CX-9 Gas mileage
- Thread starter trbr81
- Start date
You 2009 model year show-off!
And your point? Neither models have an MPG computer readout!
Really, this was a 2009 option? Wow, pretty lucky I guess!
Mileage update
Just made a trip from Pittsburgh to Baltimore. Cruise control was set around 68 and there was some pretty big mountains along the way. CX-9 averaged 23.5 mpg which was better than what the sticker said. 90% of the trip was highway and there was no traffic.
It did great in the mountains
Just made a trip from Pittsburgh to Baltimore. Cruise control was set around 68 and there was some pretty big mountains along the way. CX-9 averaged 23.5 mpg which was better than what the sticker said. 90% of the trip was highway and there was no traffic.
It did great in the mountains
not_too_shabby
Member
- :
- 2008 CX-9
I wish I had one of the engines that gets people over 20MPG consistently. I'm lucky to get 16 in mixed driving.
Maybe it's a Portland thing because I too only average about 15.5 in mixed, mostly city driving. Must be the dense moist air out here.
not_too_shabby
Member
- :
- 2008 CX-9
I mentioned it to the guy at herzog-meier and he said something about Oregon has crappy gas....Maybe I should go fill up in vacouver a few times and see if it gets better, LOL...
blink_me192
Member
In normal driving, our trip computer is usually between 16MPG - 18MPG. It's never really gone out of that range. But i think its mainly due to the fact that whenever it is driven, usually its short (less than 3 min) trips, slightly uphill and with a lot of stopping and starting. We usually get about 450-500km from each tank before the fuel light comes on.
I noticed that the trip computer always seems to slightly overstate consumption, because when i manually calculate it, the figure is always slightly less.
On a different note though, we have been able to get some very low consumption figures on long highway trips. best i've seen is 22.5MPG.
Fuel consumption is always going to be not so good on a 2 tonne SUV with AWD, and a beast of an engine.
I just can't seem to NOT put my foot down.
The Highlander/Kluger apparently gets quite good fuel economy, but i think im going to put this down to just more efficient design - Dual Variable Valve Timing, Electric power steering (as opposed to CX9's hydraulic PS), more efficient AWD system and generally less weighty than the CX9.
I noticed that the trip computer always seems to slightly overstate consumption, because when i manually calculate it, the figure is always slightly less.
On a different note though, we have been able to get some very low consumption figures on long highway trips. best i've seen is 22.5MPG.
Fuel consumption is always going to be not so good on a 2 tonne SUV with AWD, and a beast of an engine.
I just can't seem to NOT put my foot down. The Highlander/Kluger apparently gets quite good fuel economy, but i think im going to put this down to just more efficient design - Dual Variable Valve Timing, Electric power steering (as opposed to CX9's hydraulic PS), more efficient AWD system and generally less weighty than the CX9.
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
"Electric power steering"
The one on our Prius is very very bad. It has zero feedback, and it does not return to center by itself like most hydraulic ones do. I don't know about the one on Highlander, but I have read similar complaints on the Highlander forum. A trade-off again.
IMHO, CX9 needs to cut some weight (200lb) off with aluminum parts (such as hood and suspension components) and ultra-high tensile steels for safety cage.
In addition, a direct injection engine would raise power and MPG simultaneously.
Hopefully, the next CX9 (remodel) will have all those.
Highlander carries 200lb less weight and narrower tires (225 vs 245).
Highlander may be faster off line, but CX9 out-handles it easily.
The one on our Prius is very very bad. It has zero feedback, and it does not return to center by itself like most hydraulic ones do. I don't know about the one on Highlander, but I have read similar complaints on the Highlander forum. A trade-off again.
IMHO, CX9 needs to cut some weight (200lb) off with aluminum parts (such as hood and suspension components) and ultra-high tensile steels for safety cage.
In addition, a direct injection engine would raise power and MPG simultaneously.
Hopefully, the next CX9 (remodel) will have all those.
Highlander carries 200lb less weight and narrower tires (225 vs 245).
Highlander may be faster off line, but CX9 out-handles it easily.
Last edited:
Just wondering here, you indicate you get about 500KM to a tank (suggests you are in Canada) but then you referance the trip computer read outs in MPG. Have you found a way to change from the ridiculous L per 100 km read out on the computer. Both the dealer and Mazda tell me thats the way it is, everything in metric (yet the Nav has an instant change button, go figure). My only beef with the vehicle, otherwise we love it, MPG thing is an issue because we winter in Florida and it makes it awkward.In normal driving, our trip computer is usually between 16MPG - 18MPG. It's never really gone out of that range. But i think its mainly due to the fact that whenever it is driven, usually its short (less than 3 min) trips, slightly uphill and with a lot of stopping and starting. We usually get about 450-500km from each tank before the fuel light comes on.
I noticed that the trip computer always seems to slightly overstate consumption, because when i manually calculate it, the figure is always slightly less.
On a different note though, we have been able to get some very low consumption figures on long highway trips. best i've seen is 22.5MPG.
Fuel consumption is always going to be not so good on a 2 tonne SUV with AWD, and a beast of an engine.
