High Mileage CX-5s - report in

[Kedis82ZE8]

I thought there was a thread on this but couldn't seem to find it.

It's probably a reach but anyone approaching 80-100K miles (129-160KM) yet?

Any big issues along the way? I plan to keep my CX-5 for at least 10 years but this will probably only result in about 120K miles or so for me.

 

[merc3065]

2014 manual cx-5. At 82500km so far. Only problem was rear brake caliper slide pins seized on one wheel around 61000kms and wore through the pads and damaged the rotor. Front strut boots cracked and split. Hood needed the epoxy fix to stop it from flexing. Other than those things, no mechanical issues so far. Summer OE tires are the next thing to replace.

 

[jingjing]

2014 sport touring with 28000 miles with no issues. Bought Nov 2013.

 

[shingles]

Kedis, only 12,000 miles per year? Wife's 2013 Accord, purchased last June, already has over 36,000 miles. Should have 300k miles if we kept it for 10 years.

 

[GAXIBM]

40,000 miles on 2013 GT acquired March 1012. No issues - never back to dealer, garage kept in warm weather, mostly 2 lane rural roads with several long trips on interstate typical cruise set at 73. Overall average mileage 32 mpg using Mazda Molly oil. I think the 2.0 has plenty of power and would probably trade for a new GT if I could order the 2.0...

 

[shingles]

There's really no mileage penalty with the 2.5, so why order the 2.0?

 

[paris1]

There's really no mileage penalty with the 2.5, so why order the 2.0?

To give the "lil' motor" its due (mainly because I have one!), there is a difference (http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/cx-5), just not a big one. All things being equal (as they pretty much are in all CX-5s to date), larger displacement=lower fuel mileage. That said, had I been offered the option of a 2.5 in late 2012, I would have taken it without even a comparative test drive. As Tim "the tool man" Taylor used to say "MORE POWER!"

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

I just traded mine in at 55000mi. driven hard, redline often, even past redline a few times with the limiter off. Changd my own oil after the first 3 every ~ 8-10000 mi, mazda moly only. drian and filled the trans at 30k, along with rear and front diff fluid change at 30k. car never gave me any real mechanical issue that I didn't directly cause myself through tinkering.

 

[iced_theater]

65k miles here. Nothing mechanical has ever went wrong. The only things that are a little bit annoying is the slight driver side mirror shake, a couple rattles near the speakers when it's cold, and a slightly squeaky seat, and the mirror shake and rattles have been present since it was nearly new.

 

[GAXIBM]

My driving is mostly highway and per Mazda the 2.0 is almost 10% better highway mileage. The 2.5 has enough moving mass to require a balance shaft which adds another engine chain drive, more inertia, more weight, more cost. My 2.0 is silky smooth, can hardly tell it is running at idle... see http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/dis...sipchP:20140929022443:s#competitor-comparison

 

[cybercruiser]

The only things that are a little bit annoying is the slight driver side mirror shake, a couple rattles near the speakers when it's cold, and a slightly squeaky seat, and the mirror shake and rattles have been present since it was nearly new.

Mine(2015 FWD-T) seems to have a little more driver's side mirror shake than I like, can Mazda Service Dept do anything about it?? Anything they can snug down or insulate to take out some of that vibration at highway speeds??

I've had mine since early June, approx 5,000 miles so far.

 

[iced_theater]

I'm pretty sure they can, I just never had it done because my closest dealer is 200 miles away and the shake never bothered me that much.

 

[madar]

I just traded mine in at 55000mi. driven hard, redline often, even past redline a few times with the limiter off. Changd my own oil after the first 3 every ~ 8-10000 mi, mazda moly only. drian and filled the trans at 30k, along with rear and front diff fluid change at 30k. car never gave me any real mechanical issue that I didn't directly cause myself through tinkering.

Have you had to change your brake pads during the time you had it? Was trying to get an idea how long they lasted with an aggressive driving style.

 

[MikeM.]

