CX-5 MPG with Turbo vs NA?

Not sure who would by any Mazda vehicle for efficiency. Most of us buy for the fun factor in driving them. Driving like a senior citizen will get you 2-3 extra mpg, but at what savings? If you can get your mpg up all the way to 29, you save all of $5 per tankful, but all driving fun is lost.

1618834830728.png


If you're going to spend driving time trying to maximize efficiency above everything else, you might as well go buy a Prius.......... JMHO
 
pcardoza said:
If you're going to spend driving time trying to maximize efficiency above everything else, you might as well go buy a Prius.......... JMHO
Click to expand...
You’re not wrong, and lord knows I like to drive mine like I stole it wherever and whenever safe and practical to do so (my R7 has saved me a few times) and my wife and kids are not in the car.

However, 29 mpg almost gets you a large coffee at Starbucks (I’m a DD fan, so 27 mpg is my goal for that beverage).
 
pcardoza said:
Not sure who would by any Mazda vehicle for efficiency. Most of us buy for the fun factor in driving them. Driving like a senior citizen will get you 2-3 extra mpg, but at what savings? If you can get your mpg up all the way to 29, you save all of $5 per tankful, but all driving fun is lost.

View attachment 297837

If you're going to spend driving time trying to maximize efficiency above everything else, you might as well go buy a Prius.......... JMHO
Click to expand...

Actually, fuel efficiency is what got people to buy the CX-5 when it first came out.

Personally, you can easily drive a Mazda in a manner that gets good mileage and is fun to drive. And there is more to fuel economy than saving yourself money. Just saying.
 
I have a 2016 2.5 AWD and manage about 24-25 MPG Hwy and 20 MPG city. Not heavy footed. Maybe it's our California blended fuel. . .
 
I didn't buy the CX-5 with fuel economy in mind either. Just really loved how it drove, steering, and the stiffer the suspension vs the Toyotas & Subarus.. didn't even bother test driving the butt-ugly CRV. Interior room, high HP, and fuel economy is low on my priorities. I also hate turbos.
Bluetooth connection to my phone was the only requirement I needed from the infotainment system. I just mostly wanted an enjoyable SUV/CUV to drive.

Having said that, I was pleasantly surprised at my first 40+ minute drive in my 2022 CX-5 (NA).. with AWD no less. I was able to cruise at 65-70 mph on a 80% highway trip, so that helps.

On the flip side, I drive with a more heavy foot on small roads, and been averaging 20-22 MPG on non-highway roads. The 2.5L has MORE than enough power to enjoy driving it on back roads and passing or merging on the highway. All those idiot YouTube reviewers got me nervous saying the 2.5L NA was too slow or felt sluggish. Should've remembered they're used to driving $70K+ cars with twin turbos or v8's.. whereas I've been driving 4-cylinder NA import cars my whole life. The ~3700 LB weight did have me a little nervous, but my first test drive of the CX-5 alleviated all my concerns. :)
 

Attachments

  • Fuel economy.jpg
    Fuel economy.jpg
    59.2 KB · Views: 77
Just drove from northern Delaware to Duck North Carolina with 2 adults, 1 medium dog and car loaded to the gills with luggage and provisions. Apprx 340 miles.
31.1 mpg.
Not interstate driving, just highways with traffic lights.
 
There's another reason the Turbo gets such bad mileage - it's so damn fun to take off at a light or drive in sport mode
 
Last edited:
Best suburb commute to work this week was 26.2. No turbo engagement :cry:, egg on the pedal, old guy driving, top off the air in the tires. My best highway to date was 31.3 mpg 60-65 mph. I have a hard time sustaining these driving habits. Decent mileage can be achieved...but let's be reasonable. Getting 22 mpg using the weapon of forced induction makes going to and fro a lot more fun.
 
Yawl need a diesel so you can flow effortlessly with gobs of torque yet have great efficiency ... 32.5 mpg urban life and 35.5 highway runs. 😁
 
Last edited:
HyFlyer said:
Yawl need a diesel so you can flow effortlessly with gobs of torque yet have great efficiency ... 32.5 mpg urban live and 35.5 highway runs. 😁
Click to expand...
That's all well and fine, but you missed a major flaw in your argument - now you're stuck with a diesel.

Now, as you put it....... 😁
 
Just made the return trip from Duck NC to Northern DE today.
32.1 avg mpg. Trip down got 31.1 mpg. Coming back car was probably a little lighter.

Gas prices suck. 4.25 gallon for 87. That was the price in NC, Virg, MD and DE.

Prices don't seem to be slowing people down.
 
wlong01 said:
Just made the return trip from Duck NC to Northern DE today.
32.1 avg mpg. Trip down got 31.1 mpg. Coming back car was probably a little lighter.

Gas prices suck. 4.25 gallon for 87. That was the price in NC, Virg, MD and DE.

Prices don't seem to be slowing people down.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how you achieve these numbers! My around town numbers are 22 MPG and on the highway my best has been around 26 or 27 MPG for a single run of 200 miles or so. I can't imagine mine ever getting to 31 MPG no matter how I drove it. Out of curiosity, on these runs of 31.1 and 32.1 MPG, how fast were you driving?
 
chickdr said:
I have no idea how you achieve these numbers! My around town numbers are 22 MPG and on the highway my best has been around 26 or 27 MPG for a single run of 200 miles or so. I can't imagine mine ever getting to 31 MPG no matter how I drove it. Out of curiosity, on these runs of 31.1 and 32.1 MPG, how fast were you driving?
Click to expand...
Almost the whole trip I used radar cruise control. Rarely did I touch the brake or gas pedal.
RCC drives the car differently, I could tell the way it shifted from a dead stop. It was getting to a high gear faster than most human drivers. It appeared to use the optimal shift points.

I was running about 6 miles over the posted limit. Most limits were 55 with a small amount of 65's.
 
wlong01 said:
Almost the whole trip I used radar cruise control. Rarely did I touch the brake or gas pedal.
RCC drives the car differently, I could tell the way it shifted from a dead stop. It was getting to a high gear faster than most human drivers. It appeared to use the optimal shift points.

I was running about 6 miles over the posted limit. Most limits were 55 with a small amount of 65's.
Click to expand...
I could see getting close to 30mpg's at 55, but it drops off like a rock at 65 and above.
 
I can't stand it. It will slow down when I would just pass the car in front of me. I rarely use CC anyway. Like to have my foot in control of the speed. The only safety features I really like are the backup camera and blind spot monitoring.
 
chickdr said:
I can't stand it. It will slow down when I would just pass the car in front of me. I rarely use CC anyway. Like to have my foot in control of the speed. The only safety features I really like are the backup camera and blind spot monitoring.
Click to expand...
You can still pass cars like you normally would, just press on the gas.
What about emergency braking? That's a good safety feature.
 
wlong01 said:
What's there not to like? I would never own another car without the Auto CC.
Click to expand...
My biggest critique of the ACC on the CX-5 is the overzealous desire to maintain the speed no matter what. It only tends to give a ~1-2 MPH buffer when coasting down hill before braking down to the set MPH.

It kills your top end mpgs when it brakes down every single hill. Otherwise, it's so handy on the interstate.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
  • Question
New CX-5 Pre Test Drive Question
Replies
3
Views
499
Bulldog Dad
B
J
Help me decide! 2023 CX-50 GSL or CX-5 Turbo
Replies
18
Views
4K
cxha
cxha
M
CX-5 Changes 2019 vs 2024?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
yrwei52
yrwei52

Latest posts

Back