Very disapointing fuel economy from recent roadtrip...

[jhu8]

Some of you guys here just make me laugh. All the things you complain about are well known and obvious. Yet you still bought the vehicle.

I have some info that might be staggering to you guys. Honda cuts corners, Toyota does, Nissan does, Ford does, and guess what even Lexus Mercedes and BMW cut corners. Everyone cuts corners to save cost. But it's about the complete package.

Mazda has forged internals which is rare in such a vehicle. Guess Honda, Toyota, etc cut corners by not doing the same. Mazda put in arguably one of the most advanced awd system into their cx5 with the predictive aspect. Honda, Toyota don't have that. They cut some corners. But wait! Mazda didn't put electronics in your passenger seat. Damn, that extra work is difficult. But wait there's more. I can't see into my glove box because there's no light in there! And that amber lighting on my dual zone control, that is cheap looking and just makes the car look cheap as a whole.

If you ask me, Mazda put resources where it matters. The engine, the drivetrain, awd, top of the line led tube accents and lights, etc. Some of you should of done more research when buying your vehicle.

 

[Dr. Awkward]

Some of you guys here just make me laugh. All the things you complain about are well known and obvious. Yet you still bought the vehicle.

I have some info that might be staggering to you guys. Honda cuts corners, Toyota does, Nissan does, Ford does, and guess what even Lexus Mercedes and BMW cut corners. Everyone cuts corners to save cost. But it's about the complete package.

Mazda has forged internals which is rare in such a vehicle. Guess Honda, Toyota, etc cut corners by not doing the same. Mazda put in arguably one of the most advanced awd system into their cx5 with the predictive aspect. Honda, Toyota don't have that. They cut some corners. But wait! Mazda didn't put electronics in your passenger seat. Damn, that extra work is difficult. But wait there's more. I can't see into my glove box because there's no light in there! And that amber lighting on my dual zone control, that is cheap looking and just makes the car look cheap as a whole.

If you ask me, Mazda put resources where it matters. The engine, the drivetrain, awd, top of the line led tube accents and lights, etc. Some of you should of done more research when buying your vehicle.

Exactly!

What I see here is a ongoing, limp effort by a small minority to portray a fine, small SUV as a cheap product while also inferring that folks who buy CX5s are not smart consumers.
Whining about power windows and interior trim while ignoring class leading safety features, excellent mpg, and a fun-to-drive experience that some way more expensive German and Japanese offerings cannot duplicate is misleading to the many people reading this sub-forum (usually 60 or more).

I certainly put more stock in what US NEWS, WSJ, Consumer Reports, Car & Driver, etc. have to say about the CX5 lineup that some who seem to make their mission to put down a car they own.
Just want to balance all the BS.

 

[Goguinness]

Very true Dr. Awkward. Good post.

 

[ALafya]

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.

In terms of EPA, the FWD versions are "the best" and AWD is only bested by very few other vehicles. See my previous post.

In terms of ConsumerReports "real mpg", I am skeptical of their findings. First, I don't know which vehicle they actually drove (AWD or FWD?). Their site is locked to me so I can't even look at their data. Second, data from real drivers is much more significant, because the more measurements are done the real pattern of fuel-economy comes out. CR could not have possibly made the same number of measurements.
For example, the 2L CX-5 consistently gets 29 MPG from real world drivers. I believe this is "the best". It certainly is better than Subaru Crosstrek.
If CR got 25 or even 26 or 27 on a 2L, I seriously doubt their findings.

 

[mpkav]

Some of you guys here just make me laugh. All the things you complain about are well known and obvious. Yet you still bought the vehicle.

I have some info that might be staggering to you guys. Honda cuts corners, Toyota does, Nissan does, Ford does, and guess what even Lexus Mercedes and BMW cut corners. Everyone cuts corners to save cost. But it's about the complete package.

Mazda has forged internals which is rare in such a vehicle. Guess Honda, Toyota, etc cut corners by not doing the same. Mazda put in arguably one of the most advanced awd system into their cx5 with the predictive aspect. Honda, Toyota don't have that. They cut some corners. But wait! Mazda didn't put electronics in your passenger seat. Damn, that extra work is difficult. But wait there's more. I can't see into my glove box because there's no light in there! And that amber lighting on my dual zone control, that is cheap looking and just makes the car look cheap as a whole.

If you ask me, Mazda put resources where it matters. The engine, the drivetrain, awd, top of the line led tube accents and lights, etc. Some of you should of done more research when buying your vehicle.

Yeah, but does it have a folding picnic table? (rolleyes)

 

[Dr. Awkward]

In terms of ConsumerReports "real mpg", I am skeptical of their findings. First, I don't know which vehicle they actually drove (AWD or FWD?). Their site is locked to me so I can't even look at their data. Second, data from real drivers is much more significant, because the more measurements are done the real pattern of fuel-economy comes out. CR could not have possibly made the same number of measurements.

