Very disapointing fuel economy from recent roadtrip...

[Unobtanium]

I have the exact same feeling that while city gas mileage is fine on our AWD CX-5, but the highway gas mileage is way off the EPA mark. For those who accused us don't know how to drive to save the fuel, we're comparing two different vehicles with the same driver and similar environment. In my case our old Honda CR-V AWD can easily beat EPA highway MPGs, especially those EPA marks are from old EPA test cycle which is unfavorable driving at current higher highway speed!

I hate to see people start questioning the authenticity of the posters whenever the topic is negative towards CX-5. I still remember a sales guy from a Canadian Mazda dealer mentioned dealer's CX-5 shuttle is having oil burning issue. Certain members from this forum started to questioning if he is a paid trolling poster due to his minimum posting history and in fact criticizing CX-5 is burning oil. In the end he proved he's genuine but he's no longer willing to post here! I actually believe the attitude of certain forum members here who don't want to see any negative comments against Mazda or CX-5, which caused many people stopped posting here!

What confuses me is why people care so much. It's not an enthusiast vehicle. If it were a Miata or Mustang, sure, but it's an SUV. A tiny, NA, 4 cylinder SUV. Not something to get all emotional over, IMO

 

[jhu8]

What confuses me is why people care so much. It's not an enthusiast vehicle. If it were a Miata or Mustang, sure, but it's an SUV. A tiny, NA, 4 cylinder SUV. Not something to get all emotional over, IMO

So you can post your complaints and issues, but those of us who are happy with our purchase can't chime and question your issues? Because I'm pretty sure there are more happy cx5 owners than unhappy ones. There are more reports of good gas mileage than bad. There are more compliments on the interior styling than complaints. So I think questioning the minority claims is well within limits. Especially on the gas mileage front as there may be something wrong with your vehicle or an area that isn't up to par(tire pressure, etc). I didn't know we couldn't care about a non enthusiast vehicle. Are you too good for the tiny, mini suv the cx5 is?

 

[Unobtanium]

So you can post your complaints and issues, but those of us who are happy with our purchase can't chime and question your issues? Sure you can, and I happily answered your questions, and then you went on to say "something must be wrong with your car. You can't drive. Blah blah blah. To which I STILL answered appropriately and politely, saying the vehicle has been gone over multiple times, all maintenance is up to date, and I calculated mileage mechanically and via the read-out and measured multiple highway trips that didn't involve "driver input" per se, as the speed was set. I drive at 11pm-5am typically, when I road-trip, and traffic is light. Set/forget cruise control. Because I'm pretty sure there are more happy cx5 owners than unhappy ones. I am a happy CX-5 owner.There are more reports of good gas mileage than bad. There are more compliments on the interior styling than complaints. So I think questioning the minority claims is well within limits. Especially on the gas mileage front as there may be something wrong with your vehicle or an area that isn't up to par(tire pressure, etc). I didn't know we couldn't care about a non enthusiast vehicle. Are you too good for the tiny, mini suv the cx5 is?

I am not too good for a CX-5 or I wouldn't have bought one. I maintain it like I maintain my rifle. It is clean, no broken parts, and things get replaced based on the recommended schedule to make sure it runs right. Which both do, in case you're wondering. Tire pressure is set per manufacturer guidelines. Oil is changed every 5K with a Group IV or better synthetic. Air filter is changed every 15K miles. Diff fluid was recently changed, as well. No exterior trim is loose/causing excessive drag, nor is any component UNDER the vehicle. No SES light indicates a misfire or rich/lean condition. The plugs are not due for PM for tens of thousands of miles yet. If you have a further PM suggestion, let me know, for sure!

 

[jhu8]

I am not too good for a CX-5 or I wouldn't have bought one. I maintain it like I maintain my rifle. It is clean, no broken parts, and things get replaced based on the recommended schedule to make sure it runs right. Which both do, in case you're wondering. Tire pressure is set per manufacturer guidelines. Oil is changed every 5K with a Group IV or better synthetic. Air filter is changed every 15K miles. Diff fluid was recently changed, as well. No exterior trim is loose/causing excessive drag, nor is any component UNDER the vehicle. No SES light indicates a misfire or rich/lean condition. The plugs are not due for PM for tens of thousands of miles yet. If you have a further PM suggestion, let me know, for sure!

