Everyone's Fuelly MPG seems very high compared to mine. :(

[frenchbiker]

Not true. I have no trouble meeting or exceeding epa milage figures with my AWD. And I believe that's true of the majority of AWD owners. ....

I get around 28.5mpg on highways which I'm pleased with but 30mpg seems to be unattainable for me here in hilly Southwestern PA with PA 87 gasoline with 10% ethanol at an average of 60mph.

 

[frenchbiker]

I don't think that you actually know it to be true. At most, you have anecdotal evidence, mostly from your own experience.
My anecdotal evidence shows multiple trips of >= 30 MPG, with mostly highway. Just returned from a trip to Yosemite, which included long climb through the Tioga pass, but also the descent into the central valley with a best ever 32.7 MPG (with 91 Octane).

Average gas price (87 octane) in the Bay area is $3.012/gallon according to sanfrangasprices.com and I suspect 91 octane is around $3.30/gallon if not more. My 87 octane gas here in PA costs $2.30/gallon so I'll take my 28.5mpg on highway over your >=30mpg on highway in CA anyday. LOL

 

[yrwei52]

How do you know more FWD are sold over AWD? Where do you get this data? At least here, many people get AWD so they can drive them to the mountains or do light off-road duty.

Texas has one of the largest car market in the US. When we decided to get an AWD CX-5, there was none in the whole DFW area, and after searched further, none in Texas! That's why we'd to special order our AWD CX-5! The sales manager said they simply don't order any CX-5 AWD unless Mazda forces them to as there is no demands. 6 friends and families bought CX-5 under my recommendation, 2 were AWD's and one was for my wife and the other was in Bay area as he, like you, wanted an AWD so that he could go up to Lake Tahoe skiing.

CX-5 AWD is only bested by a very short list of other AWD vehicles according to EPA and even then by mostly 1 MPG combined. So it is one of the most efficient AWD system out there.

So you're saying Mazda CX-5 suffers 3 mpg penalty with AWD than FWD according to EPA combined estimate, all others suffer less, Nissan Rogue 0 mpg, Toyota RAV4 1 mpg, and Honda CR-V 2 mpg (used to be 1 mpg); and now you claim Mazda CX-5 has one of the most efficient AWD system out there???

It's SkyActiv engine and transmission that are efficient, not the AWD system as evidenced by EPA ratings and real-world experience for the same model!

Some owners think that most everyone else get the same results as they do. Others jump at any publication which measured numbers they like using a single vehicle, sometime driven hard by auto journalists. The numbers from ~130 owners and ~5600 fuel-ups are much more reliable than any one vehicle's measurement.

OP asked a question, and I explained to him why. By using your logic, there is no explanation but:

-Something is wrong with your car
-You can't drive it correctly to get good mileage

like Unobtanium said?!

I've only been complaining CX-5 AWD system sucked as far as fuel economy goes! I'd said I envy those who can get 30+ mpg from their AWD! But as you said by yourself, you have good gas mileage on your AWD CX-5, then you based on your experience and keep questioning others who are unfortunately having poor gas mileage from their AWD CX-5! Fuelly's data are flawed when you're trying to compare the MPG difference between FWD and AWD from the same vehicle, especially for a vehicle like CX-5 which has the most difference on MPG between FWD and AWD!

In addition to huge penalty for AWD CX-5 according to EPA ratings, apparently Mazda knew the issue and was trying to improve it as evidenced by its press release for 2016 CX-5:

"Mazda's renowned AWD system is also updated and real-world fuel economy improved."

If their AWD system is one of the most efficient AWD system out there, why it needed improvement for real-world fuel economy? And how did they find a room to improve?

 

[yrwei52]

I don't think that you actually know it to be true. At most, you have anecdotal evidence, mostly from your own experience.
My anecdotal evidence shows multiple trips of >= 30 MPG, with mostly highway. Just returned from a trip to Yosemite, which included long climb through the Tioga pass, but also the descent into the central valley with a best ever 32.7 MPG (with 91 Octane).

Not true. I have no trouble meeting or exceeding epa milage figures with my AWD. And I believe that's true of the majority of AWD owners. Guess it's time for a survey

You answered yourself...

Some owners think that most everyone else get the same results as they do. Others jump at any publication which measured numbers they like using a single vehicle, sometime driven hard by auto journalists.

Even in this thread there're more posters who could never get 30 mpg like EPA highway estimate from their CX-5 AWD!

The numbers from ~130 owners and ~5600 fuel-ups are much more reliable than any one vehicle's measurement.

As I said Fuelly's data are flawed as nobody knows the breakdown between FWD and AWD CX-5's. The MPG would be skewed one way or the other especially for a vehicle like CX-5 which has the most difference on MPG between FWD and AWD!

