Everyone's Fuelly MPG seems very high compared to mine. :(

[Unobtanium]

E85 is a totally different animal from E10, though. I wonder how much of a correlation there is?

 

[mazdadude]

Interesting article: Is this why there is a 2016.5 CX-5?

Article specifically mentions CX-3 as well... "... Mazda CX-3's highway reading drops from 35 to 34 mpg."


"Stricter rules cause some 2017 EPA fuel economy numbers to drop"...
http://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/20/epa-fuel-economy-drop-2017-models/?ncid=edlinkusauto00000016

 

[yrwei52]

Interesting article: Is this why there is a 2016.5 CX-5?

Shouldn't be. The EPA fuel economy estimates are still the same between 2016 and 2016.5 CX-5's. I think the reason why there's 2016.5 CX-5 is purely for marketing as 2016 MY has been out for too long in the US, since February, 2015! And the face-lifted 2016 CX-5 in US/NA market is 2015 MY in the rest of the world.

 

[kingchris]

Response makes no sense to me. Nothing you can do to your CX-5 is going to make it even as fast as a "slow" "sporty car/SUV". If you think you can hit sub 6.5-second 0-60's in it, feel free to post a vid. I just think you're wasting your money and compromising reliability when you could have saved money and bought the Forester, if you needed actual better performance.

Nowhere in my response I claimed I could make the CX-5 faster. In fact I said it's plenty fast for me and I have no plan upgrading it. Forester was faster but with premium gas and worse mpg, I skipped it. My main goal of buying this car is for commuting. With regular gas and decent mpg and excellent handling, it's a great solution for me.

 

[piotrek91]

Funny you mention the regular gas vs ethanol laced. Check out this article:

Knock limits in spark ignited direct injected engines using gasoline/ethanol blends

And here in case you think I am trying to send you malware

I spent a few minutes scanning though that paper..
So from what I understand, the paper argues that the traditional Octane rating methods do not account properly for the additional evaporation cooling from ethanol in direct injected engines.


What I got from that paper is that:

87 Octane E0 in a port injected engine behaves like 87 Octane
87 Octane E10 in a port injected engine behaves like 87 Octane

87 Octane E0 in a direct injected engine behaves like 87 Octane
87 Octane E10 in a direct injected engine behaves like >87 Octane

 

[freys]

I've played around with fuel for decades. The only thing we found that really mattered at all was octaine with elevation. Go up above say 4000 ft and it helps out to run 91.

 

[Unobtanium]

I just got back from a road trip. On my return, I fueled my CX-5 initially (about 1.5mi into my trip). I then fueled it at the mid-point, and it took 11.062 gallons. When I arrived home, I again filled it up, and it took 12.006 gallons. According to my odometer, my trip was about 645 miles (I say about, because I left the house today and forgot to look at it for about 5-7mi, at which point it registered 652mi).

Mapquest claims my trip was 643 miles, and I took some slight detours, so this jives VERY WELL with my odometer.

My vehicle claims it traveled at 65mph average speed, and got 26.5mpg.

Running the numbers, I actually calculate slightly over 28mpg, based on what it took to fill the tank.

Quite frankly, I am billed at the gas pump for what it says goes in my tank. Not what my car claims. Effectively, I got 28+mpg, and much of my trip was spent doing 80-85mph.

It is the opinion of my wallet that the on-board calculator in this vehicle is inaccurate by a very significant margin, yet the odometer seems pretty darn spot-on.

My total gas cost for the return trip was $47.

In my Grand Jeep Cherokee, using 18mpg (what it typically averaged), I would have paid $77 (presuming $2.15 for midgrade, which is what it runs here).
In my 370Z, it would have cost me $56, presuming $2.30 for premium. However, I would not have been able to bring some of the things I brought with me on the trip, so, utility cost, too.


Over-all, the CX-5 is doing what I bought it to do. Be dirt cheap and get the job done.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

After one year of ownership our 2015 AWD CRV is averaging 29 MPGs to the 2016 AWD CX5s 27. I prefer the handling and driving dynamics of the CX5, but if MPGs are your ultimate concern, I'd give the nod to the CRV.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

Ha! I concur. But to some, avg MPGs is the ultimate end. To me, the cumulative expensive of an extra 2mpgs for superior driving dynamics is negligible at best.