I did not say you can't drive. I may have said your driving habits probably reflect your gas mileage but I didn't say you can't drive. All I know is I've read many car forums and this is nothing new. There are always people who get well below EPA and complain, people who get well above EPA and praise the vehicle, and people who get right around EPA and are happy. Nothing new at all.

 

[Unobtanium]

I did not say you can't drive. I may have said your driving habits probably reflect your gas mileage but I didn't say you can't drive. All I know is I've read many car forums and this is nothing new. There are always people who get well below EPA and complain, people who get well above EPA and praise the vehicle, and people who get right around EPA and are happy. Nothing new at all.

But...do you often see those same people hit EPA rating in half a dozen vehicles prior to the one they have taken issue with?

 

[jhu8]

But...do you often see those same people hit EPA rating in half a dozen vehicles prior to the one they have taken issue with?

I would never ask about their previous vehicles and EPA ratings. But a point to that, perhaps nowadays vehicles EPA ratings are stretched as much as possible. There is little room to play with and than the vehicle will drop in mpg. Older vehicles there wasn't as much as a push with gas mileage. So it was easier to hit those unstretched EPA ratings. Hell, my old Elantra was a victim of that. Well actually I was the model year after the scandal. When the elantra was rated at 40mpg and was later switched to 38. I believed that happened with Ford as well with their Fusion Hybrid. Originally rated for 47mpg across the board but was later dropped. MPG sells cars these days and is close to #1 on everyones list.

But I can safely say that so far in my relatively short time of driving, I've always hit EPA and actually exceeded it. That consists of a 97 Infiniti QX4, 08 Mustang GT, 13 Elantra, and now my CX5. My GT was rated at 23hwy, I could easily get 27mpg in that thing. 28-29 once I got my tune.

 

[Unobtanium]

I would never ask about their previous vehicles and EPA ratings. But a point to that, perhaps nowadays vehicles EPA ratings are stretched as much as possible. There is little room to play with and than the vehicle will drop in mpg. Older vehicles there wasn't as much as a push with gas mileage. So it was easier to hit those unstretched EPA ratings. Hell, my old Elantra was a victim of that. Well actually I was the model year after the scandal. When the elantra was rated at 40mpg and was later switched to 38. I believed that happened with Ford as well with their Fusion Hybrid. Originally rated for 47mpg across the board but was later dropped. MPG sells cars these days and is close to #1 on everyones list.

But I can safely say that so far in my relatively short time of driving, I've always hit EPA and actually exceeded it. That consists of a 97 Infiniti QX4, 08 Mustang GT, 13 Elantra, and now my CX5. My GT was rated at 23hwy, I could easily get 27mpg in that thing. 28-29 once I got my tune.

The 08 GT rated at 23? I recall them being rated at 25 when I sold them for a living back in 2005. Been known to remember wrong before, though.

Anyway, yes, I've always met highway EPA.

Z06 rated 26, got 26. Downgraded to 24mpg rating in later years (I had a 2011, the ratings changed, not the vehicle).
2012 370Z, rated 26, got 24.5-26.
2001 WS.6 rated 27, got 27+
1995 Trans Am A4, rated 23mpg, got 25.
2002 Infiniti G20, rated 29 , got 31+
2010 Grand Jeep Cherokee, rated 18, got 17-19 on numerous road-trips.
2015 Mazda CX5 rated 30, have never done better than 28, and typically in the 26's.

Now, if I can own and maintain and drive all of those other vehicles to the tune I describe above...how on earth can the CX-5 not also do the same, unless it was built SPECIFICALLY to game a certain economy parameter? because I can hit 31mpg in it doing 60mph...yes, I can and have done it in the past. But it's absurd and not how I drive, or how I drove any of the other vehicles above. The CX-5 is a "ringer" for EPA ratings. IF you road-trip it, it blows. Just my experience and apparently that of everyone else on the board save 1 or 2 others.