 

[jhu8]

Seriously, the reason why your gas mileage is lower than what the Fuelly showing is because you have an AWD CX-5! Fuelly's data are mixed with FWD and AWD CX-5's and you can't distinguish them! There're more FWD CX-5's sold in the US which makes the average MPG on Fuelly looks higher for CX-5. According to EPA 2016 FWD CX-5 is rated at 29 mpg combined but AWD CX-5 is rated at 26 mpg. 3 mpg panelty for having the AWD CX-5 indicates Mazda's i-ActivSense AWD system is not efficient than other brands in the same class as others suffer only 1 mpg. Even Mazda realized its AWD system is not fuel-efficiency friendly and they claimed they did some changes to the AWD system for 2016 CX-5 AWD "to improve the real-world fuel economy". There're many members here are having similar experience like you on disappointed gas mileage and turned out they almost all have AWD! I really envy those who claim getting 30+ mpg on their AWD CX-5 but most AWD CX-5 owners simply can't get such gas mileage, even on the highway!

Please provide the data to back up your claim that more FWD cx5s are sold than AWD...I get 30mpg easily on the highway. AWD. It's not hard lol In fact right now I'm averaging 30.3mpg with my roughly 50/50 commute.

 

[mackworth]

My wife and I are averaging 24.2 right now with mostly short city trips, with some longer highway trips mixed in averaging ~75MPH on a 2016 AWD.

 

[mackworth]

According to mazda:

http://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/press-release/mazda-may-2016-sales/
---
Mazda’s i-ACTIV All-Wheel Drive continues to be the drivetrain of choice for consumers when buying a Mazda SUV, with 56 percent of buyers choosing the innovative and unique system.
---

When they say "continues" I assume that means that its been this way for a while.

 

[jhu8]

According to mazda:

http://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/press-release/mazda-may-2016-sales/
---
Mazda’s i-ACTIV All-Wheel Drive continues to be the drivetrain of choice for consumers when buying a Mazda SUV, with 56 percent of buyers choosing the innovative and unique system.
---

When they say "continues" I assume that means that its been this way for a while.

Good find. Waiting for yrwei to chime in on that with his claim. I will say though, it's closer than I thought. I guess just with how fuel efficient these CUVs are becoming, they really aren't far behind sedans in gas mileage. Add in the better utility and extra space, and I can see why FWD is still popular.

 

[xtrailman]

If MPG is your priority you need to buy a more aerodynamic car, with out AWD which adds weight and mechanical losses.
And also buy a manual transmission, since i bought auto i've dropped at least 3 mpg driving the same way over the same routes.

 

[mackworth]

Well, I am sure like yrwei52 says, probably not a ton of AWD in places like Texas, but up here in the Northeast, its the opposite. Just did a 150 mile search on the mazda website: 2063 CX-5s total but out of that only 2 FWD Sport Manual, 6 FWD Sport Auto, 2 FWD Touring Auto and no FWD GTs.

 

[frenchbiker]

Well, I am sure like yrwei52 says, probably not a ton of AWD in places like Texas, but up here in the Northeast, its the opposite. Just did a 150 mile search on the mazda website: 2063 CX-5s total but out of that only 2 FWD Sport Manual, 6 FWD Sport Auto, 2 FWD Touring Auto and no FWD GTs.

I see more CX-5 AWD than FWD here in Western PA. I'd say 2/3 are AWD.

 

[CX5_Pete]

Well, I am sure like yrwei52 says, probably not a ton of AWD in places like Texas, but up here in the Northeast, its the opposite. Just did a 150 mile search on the mazda website: 2063 CX-5s total but out of that only 2 FWD Sport Manual, 6 FWD Sport Auto, 2 FWD Touring Auto and no FWD GTs.

Only 2 available with the 6 speed manual... I wonder how long it takes before they stop making them completely.

 

[ductman]

I have 32000 on my FWD CX5, best gas mileage I have seen was 28 if I keep it below 70 , when cruising at 80 , which is the average when 70 is the limit , mileage suffers greatly at around 24.5 to 25 at best.

 

[ALafya]

So you're saying Mazda CX-5 suffers 3 mpg penalty with AWD than FWD according to EPA combined estimate, all others suffer less, Nissan Rogue 0 mpg, Toyota RAV4 1 mpg, and Honda CR-V 2 mpg (used to be 1 mpg); and now you claim Mazda CX-5 has one of the most efficient AWD system out there???

All this talk of penalty is meaningless. Go get a RAV4 with "only 1 mpg penalty", only that it's EPA sticker will say 29/22, which is lower than the CX-5. You buy a car with set EPA ratings as a complete package. The RAV-4 EPA penalty in my book, compared with the CX-5 is 1 highway and 2 city and 1 combined. In fact, the only crossovers you can buy which are more efficient, according to the EPA, are on the short list I linked above (which excludes smaller vehicles/smaller engines and hybrids). All other vehicles are less efficient.

OP asked a question, and I explained to him why. By using your logic, there is no explanation but:
-Something is wrong with your car
-You can't drive it correctly to get good mileage[/B][/I]

Absolutely not.
You can see even on fuelly that there is a distribution, not everyone gets the same MPG. Your millage varies according to many parameters, only some with the driver's control. However, when speaking of the average and of the variance the CX-5 gets with real-world drivers, it seems it is already better than the Nissan Rogue, which supposedly gets +2MPG combined better, and about the same as the CR-V (2016).

Fuelly's data are flawed when you're trying to compare the MPG difference between FWD and AWD from the same vehicle, especially for a vehicle like CX-5 which has the most difference on MPG between FWD and AWD!

Well, the variance on fuelly contradicts your claim. Since AWD/FWD are mixed, you'd expect a larger variance in the data, or even 2 peaks. But the variance is actually tighter than the CR-V and Rogue, which suggests that the difference is not as significant in real world driving, which means that AWD average is not far off the overall average for the CX-5.

Of course I would be happier to get more precise data, but I don't think it exists. However, when you base your claim on few vocal members of an internet forum, your data is by far less reliable or accurate.

"Mazda's renowned AWD system is also updated and real-world fuel economy improved."
If their AWD system is one of the most efficient AWD system out there, why it needed improvement for real-world fuel economy? And how did they find a room to improve?

Based on fuelly data so far this year, it does not seem that there is any improvement in efficiency in 2016 MY over previous years. Maybe it will move a little later in the year, but I am doubtful.

 

[ALafya]

Average gas price (87 octane) in the Bay area is $3.012/gallon according to sanfrangasprices.com and I suspect 91 octane is around $3.30/gallon if not more. My 87 octane gas here in PA costs $2.30/gallon so I'll take my 28.5mpg on highway over your >=30mpg on highway in CA anyday. LOL

Ha-ha
You were about right, though I bought that tank as an experiment in the boonies of Bishop CA, not very far from the Nevada border. Here it would be a little cheaper, though we do get screwed over by CA's "cleaner burning" gas, which is also taxed more.

The "experiment" was about if I feel any difference with 91 vs. the 87 I usually get, especially with all the steep climbs in the area. It was not a real experiment because not the same road and not same time of day, etc. But I think there is a little difference with 91.

 

[xtrailman]

"Mazda's renowned AWD system is also updated and real-world fuel economy improved."
If their AWD system is one of the most efficient AWD system out there, why it needed improvement for real-world fuel economy? And how did they find a room to improve? "

Just whats renowned about the Mazda system?

IME its a very average system, and i have seen no benefit in fuel savings with the latest car, in fact the newest UK cars have all put on weight.

 

[yrwei52]

In addition to huge penalty for AWD CX-5 according to EPA ratings, apparently Mazda knew the issue and was trying to improve it as evidenced by its press release for 2016 CX-5:

"Mazda's renowned AWD system is also updated and real-world fuel economy improved."

If their AWD system is one of the most efficient AWD system out there, why it needed improvement for real-world fuel economy? And how did they find a room to improve?

Just whats renowned about the Mazda system?

IME its a very average system, and i have seen no benefit in fuel savings with the latest car, in fact the newest UK cars have all put on weight.

I have no idea. This statement is from Mazda's press release and Mazda surely feels its AWD system is "renowned". But Mazda definitely did something to its AWD system trying to improve "real-world" gas mileage for 2016 MY. Otherwise why brought it up in US press release for its new 2016 CX-5?

 

[frenchbiker]

Ha-ha
You were about right, though I bought that tank as an experiment in the boonies of Bishop CA, not very far from the Nevada border. Here it would be a little cheaper, though we do get screwed over by CA's "cleaner burning" gas, which is also taxed more.

The "experiment" was about if I feel any difference with 91 vs. the 87 I usually get, especially with all the steep climbs in the area. It was not a real experiment because not the same road and not same time of day, etc. But I think there is a little difference with 91.

I tried 91 octane once and didn't notice any real improvement in mpg so I went back to 87. I'm gonna add a can of Sea Foam next time I fill the tank to clean the whole fuel system.

 

[xtrailman]

I have no idea. This statement is from Mazda's press release and Mazda surely feels its AWD system is "renowned". But Mazda definitely did something to its AWD system trying to improve "real-world" gas mileage for 2016 MY. Otherwise why brought it up in US press release for its new 2016 CX-5?

All I can say is my present car shows 39mpg at the moment on the average read out which reads 2.5 mpg high compared to a brim to brim test, while my 2013 car would be showing up to 43mpg although that was a manual transmission and also lighter by 40kg.

I understand the latest AWD uses more sensor inputs to allow quicker reaction times to engaging AWD.

 

[ALafya]

I understand the latest AWD uses more sensor inputs to allow quicker reaction times to engaging AWD.

I remember someone showing that no more sensor inputs for the AWD system were added in 2016.