They tested 2.5L, AWD Touring.

If you were smart you would subscribe to the leading consumer research magazine in America instead of being an under informed skeptic.

A magazine that does not accept ANY advertising and actually buys their test vehicles anonymously and uses a large facility they built to do their testing.
An organization that invented roll-over testing for SUVs, is responsible for faster implementation of anti-lock braking systems and stability control, and who took the lead in advocating the automatic braking technology that has become so popular.

I mean, what you can save on one big purchase a new SUHD for example pays for a year's subscription. I use their mobile app which gives you access on-the-fly.
Whining about CR's cred is pretty lame, IMO and does not help yours at all.

 

[ALafya]

So how did they come up with 25 MPG for a 2L CX-5?

What I said is that I am skeptic of their findings regarding fuel-economy.
Regardless of what they do, they could never be better than real measurements done by many, many more real people at the pump. How many CX-5s do they own 1? 2? How many fuel-ups could they possibly have performed?

I clearly remember CR recommending a brand new gen Forester as "reliable". This, despite having a relatively new engine with later to be known oil-consumption problem that affected some non-negligible percentage of Foresters. How can you possible make such a bad recommendation?

 

[Dr. Awkward]

So how did they come up with 25 MPG for a 2L CX-5?

Dunno, maybe they test drove it.
You do realize that the EPA over the years has actually adjusted their own testing to closer to what CR was already doing? More AC use, different routes, less simulation.

From CR:
"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."

More:
"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."

Again, I urge you to subscribe so you will be more up-to-speed in your posts and won't have to depend on others for the facts.

 

[ALafya]

So a result of 25 MPG for the 2L CX-5 makes me doubt their findings because, while it is certainly possible to get it with this car, it is definitely well below the average of what real people get (and this does not make me want to subscribe).

 

[Lbear]

Even the parchment which is only available for limited exterior colors, still comes with unmatched black seat belts and dash/door panels!

I got the parchment and it has parchment door panels on all 4 doors.

 

[timberstx]

This is why I will not pay money to consumer reports. I got 45mpg on a trip to Galveston. Every Mazda I have owned exceeded EPA. When Motorweek tested the the 2013 CX-5 sport, they also exceeded EPA. Its on Youtube. My first mazda was a 1985 GLC. sticker was 38 mpg highway. I got close to 50mpg on trips.

 

[yrwei52]

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.

If CR got 25 or even 26 or 27 on a 2L, I seriously doubt their findings.

They tested 2.5L, AWD Touring.

So how did they come up with 25 MPG for a 2L CX-5?

I believe Consumer Reports were testing a FWD 2.5L CX-5 and that's how they got 25 mpg overall which was the same as their finding on 2.0L FWD CX-5. 2.0L no longer comes with either automatic transmission or AWD. And this is also consistence with EPA numbers as they listed both the same too, at 29 mpg.

Or, Consumer Reports is not credible.

Since Dr. Awkward thinks that those who whining about Consumer Reports' credibility is pretty lame and urges us to subscribe it, I simply pointed out their findings on CX-5 2.5L and 2.0L's real world fuel economy and you'll be the judge.

I personally still read Consumer Reports from time to time but only for some information on used car reliability. I gave them up a while ago when they're making false statements to rate Suzuki Samurai and Isuzu Trooper unsafe because they're trying to picture these two are too easy to rollover. I heard the recording that CR's editor urged Trooper driver finding a way to roll it while they're making the video, and fired the test driver when he failed to do so. Suzuki Samurai was a hot-selling compact SUV in 90's but the sales were greatly affected by the report and eventually killed it. The same on Isuzu Trooper. I also remember that they kept recommending VW Rabbit since 1980's, and all of these recommended MYs of Rabbits ended up in their used car "Do Not Buy" list!

Still, there're many people here couldn't get EPA combined fuel economy at 29 mpg for FWD and 26 mpg for AWD. There is no arguments about different highway speeds or the wind resistances when we're comparing to EPA combined figures.

 

[yrwei52]

Exactly!

What I see here is a ongoing, limp effort by a small minority to portray a fine, small SUV as a cheap product while also inferring that folks who buy CX5s are not smart consumers.
Whining about power windows and interior trim while ignoring class leading safety features, excellent mpg, and a fun-to-drive experience that some way more expensive German and Japanese offerings cannot duplicate is misleading to the many people reading this sub-forum (usually 60 or more).

I certainly put more stock in what US NEWS, WSJ, Consumer Reports, Car & Driver, etc. have to say about the CX5 lineup that some who seem to make their mission to put down a car they own.
Just want to balance all the BS.

