Average MPG less than 20mpg, am I alone?

[Odrapnew]

Another point in the cart CarpeDiem posted.
Notice the Mahle new vs. used.
Used, even just 10% used, will capture more particles than a new filter.

When a mechanic shows you a 'dirty' filter and tells you it should be changed to protect the engine, just smile and nod and say no thanks. That 'dirty' filter is actually protecting your engine more than a new one and the impact to MPG is minimal at best, even with a severely clogged filter.

Side note: I ran my original motorcycle filter so long that the bike wouldn't start one day. MPG before and after the filter change was no different. Power increase, on the other hand, was significant.

 

[weitau]

2 mpg less than EPA city is not bad for short trips while the engine still warming up. Honda's J35 V6 is considered one of the best in the world in all regards, so everything else just pales in comparison.

 

[1killera4]

I have had K&N Filters on every car I have owned since the early nineties. (A lot of cars) Never had any engine issues whatsoever. 90% were performance applications as well. I have never really worried about mpg, Like I said 90% were performance applications on performance cars, us folks don't worry about mpg too much.

 

[jofo67]

I have the opposite issue with my 23 Turbo. I’m at 17K miles now and my mileage has steadily increased over time. We went on a leaf peeping ride yesterday and on flat 50 MPH roads I was averaging 33-33 mpg. No stopping and fairly flat for a good hour or so of driving. I use Costco premium 93 only. I do expect the numbers to go down some with cold weather here, but overall I can’t complain at all.

 

[jofo67]

33-34 that is

 

[clownshoes2]

FWIW my 2017 GT gets 26.1 mpg on a bad week with a mix of hwy and city driving. Sometimes I can get that up to 29.4 mpg. I use a mix of 87 and 91 Octane depending on the price of fuel that week.

I thought I had bad fuel mileage but some of you have really bad gas mileage. Sorry for that.

 

[onerpm]

I have tracked all of my gas purchases for 50 years. For my 2020 Sig, these are the calculated MsPG for each year of ownership, since purchased new in June 2020:

2020: 25.04 (partial yr., covid, drove little)
2021: 25.37
2022: 25.7
2023 (YTD): 26.13.

I retired in late 2021, started snowbirding, so no longer drove in cold weather. Typical mix of city/hwy driving, but with the inclusion of 4000 miles each year of road-tripping north and south.

On the long road trips, I get around 28.5 overall, two people and the usual load of crap the spouse requires.
I am still under 36k total miles on the car, with 25k of those coming in 2022-23.
I almost always burn Costco regular. The car has never seen a drop of premium.

As Clownshoes2 said, "FWIW!" If I have any negative about the Mazda at all, it's that I would like the mileage to be higher. But I'm biased from owning a bunch of hybrids in the past.

 

[chickdr]

FWIW my 2017 GT gets 26.1 mpg on a bad week with a mix of hwy and city driving. Sometimes I can get that up to 29.4 mpg. I use a mix of 87 and 91 Octane depending on the price of fuel that week.

I thought I had bad fuel mileage but some of you have really bad gas mileage. Sorry for that.

Out of curiosity, why would you use anything other than 87? No advantage to it for your NA motor.

 

[chickdr]

I have tracked all of my gas purchases for 50 years. For my 2020 Sig, these are the calculated MsPG for each year of ownership, since purchased new in June 2020:

2020: 25.04 (partial yr., covid, drove little)
2021: 25.37
2022: 25.7
2023 (YTD): 26.13.

I retired in late 2021, started snowbirding, so no longer drove in cold weather. Typical mix of city/hwy driving, but with the inclusion of 4000 miles each year of road-tripping north and south.

On the long road trips, I get around 28.5 overall, two people and the usual load of crap the spouse requires.
I am still under 36k total miles on the car, with 25k of those coming in 2022-23.
I almost always burn Costco regular. The car has never seen a drop of premium.

As Clownshoes2 said, "FWIW!" If I have any negative about the Mazda at all, it's that I would like the mileage to be higher. But I'm biased from owning a bunch of hybrids in the past.

