Official 2017 2nd-Gen CX-5 EPA Fuel Economy Ratings Are Out

Is the 2017 car heavier?

Since launch the cx-5 has got progressively heavier, mainly to satisfy customer and testers complaints about wind and road noise. You can't really complain at around 1mpg if the car is a quieter car to be in.

I agree with xtrailman - also those drooling over CRV mileage :

Comments from Jalopnik CRV review:

Not Relevant
William Clavey
1/04/17 4:10pm
What actual mileage were you getting? That’s allot for a 1.5 to push around, turbo or not.

Reply

William Clavey
Not Relevant
1/04/17 4:12pm
Surprisingly I was averaging 23-24 MPGs.


William was the Jalopnik reviewer - from the photos he was not in a city but open backroads.

And i think this another poster mirrors my opinion:
This is why I think something needs to change in regards to the small displacement turbocharged fad. You can get stellar mileage if you drive just so. But nobody drives like that, so you get all the power and all the economy of a V6 but with none of the long term reliability.

This may also explain high margin of error for CRV on Fuelly. So for the average driver the mpg could mirror a +1 mpg over CX5 with similar driving habits. But grandma's and family of four TM will be doing 30 mpg.
 
Last edited:
So the official 2017 2nd-Gen CX-5 EPA fuel economy ratings are out at FuelEconomy.gov website:
attachment.php
You know what? This totally makes sense to me. This explains why I can't get 30 MPG even when doing a lot of highway miles. The best tank I recorded with Fuelly was 28.8 MPG for our CX-5. I used to wonder how Mazda came up with the 33-34 highway MPG numbers. The new fuel economy ratings using the revised method by the EPA is more in line with the fuel economy that I am getting.

It is impressive that the new CR-V with the 1.5 turbo engine scored so high. It still is CVT though, so meh. Mazda needs to play catch up for now, but the diesel will get here in the 2nd half of this year though.
 
I agree with xtrailman - also those drooling over CRV mileage :

Comments from Jalopnik CRV review:

Not Relevant
William Clavey
1/04/17 4:10pm
What actual mileage were you getting? That’s allot for a 1.5 to push around, turbo or not.

Reply

William Clavey
Not Relevant
1/04/17 4:12pm
Surprisingly I was averaging 23-24 MPGs.


William was the Jalopnik reviewer - from the photos he was not in a city but open backroads.

And i think this another poster mirrors my opinion:
This is why I think something needs to change in regards to the small displacement turbocharged fad. You can get stellar mileage if you drive just so. But nobody drives like that, so you get all the power and all the economy of a V6 but with none of the long term reliability.

This may also explain high margin of error for CRV on Fuelly. So for the average driver the mpg could mirror a +1 mpg over CX5 with similar driving habits. But grandma's and family of four TM will be doing 30 mpg.

Did someone already post this link?

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2017...-mpg-city-results-exceeds-epa-highway-rating/

"Running a 2017 Honda CR-V Touring AWD with the 1.5-liter turbo-four through the Motor-Trend-exclusive Real MPG tests yielded 21.9 mpg in the city, 34.2 mpg on the highway, and 26.1 mpg combined."

Okay for those doggin' the CX-5 for its MPGs ..and you know who you are LOL!!! GO out show your CX-5 some love. Go wash it or buy an air freshener or something man!!!
 
It is impressive that the new CR-V with the 1.5 turbo engine scored so high. It still is CVT though, so meh. Mazda needs to play catch up for now, but the diesel will get here in the 2nd half of this year though.
Read my comment above you - the EPA DOES NOT TEST ALL CARS - Manufacturers do most, EPA will select few models based on certain criteria. It is very possible that Honda knows how to drive its CRV to hit 30 mpg - but if you are pulling that CUV over hills etc. and not driving like a 75 y.o. chances are you will see a significant drop in mpg. This is similar to what Mazda may have done - limited hwy speeds to 65 or so.
So over the lifetime you may get a 1 mpg advantage in CRV but its a new drive train with turbo - so you are gambling with reliability. Also i cant even think what Unobtamium will get doing 85 in CRV. Maybe single digits lol.
 
If you do a lot of highway driving, the CRV 1.5L seems to be a good choice. However city driving, the CRV is awful. Worse than the CX5. Per MT results.
 
Is the 2017 car heavier?

Since launch the cx-5 has got progressively heavier, mainly to satisfy customer and testers complaints about wind and road noise. You can't really complain at around 1mpg if the car is a quieter car to be in.

