Knightro904
Member
- :
- N/A
For those of you with a 2014 or 2015 Grand Touring, what are you averaging for MPG? I really like what I see, but the 19" tires worry me from a monetary and MPG perspective.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2014 & 2015 Grand Touring MPG?
- Thread starter Knightro904
- Start date
- :
- 2015 CX-5 Touring 2.5L FWD
The 19" tires are going to be harder to find, less choices of make and model of tires, and yes, they'll be more expensive. There's only one Goodyear tire available for the 19", but, there's 6 or 7 choices available for the 17".
Knightro904
Member
- :
- N/A
I've done the online search for most of the local tire places and none of them have any in that size. I'm also concerned that the MPG that Mazda advertises is probably based on a 17" tire size, not 19". Hopefully some people with the GT 19" can chime in on their MPG averages.
I've done the online search for most of the local tire places and none of them have any in that size. I'm also concerned that the MPG that Mazda advertises is probably based on a 17" tire size, not 19". Hopefully some people with the GT 19" can chime in on their MPG averages.
I'm averaging 28mpg (+/- 1mpg each fill up) for my usual mix of about 30% highway, 70% city. Anytime I've had a whole tank on the freeway, I've averaged 31-32.
Knightro904
Member
- :
- N/A
I'm averaging 28mpg (+/- 1mpg each fill up) for my usual mix of about 30% highway, 70% city. Anytime I've had a whole tank on the freeway, I've averaged 31-32.
That's good to hear!
I'm getting about 9.3L/100KM, 40/60% city/hwy. We just did a 1600KM road trip with 2 adults, 2 kids, loaded floor to roof with gear and a hitch mount bike rack with the kids bikes and averaged 7.5L/100KM. This is the most impressive part of the car IMHO.
There should be no difference in MPG between the 19 & 17 inch tires, since the circumference is the same.
The 19s have higher centrifical mass, which is worst place to have it for performance and mpg.
An example; the Ford Edge has a Sport model with bigger rims and engine slightly larger (3.5L->3.7L), but has same 0-60 times.
Knightro904
Member
- :
- N/A
The 19s have higher centrifical mass, which is worst place to have it for performance and mpg.
An example; the Ford Edge has a Sport model with bigger rims and engine slightly larger (3.5L->3.7L), but has same 0-60 times.
So are you saying that it's your opinion that the 19" tires will get worse MPG compared to the 17"?
The larger 19" wheels are about (if I remember correctly) 7 lbs more per a wheel than the 17" wheels. Because this extra mass is located towards the outer edge of the wheel, it has a higher polar moment of inertia and so it's harder for the engine to get that mass in motion.
Think of a merry go round; one has all the people in the middle and one has all the people on the outer perimeter. Both merry go rounds being the same weight the one with the people on the outer perimeter is going to be harder to get in motion than the one with the people in the middle even though they have the same weight/people for each.
So in summery the CX5 with the smaller lighter 17" aluminum wheels in theory will get better city mileage than the CX5 with the 19" aluminum wheels even though they have the same overall diameter. Because both wheels are of the same diameter the highway mileage will be about equal because once the wheels are in motion it's easy for the engine to keep them in motion. With a lighter smaller wheel the vehicle will also accurate faster so long as there's enough traction.
The other benefit of the 17" wheels over the 19" wheels could also be better transient response or how quickly the car changes direction simply because the 17" aluminum wheels are lighter and like a bigger flywheel vs a small one resists change in direction less. Of course the 19" tires should have slightly better grip on the skid pad assuming the rubber compounds were the same.
Think of a merry go round; one has all the people in the middle and one has all the people on the outer perimeter. Both merry go rounds being the same weight the one with the people on the outer perimeter is going to be harder to get in motion than the one with the people in the middle even though they have the same weight/people for each.
So in summery the CX5 with the smaller lighter 17" aluminum wheels in theory will get better city mileage than the CX5 with the 19" aluminum wheels even though they have the same overall diameter. Because both wheels are of the same diameter the highway mileage will be about equal because once the wheels are in motion it's easy for the engine to keep them in motion. With a lighter smaller wheel the vehicle will also accurate faster so long as there's enough traction.
The other benefit of the 17" wheels over the 19" wheels could also be better transient response or how quickly the car changes direction simply because the 17" aluminum wheels are lighter and like a bigger flywheel vs a small one resists change in direction less. Of course the 19" tires should have slightly better grip on the skid pad assuming the rubber compounds were the same.
I avg about 28 mpg with mostly hwy but I'll get 29-30 on full hwy.
Unfortunately I've noticed the only way I can get 32mpgs or better is if I'm traveling 60 mph or less with no head wind and no incline.
With speed limits at 65 mph and numerous hills here in California, my current mpg display usually won't read over 31mpg with cruise set at 65 mph.
Unfortunately I've noticed the only way I can get 32mpgs or better is if I'm traveling 60 mph or less with no head wind and no incline.
With speed limits at 65 mph and numerous hills here in California, my current mpg display usually won't read over 31mpg with cruise set at 65 mph.
So are you saying that it's your opinion that the 19" tires will get worse MPG compared to the 17"?
Yes, but it will be small amount. IMO, you could definitely feel the difference in acceleration between stop lights if you did a back to back test. Had a 300hp car that I changed out wheels that were 7 pounds lighter each and you could feel it was faster in the seat of your pants. Extra rotational mass will slow a car much more than if that same mass was in the trunk.
Last edited:
Knightro904
Member
- :
- N/A
Very helpful, seems the GT is still getting great mileage
- :
- 2015 CX-5 Touring 2.5L FWD
I'm averaging just over 31mpg, 2015 Touring, 2.5L.
With speed limits at 65 mph and numerous hills here in California, my current mpg display usually won't read over 31mpg with cruise set at 65 mph.
Yup. I've taken our GT on a couple road trips, and when I cruise at 75-80 I usually can't get better than 26/27 MPG.
Normal city driving, and we live in a congested area of LA, we average around 27 for most tanks - which I'm happy with.
The one thing I will say I'm slightly annoyed by is the rather small tank in this car. Kind of negates the MPG advantage of the Skyactiv in terms of fill-up frequency.
jpaulatkinson
Member
- :
- 2015 Mazda CX-5 GT
What kind of driving are you planning? If entirely city, get a Prius!
What kind of driving are you planning? If entirely city, get a Prius!
Even if I was single and did not do anything but city driving I'd still get a decent vehical. Prius, yikes.