Forget about these "class leading" safety features on CX-5 which are actually available on many competitors in the same class! I should be whining about NHTSA frontal crash rating which downgraded 2016 CX-5's from 5 to 3 stars on passenger side!

 

[yrwei52]

Some of you guys here just make me laugh. All the things you complain about are well known and obvious. Yet you still bought the vehicle.

I have some info that might be staggering to you guys. Honda cuts corners, Toyota does, Nissan does, Ford does, and guess what even Lexus Mercedes and BMW cut corners. Everyone cuts corners to save cost. But it's about the complete package.

Mazda has forged internals which is rare in such a vehicle. Guess Honda, Toyota, etc cut corners by not doing the same. Mazda put in arguably one of the most advanced awd system into their cx5 with the predictive aspect. Honda, Toyota don't have that. They cut some corners. But wait! Mazda didn't put electronics in your passenger seat. Damn, that extra work is difficult. But wait there's more. I can't see into my glove box because there's no light in there! And that amber lighting on my dual zone control, that is cheap looking and just makes the car look cheap as a whole.

If you ask me, Mazda put resources where it matters. The engine, the drivetrain, awd, top of the line led tube accents and lights, etc. Some of you should of done more research when buying your vehicle.

Yeah everybody cut corners so what's the big deal when I said Mazda cut corners? What's wrong when I chose the CX-5 and was fully aware Mazda cut corners since everybody is doing so??? Please don't tell forum members selling the CX-5 simply because they're fully aware its drawbacks with plenty of research and criticize them.

And I do believe Mazda cut wrong corners. Eliminating features where almost every competitor in the same class offer such as memory seat and rear AC vents is penny wise and pound foolish! The quality and reliability have to be getting better and Ford is no longer an excuse. Failed transmission report from almost new CX-5's is unacceptable as I'd never heard anything like that when I was with Honda CR-V forum and there're 3 times more CR-V owners from 2015 MY alone! The low sales figure on CX-5 proves Mazda needs to learn how to understand what the most consumers want. And don't tell me Mazda would like to keep the sales figure on CX-5 at the bottom of the class every year! They need to figure out why Honda CR-V sells the most in the US, and why Nissan Rouge had 44.17% sales increase last year!

And what's the big deal of having forged crankshaft? Yeah my Honda CR-V doesn't have it but the engine is having 173,906 miles and is still using almost no oil. What's the big deal of so-called "most advanced" AWD system if the system is not efficient? It has the most penalty on fuel economy among all AWD CUVs! Yeah, those amber LED indicators from electronic parts counter bin are indeed cheap and eyesore. Mind you most consumers they don't care about SkyActiv Technologies, forged crankshaft, and "most advanced" AWD system (try to argue with Subaru owners), but they care about memory seat and rear AC vents. All they want is the specs and numbers. The downgrade of NHTSA's front end crash test rating on passenger side from 5 to 3 stars has severely impacted the safety reputation on CX-5! I frequently recommend CX-5's or Mazda's to friends and families who are in the market for compact CUVs or cars in general. I've heard enough on reasons of not wanting one!

 

[ALafya]

Sounds like you are one of these people that did not do their homework properly,
Perhaps sell the vehicle and move to a Rogue or CR-V. I hear the CR-V Touring trim has memory seats, though the whole shape of the back is an eyesore and AWD average MPG on fuelly is lower than that of the CX-5 for 2016, which now has vibration free CVT.

 

[yrwei52]

Even the parchment which is only available for limited exterior colors, still comes with unmatched black seat belts and dash/door panels!

I got the parchment and it has parchment door panels on all 4 doors.

Every CX-5 competitor offers at least 3 interior colors, black, beige/brown/parchment, and gray; but Mazda offers two. When Honda CR-V offers gray interior, they change all interior colors matching gray seats with gray seatbelts, carpet, door panels and deep gray dash (to prevent reflection). Yeah yours puts a patch of parchment leatherette on the door panel while leaves everything else black still and calls it a day. That's not the way to be luxurious!

 

[Dr. Awkward]

Yeah my Honda CR-V doesn't have it but the engine is having 173,906 miles and is still using almost no oil. What's the big deal of so-called "most advanced" AWD system if the system is not efficient? It has the most penalty on fuel economy among all AWD CUVs! Yeah, those amber LED indicators from electronic parts counter bin are indeed cheap and eyesore. Mind you most consumers they don't care about SkyActiv Technologies, forged crankshaft, and "most advanced" AWD system (try to argue with Subaru owners), but they care about memory seat and rear AC vents. All they want is the specs and numbers. The downgrade of NHTSA's front end crash test rating on passenger side from 5 to 3 stars has severely impacted the safety reputation on CX-5! I frequently recommend CX-5's or Mazda's to friends and families who are in the market for compact CUVs or cars in general. I've heard enough on reasons of not wanting one!