ETA: I just googled your 2008 GT. Right you are. No wonder those damn things were so hard to sell! The F-body of 2001-2002 was rated much higher, and was faster to boot!

 

[buyingconstant7]

IF you road-trip it, it blows.

There you go, that's ideally my purpose for this thread. I was expecting 30+mpg on a roadtrip, but yet it got 25. Last winter we took it to BC and for the first half, speed limit was 110km/h. I set the cruise at 115(70mph) and left it at that. Temps weren't too bad, roughly -10c. Trip computer said I was getting 9.5l/100km(24.7mpg). Then once we got into Banff National Park, speed limit dropped to 90km/h, I set the cruise at 95. Fuel economy dropped to 6.7l/100km(35.5mpg). I reset the average when we left for BC, so that average dropped like a rock as soon as speeds decreased. It just boggled my mind how much, that speed becomes a factor of fuel economy in these cars. I never expected that.

 

[Unobtanium]

There you go, that's ideally my purpose for this thread. I was expecting 30+mpg on a roadtrip, but yet it got 25. Last winter we took it to BC and for the first half, speed limit was 110km/h. I set the cruise at 115(70mph) and left it at that. Temps weren't too bad, roughly -10c. Trip computer said I was getting 9.5l/100km(24.7mpg). Then once we got into Banff National Park, speed limit dropped to 90km/h, I set the cruise at 95. Fuel economy dropped to 6.7l/100km(35.5mpg). I reset the average when we left for BC, so that average dropped like a rock as soon as speeds decreased. It just boggled my mind how much, that speed becomes a factor of fuel economy in these cars. I never expected that.

Agreed. It's not "wind resistance". My Jeep had a lot more and didn't pull that stunt. I even towed a big whacking U-Haul (6x10?) behind it doing 70+ and still got within 3-4mpg of EPA highway, lol!

 

[jhu8]

There you go, that's ideally my purpose for this thread. I was expecting 30+mpg on a roadtrip, but yet it got 25. Last winter we took it to BC and for the first half, speed limit was 110km/h. I set the cruise at 115(70mph) and left it at that. Temps weren't too bad, roughly -10c. Trip computer said I was getting 9.5l/100km(24.7mpg). Then once we got into Banff National Park, speed limit dropped to 90km/h, I set the cruise at 95. Fuel economy dropped to 6.7l/100km(35.5mpg). I reset the average when we left for BC, so that average dropped like a rock as soon as speeds decreased. It just boggled my mind how much, that speed becomes a factor of fuel economy in these cars. I never expected that.

Going faster and decreased gas mileage? Yup that's a correlation that will be found in every vehicle around. But for your numbers, something is wrong. 10mpg difference with going just 10mph faster or slower should not be happening. I'm trying to think what else could be causing that. Hauling a bunch of stuff in your vehicle? How many passengers? Wind?

 

[yrwei52]

... Now, if I can own and maintain and drive all of those other vehicles to the tune I describe above...how on earth can the CX-5 not also do the same, unless it was built SPECIFICALLY to game a certain economy parameter? ... The CX-5 is a "ringer" for EPA ratings. IF you road-trip it, it blows.

This is exactly what I feel. Although I imagine many other car manufactures do the same. Mazda had admitted this in a different way on the AWD CX-5 when they announced they'd "enhanced" AWD system to improve real-world fuel efficiency for 2016 CX-5 in the press release even though the EPA fuel economy estimate didn't change like FWD version.

We compare CX-5 gas mileage to our other vehicles and almost everyone of them from others can meet or beat EPA highway rating if we really tried with current faster highway speed. Not to mention many of those older EPA highway estimates were made from old EPA test cycle standard with much slower highway speed.

 

[KansasWaldo]

The 08 GT rated at 23? I recall them being rated at 25 when I sold them for a living back in 2005. Been known to remember wrong before, though.

