Displeased with mileage

[Unobtanium]

Go for a day drive in AR hill country at 45-50mph. Fill up when you get home. You will get 32mpg.

Btdt. 27 to 28 is as good as it gets. This vehicle consistently underdelivers. I've been spoiled by GM and their amazing engines. They put as much horsepower to the ground as the factory rates them at at the crank in many cases, and they actually exceed mileage ratings the epa gives them.

As to the wind resistance excuse...how do you think a grand jeep cherokee doing 80 mph somehow bends the laws of ohyskcs? No. This mazda pure and simple doesn't deliver what it's said to deliver. Its good yes. I'm pleased with it yes. But it won't do what mazda thinks it will in my world regarding mileage. Not like jeep,ford,nissan,infiniti,chevrolet,pontiac would. I am a bit frustrated with that. Had I known the numbers were inflated so grossly, I would have considered other vehicles that this edged out on account of its superior epa ratings. Forester,GLK350, etc

 

[Unobtanium]

I don't have any problem getting the advertised 30 highway / 24 city, though I suspect I will never get 30 when driving 80. This is with the 2.5 and AWD. The CX-5 as a CUV simply has more wind drag as a result of a larger & higher frontal area.
On average, it is about the same as my previous Honda Accord, despite being a heavier vehicle with AWD.

Doing 60 or 65 on a billiard smooth road mine might hit 30. But Noone drives like that. At least, not unless they have the needle on E and are freaking out over where the next gas station in Arizona is, lol

 

[Unobtanium]

I would, but that's too far a drive for my days off. I only have 4 days off per week. I don't really take vacations but once a year for a few extra days. Still not enough to visit by car.

 

[MikeM.]

Btdt. 27 to 28 is as good as it gets.

If MPG was so important to you, you should have purchased the 2.0L engine. I've tracked every tank over the last 2 1/2 years and the lifetime AVERAGE is over 32 MPG. That includes a lot of climbing rough mountain roads using AWD, city driving and ski trips. On long road trips my 2.0L AWD gets 35-37 MPG. If I wanted even better MPG, I wouldn't have been shopping for an AWD with automatic transmission. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

IMO, Mazda ruined the appeal of light, balanced handling and fuel efficiency of the CX-5 AWD by dropping the sweet little 2.0L engine.

 

[CC58]

Btdt. 27 to 28 is as good as it gets. This vehicle consistently underdelivers. I've been spoiled by GM and their amazing engines. They put as much horsepower to the ground as the factory rates them at at the crank in many cases, and they actually exceed mileage ratings the epa gives them.

As to the wind resistance excuse...how do you think a grand jeep cherokee doing 80 mph somehow bends the laws of ohyskcs? No. This mazda pure and simple doesn't deliver what it's said to deliver. Its good yes. I'm pleased with it yes. But it won't do what mazda thinks it will in my world regarding mileage. Not like jeep,ford,nissan,infiniti,chevrolet,pontiac would. I am a bit frustrated with that. Had I known the numbers were inflated so grossly, I would have considered other vehicles that this edged out on account of its superior epa ratings. Forester,GLK350, etc

Your jeep got 18mpg on the freeway with your jeep and you are complaining about getting 27mpg with CX-5? Your crummy jeep got the same mpg at 50mph as 80mph because it was wasting gas at low speeds while the CX-5 excels at optimizing mileage based on conditions.

I've been amazed at the CX-5 mileage. It gets the same or better mileage as my 2007 Civic with 1.6L engine in day to day driving. The CX-5 gets better mileage in 45-50mph mountain trips averaging 32mpg in that situation.

 

[Unobtanium]

If MPG was so important to you, you should have purchased the 2.0L engine. I've tracked every tank over the last 2 1/2 years and the lifetime AVERAGE is over 32 MPG. That includes a lot of climbing rough mountain roads using AWD, city driving and ski trips. On long road trips my 2.0L AWD gets 35-37 MPG. If I wanted even better MPG, I wouldn't have been shopping for an AWD with automatic transmission. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

IMO, Mazda ruined the appeal of light, balanced handling and fuel efficiency of the CX-5 AWD by dropping the sweet little 2.0L engine.

It isn't that it is "so important", it's that I consider it false advertising.

I am still pleased with its performance. I just wish it were accurately advertised. I expected better.

 

[Unobtanium]

Your jeep got 18mpg on the freeway with your jeep and you are complaining about getting 27mpg with CX-5? Your crummy jeep got the same mpg at 50mph as 80mph because it was wasting gas at low speeds while the CX-5 excels at optimizing mileage based on conditions.