The Highlander/Kluger apparently gets quite good fuel economy, but i think im going to put this down to just more efficient design - Dual Variable Valve Timing, Electric power steering (as opposed to CX9's hydraulic PS), more efficient AWD system and generally less weighty than the CX9.
4wardmotion
Member
- :
- '08 CX-9 Sport AWD
I do nearly 90 ~ 95% highway driving and consistently average between 20 and 21 MPG.
On one isolated trip, I got 26.5 MPG. It was a round trip from MA to NJ and back - well over 400 miles on a tank of gas. Never got close to that mileage again. Not sure if it had more to do with the relatively flat terrain than anything else...since I'm typically driving up and down the hills and mountains of New England and upstate NY.
And, I'm not guessing...I have a ScanGauge which calculates my mileage continuously.
On one isolated trip, I got 26.5 MPG. It was a round trip from MA to NJ and back - well over 400 miles on a tank of gas. Never got close to that mileage again. Not sure if it had more to do with the relatively flat terrain than anything else...since I'm typically driving up and down the hills and mountains of New England and upstate NY.
And, I'm not guessing...I have a ScanGauge which calculates my mileage continuously.
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
Probably great tail wind behind you...
I used my CX9 (AWD) to do science project with my daughter.
On a stretch of about 3 miles (no stop sign, no red light), I was able to get 31mpg at 45mph on a good tail wind. The returning trip (head wind) only gave me 25mpg. (on 40psi tire pressure). Cruise control engaged on all trips.
The topic was on MPG vs PSI.
I still have the data table posted on edmunds.com.
I used my CX9 (AWD) to do science project with my daughter.
On a stretch of about 3 miles (no stop sign, no red light), I was able to get 31mpg at 45mph on a good tail wind. The returning trip (head wind) only gave me 25mpg. (on 40psi tire pressure). Cruise control engaged on all trips.
The topic was on MPG vs PSI.
I still have the data table posted on edmunds.com.
We just took our first relatively long trip with our 2009 AWD GT from St. Louis to Chicago, about 4.5 hour trip one way and got 22.2 on the way up (about last 3rd of trip was in the rain) and 22.7 on the way back. This was doing 70-75 most of the way, and I'm very pleased with the results, especially considering it's AWD.
We have a 2008 GT AWD...almost always returns 18.5 mpg...same as just about all the car magazines and Edmunds reported with their longterm CX-9s, I believe. I've gotten better than that on trips, but not much. Usual driving is mixed highways and urban roads here in Northern VA...with, ummm, a few 0-60 sprints from lights and highway blasts here and there...this thing just seems to urge you on, it's such fun to drive. Anyway, I'm impressed with you folks getting 20+. Wow.
I only recently crossed the 1,000 mile mark on the odometer. Definitely noticing an increase in mileage probably due to a combination of break-in and a developing lightness in my right foot. Around 16-17 mpg in mixed driving on the first couple tanks, increasing to 18-19 on the last couple.
What I can't figure out at all is the gas gauge. I guess this is one of those things you get used to after some time living with a car but the last 1/2 tank seems to go by very quickly. I get over 200 miles on the first half tank and the idiot light comes on before 300 miles. I tend to push it when it comes to delaying fill ups as long as possible and have been at 0 miles remaining on the trip computer a couple of times. I'd like to get a better sense of what 0 actually means but once I had 2 gallons left in the tank. I guess in a car that can deliver mpg in the low teens under certain conditions it's better safe than sorry but I'd like the gauge to be a little more linear.
What I can't figure out at all is the gas gauge. I guess this is one of those things you get used to after some time living with a car but the last 1/2 tank seems to go by very quickly. I get over 200 miles on the first half tank and the idiot light comes on before 300 miles. I tend to push it when it comes to delaying fill ups as long as possible and have been at 0 miles remaining on the trip computer a couple of times. I'd like to get a better sense of what 0 actually means but once I had 2 gallons left in the tank. I guess in a car that can deliver mpg in the low teens under certain conditions it's better safe than sorry but I'd like the gauge to be a little more linear.
sjg,
i have 3500 on mine, but i have a little experience in this area.
when you fill your CX9 up, and even top it off, the gas gauge can only accurately read your tank when it is 85% or below. What does this mean? It means that when you fill up, your gauge stays fixed far above the "F" mark and will stay there until you drive about 50-65miles. The all of a sudden, the gas starts slushing around and the gauge [which is set lower than the top of the fuel tank], only starts to read/move when you use-up enough of the gas that the gauge detects fuel consumption. This is unique to MAZDA. Both my former Toyota's and Ford Explr's fuel needle would start to move/decline from the "F" exactly in proportion to usage. However, I think it seems like once any car's gas gauge reaches the 1/2 way, it really starts to fall fast. Since the Mazda CX9 holds the fuel needle so much longer above the "F" mark, I believe it exaggerates the experience to make it feel like it falls much faster when it starts to move anyway.
I posted something of this topic [but in the wrong area, i will use the because i am new excuse, 1st post then], but received little to no responses. I even brought it to the attn of my dealer, and they said there was nothing they could do...the service mgr has a CX9 and didn't realize this until I pointed it out, then he did.
Hope this helps, tstex