Anyway, yes, I've always met highway EPA.

Z06 rated 26, got 26. Downgraded to 24mpg rating in later years (I had a 2011, the ratings changed, not the vehicle).
2012 370Z, rated 26, got 24.5-26.
2001 WS.6 rated 27, got 27+
1995 Trans Am A4, rated 23mpg, got 25.
2002 Infiniti G20, rated 29 , got 31+
2010 Grand Jeep Cherokee, rated 18, got 17-19 on numerous road-trips.
2015 Mazda CX5 rated 30, have never done better than 28, and typically in the 26's.

Now, if I can own and maintain and drive all of those other vehicles to the tune I describe above...how on earth can the CX-5 not also do the same, unless it was built SPECIFICALLY to game a certain economy parameter? because I can hit 31mpg in it doing 60mph...yes, I can and have done it in the past. But it's absurd and not how I drive, or how I drove any of the other vehicles above. The CX-5 is a "ringer" for EPA ratings. IF you road-trip it, it blows. Just my experience and apparently that of everyone else on the board save 1 or 2 others.

ETA: I just googled your 2008 GT. Right you are. No wonder those damn things were so hard to sell! The F-body of 2001-2002 was rated much higher, and was faster to boot!

People tend to be more vocal if they have a negative experience. If their experience meets or exceeds their expectations, they usually do not speak up. This is often why review websites are a horrible way to judge a product with the exception of identifying any negative trends. The same logic can be applied to car forums as well.

My experience differs considerably, and I drive a good bit. I noticed a pretty significant increase in gas mileage compared to my 2015 Subaru Forester 2.5i. With the Subaru, I was averaging around 24.3 MPG according to the onboard, and hit as low as 22-23 on the highway. My 2016.5 CX-5 Touring AWD is currently at 27.1 MPG average per the onboard. My daily driving is split about 65% highway / 35% city, and I average roughly 29-30 MPG on the highway if I do a reset while cruising. I also never exceed 70-72 MPH since it's not needed (Kansas City drivers actually know how to drive and obey speed limits, for the most part). I haven't taken it across the plains yet, but I imagine I'll probably only get 26-27 MPG since I'll be doing 80+. That part is expected and aligns with my experience in my Mazda3 Grand Touring Hatchback (2.5L, 6MT).

As far as the quality or cheapness of the vehicle, I actually consider the CX-5 to be rather upscale. It's right on par with my 2015 Mazda3 that I traded in. I routinely get compliments on the interior, and the exterior is absolutely gorgeous. I do not notice any rattles or shakes at higher speeds, and the road noise is considerably quieter than my Subaru Forester.

I buy Mazdas since I consider myself an enthusiast. The feedback for the driver in the CX-5 is great and aligns with my experience in both of my previous Mazda3s, although a lot of people will not like to feel the road and prefer a more vanilla drive. Sure, the CX-5 is not an extremely expensive SUV, but it isn't inexpensive either. Even though I could afford it, I could never justify buying a vehicle over $30k when the ones in the $25k range perform just fine.

TLDR: Experiences will differ. Personally, I find the fuel economy, fitment, and road noise to be more than acceptable for road trips.

 

[Unobtanium]

People tend to be more vocal if they have a negative experience. If their experience meets or exceeds their expectations, they usually do not speak up. This is often why review websites are a horrible way to judge a product with the exception of identifying any negative trends. The same logic can be applied to car forums as well.

My experience differs considerably, and I drive a good bit. I noticed a pretty significant increase in gas mileage compared to my 2015 Subaru Forester 2.5i. With the Subaru, I was averaging around 24.3 MPG according to the onboard, and hit as low as 22-23 on the highway. My 2016.5 CX-5 Touring AWD is currently at 27.1 MPG average per the onboard. My daily driving is split about 65% highway / 35% city, and I average roughly 29-30 MPG on the highway if I do a reset while cruising. I also never exceed 70-72 MPH since it's not needed (Kansas City drivers actually know how to drive and obey speed limits, for the most part). I haven't taken it across the plains yet, but I imagine I'll probably only get 26-27 MPG since I'll be doing 80+. That part is expected and aligns with my experience in my Mazda3 Grand Touring Hatchback (2.5L, 6MT).

