

Sorry, I keep pace with traffic and typically do the speed limit (70-85) or 5 over (75-90).

Amusingly, EVERYONE on this forum who actually lives in an area with what I consider normal speeds, and drives them, agrees with me. Hmm....

Oh, and sell the car and buy what, exactly? It works just fine. A few mpg isn't going to bankrupt me, I promise. I bought it so that I'd have something boringly reliable. So far, it's been such. Literally the only vehicle I've ever owned that has not had random parts break for no good reason.

 

[Unobtanium]

Nobody is claiming that MPG does not drop with high speed. However, and video showing claim of MPG of 21 while doing 70 is not the norm. I think many owners regularly drive 65~70 and get respectable MPG 27~30 doing that.
What is your average MPG, what is your average commute like and how fast do you drive on the highway?

What video showing 21mpg? Are you talking about my instant read-out? That wasn't what the video was about, nor was it pertinent due to the hill I was on.

 

[yrwei52]

More to rebuke one member's statements that the CX5 is a “cheap” SUV in which he is unable to get decent mileage.

From Consumer Reports:
“Very good fuel economy, agile handling, a roomy interior and a generous array of features put the Mazda CX-5 in the top tier of small SUVs.”

“Equipment is relatively generous, but you do pay for that. All but the base manual-transmission Sport get a standard backup camera. Even the mid-level Touring trim line, which most customers will select, gets a power driver seat, push-button ignition, navigation, heated front seats, and a blind-spot warning system. Consequently, Touring models sell for about $1,500 more than many equivalent competitors.”

CR also totally debunks the low MPG some owners whine about:
“We measured 25 mpg overall using regular fuel, the same as with the base 2.0-liter. This fuel economy is near the top of the small-SUV class.”

Guess you gotta' know how to drive 'em.

So based on Consumer Reports both 2.0L and 2.5L Mazda CX-5's have 25 mpg overall fuel economy during their test.

Here are EPA figures for 2016 Mazda CX-5:

2.0L FWD 29/26/35 Combined/City/Highway
2.5L FWD 29/26/33 Combined/City/Highway
2.5L AWD 26/24/30 Combined/City/Highway

So clearly both 25 mpg overall fuel economy ratings measured by Consumer Reports are way below EPA's combined fuel economy marks no matter how you look at them!

And the fuel economy on CX-5 is "near" the top of the small-SUV class, not "the best" in the class as many people have being believed.

 

[yrwei52]

Dude...just no. 30k is not an expensive suv. The new Jag, the glk Benz series, those are more expensive upscale mini suvs. And that 30k cx5 has the same body as a 25k cx5. Corners were cut in areas that effect cost. The result is obvious to anyone who's owned or even sat in mid to upper price point vehicles vs. A cheap entry level to the class. Just own it. It's fact. It's also why I like my cx5. It isn't a priceless ming vase thay bothers me if it gets a door ding.

Mazda did cut some corners to save money which sometimes becomes penny wise and pound foolish. Elimination of memory seat and one-touch up-down non-driver power windows for North American market is a perfect example. These too-bright standard-sized amber LED indicators on automatic climate system are very cheap-looking and eye-soring. Very limited interior colors is another indicator of money saving decision. All black interior can only make people feel pressure and hot (temperature). Even the parchment which is only available for limited exterior colors, still comes with unmatched black seat belts and dash/door panels!

 

[Unobtanium]

Mazda did cut some corners to save money which sometimes becomes penny wise and pound foolish. Elimination of memory seat and one-touch up-down non-driver power windows for North American market is a perfect example. These too-bright standard-sized amber LED indicators on automatic climate system are very cheap-looking and eye-soring. Very limited interior colors is another indicator of money saving decision. All black interior can only make people feel pressure and hot (temperature). Even the parchment which is only available for limited exterior colors, still comes with unmatched black seat belts and dash/door panels!

Indeed, and I bet if you dug deeper, you would find money-savings in various structural non-critical components, either, that maybe a GLK350 wouldn't have went so light on. The CX-5 is a cheap SUV. Period. I didn't say it was crappy, or poorly made, or anything like that. It's not. But it IS a cost-conscious move.

 

[frenchbiker]

On my 2016 2.5 AWD GT w/ Tech, I get around 24.5mpg in city/highway combined. It seems to be a tad lower that the advertized MPG but I also drive faster than 60mph on highways and my trips rarely exceed 30 miles so I warm up the car more frequently than most of you per mile driven.
Anyway, logging around 7,000 miles/year on my CX-5, my 24.5 mpg translate into 286 gallons vs. 269 gallons per year if I could hit Mazda's advertized 26 mpg. At $2.25 a gallon, this represents a difference of $38.25 per year which is completely negligeable as far as I'm concerned.