There's really no mileage penalty with the 2.5, so why order the 2.0?

The 2.0L uses about 4-6% less fuel for the same adventure driven at the same speeds. That means 4-6% less time spent fuelling, 4-6% less fuel stops over the life of the vehicle and you get to keep 4-6% of the money you would have spent on fuel, money that can be spent on anything you choose.


Considering the bigger engine won't get you there any quicker (or allow you to carry more people or luggage), a better question might be "why order the 2.5L?" and that's BEFORE one considers that the 2.5L costs more to purchase in the first place.


I just returned from a camping trip in the mountains and averaged 33.9 mpg over the 350 mile trip. Try doing that with an AWD 2.5L.

 

[CC58]

After owning a low torque vehicle (1986 1.6L Toyota Corolla GTS), I vowed never own one again. I would ride around at 4000rpm just so I would have enough power to drive in traffic. Sold that car after only a few months of frustration. When I test drove a 2.0L CX-5 I got that same feeling. When the 2.5L came out, it was a joy to test drive. I recently got 32mpg on a 100 mile trip into the mountains with my 2.5L CX-5. To each his own, but I have my limits.

 

[iced_theater]

I like powerful cars as well but saying you didn't have enough power to keep up with traffic is exaggerating quite a bit. I think with a couple of exceptions, any car sold in America today can keep up and far surpass any legal speed limit.

Back when I was younger, I owned a 1991 Ford Escort with a 1.9L and only 88hp. I once went from my town to Salt Lake City 200 miles away and had an overall average speed of 95 mph including city driving.

After owning a low torque vehicle (1986 1.6L Toyota Corolla GTS), I vowed never own one again. I would ride around at 4000rpm just so I would have enough power to drive in traffic. Sold that car after only a few months of frustration. When I test drove a 2.0L CX-5 I got that same feeling. When the 2.5L came out, it was a joy to test drive. I recently got 32mpg on a 100 mile trip into the mountains with my 2.5L CX-5. To each his own, but I have my limits.

 

[V8toilet]

35,000 miles on mine and getting over 33 mpg commuting back and forth from Boston. I just tested the power of this engine a few days ago against someone in a GTI who tried to beat me to a one lane road and I think I surprised him because he couldn't pass me and I pulled ahead on him. The power of the 2.5 is definitely not needed but it is nice to have that low end torque. This is a traction limited 0-60 in 7.5 seconds vehicle that happens to get mileage in the low thirties, which I find really impressive.

I had 28,500 mostly trouble free miles on a 2.0 Sport before and did 0-60 in 8.44 seconds, which is plenty quick for most.

 

[CX-SV]

Sold my 2013 2.0L GT at end of July with 30K miles. No problems to report, original Toyo tires were about 1/2 worn. MPG was fairly consistant at about 26-27 in city/suburban driving and 30 mpg freeway (70-80 mph).

Buyer purposely wanted a GT awd with the 2.0L, she wanted the extra fuel efficiency (over the 2.5L extra power and higher purchase price).

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

I'm glad I got a 2.5. It's more drivable in my city, and more tunable.

 

[shingles]

The 2.0L uses about 4-6% less fuel for the same adventure driven at the same speeds. That means 4-6% less time spent fuelling, 4-6% less fuel stops over the life of the vehicle and you get to keep 4-6% of the money you would have spent on fuel, money that can be spent on anything you choose.


Considering the bigger engine won't get you there any quicker (or allow you to carry more people or luggage), a better question might be "why order the 2.5L?" and that's BEFORE one considers that the 2.5L costs more to purchase in the first place.


I just returned from a camping trip in the mountains and averaged 33.9 mpg over the 350 mile trip. Try doing that with an AWD 2.5L.

There are SO many other variables that can make those 4-6% not matter in REAL life driving.
I just got 31.x+ in Houston rush hour traffic. Could I have gotten better MPG in the 2.0? Sure. But my original statement is still true, there is not much of a mpg penalty. But, to each their own. If the 2.0 works for you, fantastic.