As far as the quality or cheapness of the vehicle, I actually consider the CX-5 to be rather upscale. It's right on par with my 2015 Mazda3 that I traded in. I routinely get compliments on the interior, and the exterior is absolutely gorgeous. I do not notice any rattles or shakes at higher speeds, and the road noise is considerably quieter than my Subaru Forester.

I buy Mazdas since I consider myself an enthusiast. The feedback for the driver in the CX-5 is great and aligns with my experience in both of my previous Mazda3s, although a lot of people will not like to feel the road and prefer a more vanilla drive. Sure, the CX-5 is not an extremely expensive SUV, but it isn't inexpensive either. Even though I could afford it, I could never justify buying a vehicle over $30k when the ones in the $25k range perform just fine.

TLDR: Experiences will differ. Personally, I find the fuel economy, fitment, and road noise to be more than acceptable for road trips.

70mph is about 10-15mph under the speed limit many places I go on road-trips.

At 70mph, though, yeah, the CX-5 isn't bad. I probably get around 27-29 in it, although I've never tried it for long enough of a trip to make comment.

Interior is on par with the cost, and experior is sub-par, in my opinion. Hood flop and mirror shake is not a "problem", but it is something you expect on a cheap vehicle like a CX-5 (starting price low 20's...they all have the same hood and mirror attachments...), and something one would NOT expect on anything remotely "upscale".

The quality of the interior materials (I have a touring model) is on-par with the price of the vehicle, but not above. Hyundai offers much more for less, while some others offer a bit less for the same (Subaru, IMO).

The design lay-out of the vehicle is very appealing to me, though. Everything is comfortable and in reach. Someone actual sat in the car and played with things before it went into production!

The chassis and suspension is very well tuned for Mazda's vision.

The ride noise is a bit much, but not excessive.

The AWD system, I have come to change my mind on over time. It's a very nice piece of work.

Not having XM is absolutely stupid. I hate the glitchy tether with the phone. This is $12-16K MSRP material. Sub-par for sure! Like something one would find in a base Kia. So is the NAV system from what I've read on this forum, which is why I hold off on it even though my '15 supposedly gets a "better" system.

 

[KansasWaldo]

70mph is about 10-15mph under the speed limit many places I go on road-trips.

At 70mph, though, yeah, the CX-5 isn't bad. I probably get around 27-29 in it, although I've never tried it for long enough of a trip to make comment.

Interior is on par with the cost, and experior is sub-par, in my opinion. Hood flop and mirror shake is not a "problem", but it is something you expect on a cheap vehicle like a CX-5 (starting price low 20's...they all have the same hood and mirror attachments...), and something one would NOT expect on anything remotely "upscale".

The quality of the interior materials (I have a touring model) is on-par with the price of the vehicle, but not above. Hyundai offers much more for less, while some others offer a bit less for the same (Subaru, IMO).

The design lay-out of the vehicle is very appealing to me, though. Everything is comfortable and in reach. Someone actual sat in the car and played with things before it went into production!

The chassis and suspension is very well tuned for Mazda's vision.

The ride noise is a bit much, but not excessive.

The AWD system, I have come to change my mind on over time. It's a very nice piece of work.

Not having XM is absolutely stupid. I hate the glitchy tether with the phone. This is $12-16K MSRP material. Sub-par for sure! Like something one would find in a base Kia. So is the NAV system from what I've read on this forum, which is why I hold off on it even though my '15 supposedly gets a "better" system.

I hear ya about 70mph. I don't think they really focus much on higher speeds for EPA estimates or even real-world economy since a higher percentage of drivers in the US will be at 70mph or below instead of 80-85mph. Obviously, there are areas in the US that get to those higher speeds as the norm, but they are less common than lower speeds.