Honda has tried to cover up the engine revving and rubber-band feel of the CR-V's CVT, but during hard acceleration it has the same droning, rubber band feeling I so dislike.
And Honda's traditional powertrain refinement is missing in action because of noticeable vibration at idle and low engine speeds.

Before its 2015 re-do, the CR-V was one of the most comfortable riding small SUVs.
Not anymore.
Bumps, ruts and broken pavement come through as hard rubbery knocks, taking away from comfort.

The AWD system is not the most confidence inspiring either.
Driving on slippery surfaces, it usually spins the front tires on take-off, then power transfers to the rear momentarily to get you going.

Honda's infotainment systems have become too complex in recent years, growing more frustrating and distracting to use.
The one in the new CR-V is the worst yet. There no knobs, the onscreen logic is unintuitive and the hard buttons are too tiny and hard to use.

Most interior plastics are hard to the touch, except for a small band of stitched padded material that runs across most of the dashboard. There are wide gaps between some panels, especially where the dashboard meets the windshield pillars. Pretty shoddy.

 

[jhu8]

Yeah everybody cut corners so what's the big deal when I said Mazda cut corners? What's wrong when I chose the CX-5 and was fully aware Mazda cut corners since everybody is doing so??? Please don't tell forum members selling the CX-5 simply because they're fully aware its drawbacks with plenty of research and criticize them.

And I do believe Mazda cut wrong corners. Eliminating features where almost every competitor in the same class offer such as memory seat and rear AC vents is penny wise and pound foolish! The quality and reliability have to be getting better and Ford is no longer an excuse. Failed transmission report from almost new CX-5's is unacceptable as I'd never heard anything like that when I was with Honda CR-V forum and there're 3 times more CR-V owners from 2015 MY alone! The low sales figure on CX-5 proves Mazda needs to learn how to understand what the most consumers want. And don't tell me Mazda would like to keep the sales figure on CX-5 at the bottom of the class every year! They need to figure out why Honda CR-V sells the most in the US, and why Nissan Rouge had 44.17% sales increase last year!

And what's the big deal of having forged crankshaft? Yeah my Honda CR-V doesn't have it but the engine is having 173,906 miles and is still using almost no oil. What's the big deal of so-called "most advanced" AWD system if the system is not efficient? It has the most penalty on fuel economy among all AWD CUVs! Yeah, those amber LED indicators from electronic parts counter bin are indeed cheap and eyesore. Mind you most consumers they don't care about SkyActiv Technologies, forged crankshaft, and "most advanced" AWD system (try to argue with Subaru owners), but they care about memory seat and rear AC vents. All they want is the specs and numbers. The downgrade of NHTSA's front end crash test rating on passenger side from 5 to 3 stars has severely impacted the safety reputation on CX-5! I frequently recommend CX-5's or Mazda's to friends and families who are in the market for compact CUVs or cars in general. I've heard enough on reasons of not wanting one!

You make no sense at all lol you talk bad about the cx5 constantly, complaining nonstop, yet you claim that you recommend the cx5 to friends and family. Why would you do such a thing? why would you recommend a vehicle that has amber colored lights on the inside?? The horror. Why would you recommend a vehicle in your eyes that is inefficient, and overall cheap and missing critical things? Again, you make no sense at all with your logic and just sound exactly like a troll.

 

[yrwei52]

Again, you make no sense at all with your logic and just sound exactly like a troll.

You think our CX-5 is perfect and it can't be criticized for anything otherwise it's trolling? Very funny! I fully understand the advantages and deficiencies of the CX-5 so that when I make recommendations there's no surprises! I give my honest opinions as well as facts and I don't bury my head in the sand. See other's opinions and facts you don't like and start some sort of petsonal attack or tell people selling the car is only showing your true color.

Out of curiosity, how many CX-5's you've persuaded your friends and families getting one? And how many "How To" posts or threads you've posted in this forum?

 

[yrwei52]

Sounds like you are one of these people that did not do their homework properly,
Perhaps sell the vehicle and move to a Rogue or CR-V. I hear the CR-V Touring trim has memory seats, though the whole shape of the back is an eyesore and AWD average MPG on fuelly is lower than that of the CX-5 for 2016, which now has vibration free CVT.

You yourself just said in the other thread that you have no real brand loyalty and you simply got the best product available at time. I did the same and CX-5 was the best compact CUV available in the class IMO. But there is no such thing a perfect car and CX-5 does have deficiencies. I've done my homework well that's how I know the advantages and deficiencies on the CX-5. I only present my honest opinions and facts and I don't hide anything.