I've been amazed at the CX-5 mileage. It gets the same or better mileage as my 2007 Civic with 1.6L engine in day to day driving. The CX-5 gets better mileage in 45-50mph mountain trips averaging 32mpg in that situation.

My Jeep got the mileage it was advertised to get. My CX-5 did not. That would be like you financing a Ferrari and being shocked at the bank repossessing the car when you were consistently short by 20% on your payments and then pointing at your neighbor's Yugo purchase saying "But his car is a POS compared to mine!" when your neighbor actually pays his bills on time and correctly. The bank would be as amused at your argument as I am.

CX-5 failed to deliver what it promised. Period.

Does it still deliver impressive mileage? Yes. Same as paying 80% of your note on a new La Ferrari would be impressive. It wouldn't match expectations, though.

Defend a lie all you want, and make it as appealing as you can. It's still a lie. It's not like I hate my CX-5 now or want to get rid of it. However, I still feel I was lied to.

 

[yrwei52]

It isn't that it is "so important", it's that I consider it false advertising.
...
This mazda pure and simple doesn't deliver what it's said to deliver. Its good yes. I'm pleased with it yes. But it won't do what mazda thinks it will in my world regarding mileage. Not like jeep,ford,nissan,infiniti,chevrolet,pontiac would. I am a bit frustrated with that. Had I known the numbers were inflated so grossly, I would have considered other vehicles that this edged out on account of its superior epa ratings. Forester,GLK350, etc

I actually was a little disappointed on CX-5's gas mileage like you do. But in reality the SkyActiv Technology had made great improvement on engine performance and fuel efficiency for Mazda which probably saved them since Ford left. I guess the best way to put it, SkyActiv doesn't do the greatest things Mazda advertised, but it still performed very well comparing to other automakers who use more traditional approach, such as adding turbo charger and using CVT, to achieve the goal of engine performance and fuel economy. At least I'm hoping the SkyActiv Technology should hold up well in longevity due to its simpler design architecture and less add-on device. If you look at the table I created recently between our Mazda CX-5 and Ford Escape, the overall gas mileage on CX-5 from Fuelly is not that far off from EPA ratings. Data from many car magazines and Fuelly have shown as long as the overall real-world MPG is falling a tad above EPA city estimate, that's on par with almost everybody else for the real-world fuel economy! One thing I can't understand was why there are few people getting far worse MPG than average on CX-5 which makes me thinking SA-G engines are having wide swing inconsistency on fuel efficiency.

[table="width: 850, class: grid"]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]2015 Ford Escape 1.6L EcoBoost[/td]
[td]2015 Ford Escape 2.0L EcoBoost[/td]
[td]2015 Ford Escape 2.5L i-VCT[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Horsepower[/td]
[td]178 hp[/td]
[td]240 hp[/td]
[td]168 hp[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Car & Driver 0-60[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]7.0 sec. (2013 AWD)[/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]EPA MPG[/td]
[td]FWD: 23 City/32 Hwy
4WD: 22 City/29 Hwy[/td]
[td]FWD: 22 City/30 Hwy
4WD: 21 City/28 Hwy[/td]
[td]22 City/31 Hwy[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Fuelly MPG[/td]
[td]24.5[/td]
[td]22.4[/td]
[td]23.2[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

[table="width: 650, class: grid"]
[tr]
[td][/td]
[td]2015 Mazda CX-5 SkyActiv-G 2.0L[/td]
[td]2015 Mazda CX-5 SkyActiv-G 2.5L[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Horsepower[/td]
[td]155 hp[/td]
[td]184 hp[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Car & Driver 0-60[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]7.7 sec. (2016 AWD)[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]EPA MPG[/td]
[td]MT FWD: 26 City/35 Hwy
AT FWD: 26 City/32 Hwy
AT AWD: 25 City/31 Hwy[/td]
[td]AT FWD: 25 City/32 Hwy
AT AWD: 24 City/30 Hwy[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Fuelly MPG[/td]
[td]27.3[/td]
[td]25.8[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

 

[TommyW]

Driving cx5 GT AWD for the last 2 months. Avarage gpm is 29.4 so far 2500 miles. If you dont believe me guys i take a picture. Very happy with a car. Driving 35 city and 75% highway.

 

[JbCalg]

it's an estimate from a 3rd party, not a promise by the manufacturer

 

[MikeM.]

CX-5 failed to deliver what it promised. Period.
Defend a lie all you want, and make it as appealing as you can. It's still a lie. It's not like I hate my CX-5 now or want to get rid of it. However, I still feel I was lied to.

Please refrain from saying you were "lied" to.

EPA labels clearly state that your actual mileage will vary depending upon a number of factors including how you drive, weather and road conditions and how you maintain your car.