I haven't noticed much hood shake or mirror shake unless I'm driving into gusty headwinds that the Midwest is known for. Both my 2007 Mazda3 and 2015 Mazda3 had a bit more hood shake, as did my Subaru Forester. I've started to realize that it's just common these days (old cars I've owned didn't have it).

I agree about some of the features of other manufacturers, such as Hyundai. While they offer more, I never liked the "flair" of Hyundai interior. Mazda is a nice cross-between a Subaru and something that is more featured. It's simplistic in nature, appealing to the eyes, and has enough features to not be boring. This aligns with their focus on the Mazda being a driver's car. This is also why Subaru tends to adopt a similar philosophy with their interiors, but they're too aggressive with it.

I also agree that everything is comfortable and in reach. I've had cars where this isn't the case, and it's nice that they focused on driver accessibility.

Maybe I've just owned loud vehicles (*cough* Subaru *cough*), but I've found it to be very quiet. Sure, you can hear the road. My wife was surprised at how quiet it was compared to our Mazda3s and previous vehicles. Then again, we've also never owned or driven anything upscale. Ignorance is bliss.

I 100% agree with the AWD system. It is an excellent piece of work. I'd say it's close to an even match with the Forester's AWD system. That's saying a lot since Subaru tends to lead the industry with AWD.

I had XM in my Mazda3 Grand Touring. Never used it much, so can't really comment on it. I found the audio quality over Bluetooth or even the HD Radio to be higher quality though. Satellite radio just seems like a gimmick with everything else that is available. I also haven't had any glitchy tethers with my iPhone 6S. I'm not sure if the Bluetooth firmware is higher in the 2016.5, but that could influence it. My 2015 Subaru Forester was plagued by Bluetooth tethering issues.

The 2016.5 has NAV standard on the Touring model. It's not bad, but I find myself using Waze on my phone more. I can't think of another GPS available that can compete with Waze for traffic routing and such, so I don't fault the built-in GPS.

 

[yrwei52]

The 2016.5 has NAV standard on the Touring model. It's not bad, but I find myself using Waze on my phone more. I can't think of another GPS available that can compete with Waze for traffic routing and such, so I don't fault the built-in GPS.

But the sales brochure clearly stated the GPS in 2016 CX-5 features "Life Traffic" and I consider it's false advertising by Mazda.

 

[Unobtanium]

I hear ya about 70mph. I don't think they really focus much on higher speeds for EPA estimates or even real-world economy since a higher percentage of drivers in the US will be at 70mph or below instead of 80-85mph. Obviously, there are areas in the US that get to those higher speeds as the norm, but they are less common than lower speeds.

I haven't noticed much hood shake or mirror shake unless I'm driving into gusty headwinds that the Midwest is known for. Both my 2007 Mazda3 and 2015 Mazda3 had a bit more hood shake, as did my Subaru Forester. I've started to realize that it's just common these days (old cars I've owned didn't have it). This is literally the only vehicle I've had that didn't have a rock-steady hood. Even the fiberglass cowl hood that fit for crap on my 1988 Mustang GT was rock steady for crying out loud. No excuse for this shoddiness at any price point, really. Even if it's not "causing a problem".

I agree about some of the features of other manufacturers, such as Hyundai. While they offer more, I never liked the "flair" of Hyundai interior. Mazda is a nice cross-between a Subaru and something that is more featured. It's simplistic in nature, appealing to the eyes, and has enough features to not be boring. This aligns with their focus on the Mazda being a driver's car. This is also why Subaru tends to adopt a similar philosophy with their interiors, but they're too aggressive with it. I am very pleased with the lay-out of my CX-5. It was designed with a driver in mind and not a magazine ad photo.

I also agree that everything is comfortable and in reach. I've had cars where this isn't the case, and it's nice that they focused on driver accessibility. Yep!