I bet it's quite a bit heavier.. just like Unobtanium wanted it to be.
It's also supposed to be very quiet inside, so that might be a worthwhile trade off.

I bet the FWD no longer has the taller gear ratios that helped it get 33MPG HWY.
With the extra weight it probably needs to be geared the same as the AWD for acceptable acceleration.
 
And if you choose 1.5L Turbo for 2017 Honda CR-V, your trustworthy Fuelly data suddenly shows:



So don't just pick and choose the data you like. We want facts. When did people who presenting facts turn into a bunch of babies?

I picked all the data. That is a comparision between all CX-5 (2016) and all CR-V (2017) models. You want more MPG on your CX-5, get the diesel.

27.97 + or minus 1.08. So that number could be 26.89. Not far from the CX-5. The number of 1.5T cars right now in fuelly is just too low (n=6).

At the same time, where is your horror that the CR-V is getting 1 maybe even 2 MPG less than advertised! For all your complaining of the CX-5 being 1 MPG off the EPA highway MPG. Please.
 
Last edited:
Did someone already post this link?

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2017...-mpg-city-results-exceeds-epa-highway-rating/

"Running a 2017 Honda CR-V Touring AWD with the 1.5-liter turbo-four through the Motor-Trend-exclusive Real MPG tests yielded 21.9 mpg in the city, 34.2 mpg on the highway, and 26.1 mpg combined."

Okay for those doggin' the CX-5 for its MPGs ..and you know who you are LOL!!! GO out show your CX-5 some love. Go wash it or buy an air freshener or something man!!!

21.9 is pretty rank. I mean... our Tacoma 6-cyl automatic gets that. My 10-year-old hybrid with a jacked up thermostat got better than that.
 
21.9 is pretty rank. I mean... our Tacoma 6-cyl automatic gets that. My 10-year-old hybrid with a jacked up thermostat got better than that.

Exactly - small turbos give you mpg and power of a v6 without the reliability.
 
And if you choose 1.5L Turbo for 2017 Honda CR-V, your trustworthy Fuelly data suddenly shows:

Based on data from 6 vehicles, 27 fuel-ups and 6,682 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 27.97 with a 1.08 MPG margin of error.

So don't just pick and choose the data you like. We want facts. When did people who presenting facts turn into a bunch of babies?

The problem is that it is only 6 vehicles and 27 fuel-ups, which explains large 1.08 margin of error.
I'd suggest a bit more patience, to see what is a more accurate average as well as fuel economy distribution of real drivers.

I also don't think Mazda is any more or any less honest than before. Their EPA numbers are just a result of following the testing procedure as is.
I'd guess that the FWD final drive is now the same as the AWD, which explains why it dropped. It would be nice if anyone could confirm.
 
You know what? This totally makes sense to me. This explains why I can't get 30 MPG even when doing a lot of highway miles. The best tank I recorded with Fuelly was 28.8 MPG for our CX-5. I used to wonder how Mazda came up with the 33-34 highway MPG numbers. The new fuel economy ratings using the revised method by the EPA is more in line with the fuel economy that I am getting.

It is impressive that the new CR-V with the 1.5 turbo engine scored so high. It still is CVT though, so meh. Mazda needs to play catch up for now, but the diesel will get here in the 2nd half of this year though.

For the 2014-2016 2.5L AWD the mileage was 24/30 with 26 combined. The only cars getting 33-35 MPG were the 2.0 cars. You have a 2016 GT which was never reported to have 33-34 highway MPG. From the sounds of it, if you go 28.8 (which is 29) you are basically where you should be.
 
For the 2014-2016 2.5L AWD the mileage was 24/30 with 26 combined. The only cars getting 33-35 MPG were the 2.0 cars. You have a 2016 GT which was never reported to have 33-34 highway MPG. From the sounds of it, if you go 28.8 (which is 29) you are basically where you should be.
If I remember correctly, before the EPA revised the fuel economy estimates, the 2016 CX-5 GT in FWD was rated at 26 city, 33 highway and 29 combined MPG. I'm getting 24-26 MPG on my daily drives with at least 50-60% city driving. The only time I got 28 MPG was on a road trip from Dallas to Austin and vice versa. I'm not exactly complaining about the fuel mileage I am getting, but I was disappointed that I couldn't do better with the highway MPGs (because I was fixated on the 33 MPG EPA estimate). That said, barring an expensive upgrade to a BMW X3 (which records even lower fuel economy in Fuelly), I can't find another car that can replace our 2016 CX-5 GT, except maybe a newer CX-5 with the diesel engine.
 
I think to an extent both sides are propping up with selective facts. There is no big reward for Honda to outperform a 4 year old platform. Yes it does do those things better than a CX5 but its a FULL REFRESH! Its a totally brand new drivetrain, not sure about platform.
If you leave out the fun to drive factor - the 17 CRV goes toe to toe with CX5 in terms of feature and price points with CX5 being more driver friendly and CRV having more for each of the other seats but less for driver, factor in the traditional fun to drive the CRV still will not appeal to owners of Mazda because it has a CVT. Also because its core styling has something awfully wrong. For example, you do not put recycled toothbrush holders from Target as wood trim on the dash. The chrome, the wheels - awful.

I dont know when the next CX5 full refresh is, but if its not upto the notch - the sales will reflect that. If you and yrwei want to put money on the CRV thats fine - I know i would not buy the 17 if i was looking now. I also know quite a few other Mazda owners would not either. Just dont try and sell this point that CRV >>>>>> CX-5 - I think its not.

I personally would not buy the new CR-V this year.

1) I am done buying new cars.
2) I would like to know if that new engine is any good long term or not. At least let a few get out there with 50K miles on 'em.
 
If I remember correctly, before the EPA revised the fuel economy estimates, the 2016 CX-5 GT in FWD was rated at 26 city, 33 highway and 29 combined MPG. I'm getting 24-26 MPG on my daily drives with at least 50-60% city driving. The only time I got 28 MPG was on a road trip from Dallas to Austin and vice versa. I'm not exactly complaining about the fuel mileage I am getting, but I was disappointed that I couldn't do better with the highway MPGs (because I was fixated on the 33 MPG EPA estimate). That said, barring an expensive upgrade to a BMW X3 (which records even lower fuel economy in Fuelly), I can't find another car that can replace our 2016 CX-5 GT, except maybe a newer CX-5 with the diesel engine.

This is my exact situation, except the Diesel CX-5 would mean taking a huge hit on trade in (these cars drop value faster than some, slower than others, but they do drop pretty quick) to achieve better mileage than the 2.5L I have...similar to the 2.0L I could have had...with similar performance as the 2.0L, from what I understand.
 
Cr-v / cx-5 ????

I see lots of talk about the CR-V and how it compares to the CX-5. It doesn't... but in the vaguest way: They're both automobiles but the comparison is like apples to oranges.
-
IMO.
 
If I remember correctly, before the EPA revised the fuel economy estimates, the 2016 CX-5 GT in FWD was rated at 26 city, 33 highway and 29 combined MPG. I'm getting 24-26 MPG on my daily drives with at least 50-60% city driving. The only time I got 28 MPG was on a road trip from Dallas to Austin and vice versa. I'm not exactly complaining about the fuel mileage I am getting, but I was disappointed that I couldn't do better with the highway MPGs (because I was fixated on the 33 MPG EPA estimate). That said, barring an expensive upgrade to a BMW X3 (which records even lower fuel economy in Fuelly), I can't find another car that can replace our 2016 CX-5 GT, except maybe a newer CX-5 with the diesel engine.

Yeah, you are right. 33 MPG highway - on the current Mazda site. For some reason, when I bought my AWD (2014) I thought it gave up just a MPG over the FWD (24/30 instead of 25/31).
 
What is the MPG figures for the 2.4 litre engine of the CR-V?

The 1.5 turbo should be compared to the CX-5 twin turbo.

Small capacity turbo and CVT does well for fuel consumption but the market is moving away from small capacity turbo as real-world emissions test come into effect in 2019.
 
What is the MPG figures for the 2.4 litre engine of the CR-V?

The 1.5 turbo should be compared to the CX-5 twin turbo.

Small capacity turbo and CVT does well for fuel consumption but the market is moving away from small capacity turbo as real-world emissions test come into effect in 2019.

25/31 and 27 Combined. So really right in line with the CX5.
 
I see lots of talk about the CR-V and how it compares to the CX-5. It doesn't... but in the vaguest way: They're both automobiles but the comparison is like apples to oranges.
-
IMO.
They are both compact SUV's within a few thousand dollars of each other. Just because you think that the CX-5 "feels sportier" (even though the numbers and tests show the CR-V to be the more agile), does not mean it's "apples to oranges". These two are DIRECTLY going head to head for sales.
 
Back