This is pretty close to what I see in mine (mine is more like 24MPG as I have more in town driving). The numbers posted by jofo67 seem so far out of line compared to most others with the 2.5T motor. It would be interesting to be able to do a breakdown of that engine vs mine or yours and see if anything is different.

 

[clownshoes2]

Out of curiosity, why would you use anything other than 87? No advantage to it for your NA motor.

Because my vehicle runs better and typically gets better fuel mileage with 91. It runs really well with 94. I typically can get 50-75kms more per tank running high test. I've monitored this in the past. 87 also has ethanol which is TERRIBLE for rubber seals and other components. So the more I use non ethanol fuels, the more I'm helping save my motor.

But you do you boo.

 

[jofo67]

Folks.
Let me be clear. The 33-33 mpg was an outlier that surprised me. I do regularly get 29-30 on the highway at 75 mph and my overall average since new is 26 even. That is with 17,400+ miles on it. My commute is long enough that the car warms up fully and is able to run efficiently due to that. If I was only going a few miles each way, then I would fully expect lower numbers.

 

[Goguinness]

Around 104,000 miles my 2015 Touring had an uptick in mileage. This is true on both the dash readout, and figured at the pump mpg. I have gotten as high as 33.8. Don't know why.

 

[yrwei52]

Around 104,000 miles my 2015 Touring had an uptick in mileage. This is true on both the dash readout, and figured at the pump mpg. I have gotten as high as 33.8. Don't know why.

For the gas mileage on a 2015 CX-5, we need to know if you have a 2.0L of 2.5L NA, and if it’s a FWD or AWD.

 

[yrwei52]

Because my vehicle runs better and typically gets better fuel mileage with 91. It runs really well with 94. I typically can get 50-75kms more per tank running high test. I've monitored this in the past. 87 also has ethanol which is TERRIBLE for rubber seals and other components. So the more I use non ethanol fuels, the more I'm helping save my motor.

But you do you boo.

On paper using 91 octane won’t have any advantage on horsepower and gas mileage over using 87 octane gas with the 2.5L NA on your 2017 CX-5 GT due to the design. I believe your situation of having better gas mileage has more to do with using ethanol-free fuels, not the higher octane.

 

[yrwei52]

I have the opposite issue with my 23 Turbo. ⋯
I use Costco premium 93 only.

You do realize that using the 93-octane won’t give your more power unless you keep your engine running over 4,000 rpm all the time.

Here by releasing this official power curve on the 2.5T, Mazda wants to show “additional high-rpm performance is possible with higher octane”, and “to prevent unnecessary spending on premium fuel, both power ratings are published”.

 

[clownshoes2]

I know it doesn't give me more power. All I know is I get better kms per tank, the engine runs better and the lack of ethanol helps the motor. If they made no ethanol 87, I'd use that.

On paper using 91 octane won’t have any advantage on horsepower and gas mileage over using 87 octane gas with the 2.5L NA on your 2017 CX-5 GT due to the design. I believe your situation of having better gas mileage has more to do with using ethanol-free fuels, not the higher octane.

Regardless of how or why, I personally see a tangible benefit to using higher octane fuel. That's just me and my vehicle.

My 2023 CX-30 loves high test as well. Ran a full tank of 91 and I had her down to 5.5L/100kms at 80kms/hr cruising speed.

 

[yrwei52]

I know it doesn't give me more power. All I know is I get better kms per tank, the engine runs better and the lack of ethanol helps the motor. If they made no ethanol 87, I'd use that.

As I said earlier, the benefits you get is caused by non-ethanol fuel, not by higher octane.

 

[clownshoes2]

As I said earlier, the benefits you get is caused by non-ethanol fuel, not by higher octane.

I really don't care how I get the benefit. I notice a difference and that's all that matters.

 

[cz5gt]

Same with general brands oils vs some premium priced ones. Whether is worth it, cant prove it but its a personal choice. We should respect that.
I have always used 91 in both my CX5, even the non turbo one. Would use 93 if had access to it.

 

[Goguinness]

My 2015 has the 2.5 engine, and is fwd.