Maybe I've just owned loud vehicles (*cough* Subaru *cough*), but I've found it to be very quiet. Sure, you can hear the road. My wife was surprised at how quiet it was compared to our Mazda3s and previous vehicles. Then again, we've also never owned or driven anything upscale. Ignorance is bliss. It reminds me of my 370Z, although it's louder at highway speed. Definitely in the "sports car" territory for road noise in my experience!

I 100% agree with the AWD system. It is an excellent piece of work. I'd say it's close to an even match with the Forester's AWD system. That's saying a lot since Subaru tends to lead the industry with AWD.

I had XM in my Mazda3 Grand Touring. Never used it much, so can't really comment on it. I found the audio quality over Bluetooth or even the HD Radio to be higher quality though. Satellite radio just seems like a gimmick with everything else that is available. I also haven't had any glitchy tethers with my iPhone 6S. I'm not sure if the Bluetooth firmware is higher in the 2016.5, but that could influence it. My 2015 Subaru Forester was plagued by Bluetooth tethering issues. I have not had nightmare tethering issues, but it's enough that it comes off as a crap option compared to XM/Sirius. I miss the user-friendliness and quality of my 2010 Jeep's NAV/Infotainment system.

The 2016.5 has NAV standard on the Touring model. It's not bad, but I find myself using Waze on my phone more. I can't think of another GPS available that can compete with Waze for traffic routing and such, so I don't fault the built-in GPS.

That really sucks that a cell-phone app is better. My Jeep had live update traffic data, constantly routing me the best ways, re-estimating travel times, etc. etc. etc. It was amazing, super user friendly, gave me live altitude and other read-outs. Beats the snot out of what I keep hearing about Mazda's system. Even thought Mazda has had half a decade longer to develop it. Again...this falls into the WTF!? category, along with Subaru's radio/nav interface.

 

[KansasWaldo]

But the sales brochure clearly stated the GPS in 2016 CX-5 features "Life Traffic" and I consider it's false advertising by Mazda.

I can pull traffic on my NAV via the HD radio traffic map. Not sure if that's the same thing, but it does work.

 

[Unobtanium]

I can pull traffic on my NAV via the HD radio traffic map. Not sure if that's the same thing, but it does work.

Cool story. My 5 year old Jeep could populate traffic, additional travel times, and re-route me. Without pulling anything from anything. It just did it. UConnect was awesome. The one thing I will say that Chrysler got 100% right. NAV in Subaru and Mazda vehicles continues to be a downfall.

 

[KansasWaldo]

That really sucks that a cell-phone app is better. My Jeep had live update traffic data, constantly routing me the best ways, re-estimating travel times, etc. etc. etc. It was amazing, super user friendly, gave me live altitude and other read-outs. Beats the snot out of what I keep hearing about Mazda's system. Even thought Mazda has had half a decade longer to develop it. Again...this falls into the WTF!? category, along with Subaru's radio/nav interface.

That doesn't sound like a bad system. As far as comparing Waze to the onboard GPS, that's not really a fair comparison. Waze has an insane amount of crowd-sourced data and is powered by Google Maps. It is also extremely accurate at reporting hazards (stopped vehicles, debris in the road, emergency vehicles, etc.) since it relies on user-reported data. Most of the time, the distance to the hazard is accurate to under 0.1 miles. I've yet to come across a GPS that can even come close to competing against Waze. The social media element and full calendar integration are amazing as well.

The Subaru's issue was the outdated firmware. They corrected it with the newer 2016 radios, but owners of 2015 and earlier Foresters got the shaft unless they went to an aftermarket head unit.

 

[mpkav]

Cool story. My 5 year old Jeep could populate traffic, additional travel times, and re-route me. Without pulling anything from anything. It just did it. UConnect was awesome. The one thing I will say that Chrysler got 100% right. NAV in Subaru and Mazda vehicles continues to be a downfall.

My biggest problem with the TomTom NB1 in my 2015 is how finicky the traffic functionality is. It turns itself off for any reason, at any time, and the only (temporary) fix is to update the card weekly. I still don't understand why the 7-day GPS location fix has anything to do with the traffic functionality, but it is the only thing that consistently works.