What's so hard to understand about that? Many of us are getting considerably better than the ratings suggest (myself included).

You weren't lied to, you simply have a misunderstanding about what the labels mean. No one guaranteed everyone would achieve those numbers.

 

[Unobtanium]

Please refrain from saying you were "lied" to.

EPA labels clearly state that your actual mileage will vary depending upon a number of factors including how you drive, weather and road conditions and how you maintain your car.

What's so hard to understand about that? Many of us are getting considerably better than the ratings suggest (myself included).

You weren't lied to, you simply have a misunderstanding about what the labels mean. No one guaranteed everyone would achieve those numbers.

I'll rephrase. Mazda fell short in delivering what every other automobile I have had was capable of delivering for me. Still dissatisfied with that aspect.

 

[MikeM.]

I'll rephrase.

Thank-you.

Mazda fell short in delivering what every other automobile I have had was capable of delivering for me. Still dissatisfied with that aspect.

And you have a sample of, what, 5 cars?

You obviously have never taken Statistics 101 or you would be aware of what it would take for your personal observations to be statistically significant. The fact is, many of us are getting BETTER than the EPA estimates.

Also, keep in mind, the highest HWY speed for the EPA HWY cycles is lower than the speed you typically drive on the highway. And this is going to impact a vehicle with SUV aerodynamics and a small engine considerably more than a sports car shape with a big engine. It's physics.

I bet if you cruised at 60mph (EPA speeds) and used a modicum of driving awareness you would be exceeding the EPA estimates just like many of us here and on www.fuelly.com are doing.

 

[brillo54]

Reading through this thread got me to wondering where exactly do the sticker numbers come from. I found this article and thought I'd share it.

http://jalopnik.com/how-fuel-economy-is-measured-and-why-you-get-different-1716232721

 

[yrwei52]

it's an estimate from a 3rd party, not a promise by the manufacturer

EPA did the estimate, but it was the car manufactures who provided test data under the EPA guidelines. Remember that Hyundai got fined heavily last year because they provided falsifying data to EPA?

Reading through this thread got me to wondering where exactly do the sticker numbers come from. I found this article and thought I'd share it.
http://jalopnik.com/how-fuel-economy-is-measured-and-why-you-get-different-1716232721

 

[erhayes]

I have no problems achieving the mileage that Mazda estimated their vehicle gets. If someone is not achieving the EPA estimate then, there is a problem with the vehicle or more probably, there is a problem with the persons driving style. Ed

 

[dougal]

I have no problems achieving the mileage that Mazda estimated their vehicle gets. If someone is not achieving the EPA estimate then, there is a problem with the vehicle or more probably, there is a problem with the persons driving style. Ed

100% right.

I get anywhere from 22 to 31.5 MPG. My overall average is ~26 MPG at a average speed of 29 MPH. That makes me pretty much exactly as advertised for overall milage.

The OP is a moron that thinks just because his ONE car is off on the milage, it is representative of all CX-5's.

 

[Unobtanium]

I have no problems achieving the mileage that Mazda estimated their vehicle gets. If someone is not achieving the EPA estimate then, there is a problem with the vehicle or more probably, there is a problem with the persons driving style. Ed

I could not fathom what the issue with my vehicle would be. As to my driving style, maybe Mazda's cruise control sucks? That's my driving style. Cruise at 75 and leave it alone unless I need to set the cruise to 65 or can bump it up to 85, speed limit depending. Maybe it's a software or cruise control algorithm issue....

-New tires and alignment, 36psi cold, 40psi after hot.
-Oil change with Mazda Moly oil 2500 mi ago
-Washed and waxed (air drag matters maybe? I feel that it can, but not enough to show up here)
-No body panels missing or hanging (ragged air-dam or anything like that)
-30K miles, so not time for new plugs, etc.
-New air-filter a few thousand miles ago

 

[Unobtanium]

100% right.

I get anywhere from 22 to 31.5 MPG. My overall average is ~26 MPG at a average speed of 29 MPH. That makes me pretty much exactly as advertised for overall milage.

The OP is a moron that thinks just because his ONE car is off on the milage, it is representative of all CX-5's.

So...your sample of 1 IS representative? Did I get that right? Seriously, though, name-calling? Even after a night of dealing with bloody violent drunks and all sorts of mess, and slamming out a heavy chest day in the gym this morning, I'm not even so far regressed as to engage you in that. Not even before I turn in for bed. I suggest you re-think yourself.

 

[IHeartGroceries]

I would think automakers would have learned their lesson, after the Hyundai incident a few years ago.

But, I have always achieved matched or even better mileage than the EPA/manufacturer figures, on all of my Mazdas.



Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk