Just got a 2016.5 CX-5 - Tips, Tricks and MPG

[Mazdiod2]

Am I the only one who thinks the rpms are too high while cruising at 80 mph?
Has anyone gone with taller tires to bring them down a bit?

I have the 2.0L w/6MT. The engine rpm at 70mph is about 2710, at 80mph around 3100.
I've found that in general I get better mpg at 70-72mph than when I go faster, but it seems like there could be exceptions. I don't think it's because the engine uses that much more fuel to spin 400 rpm faster, but the amount of wind resistance and load gets greater. While the CX-5 is has good aerodynamics for an SUV, it's not as good as a sedan.
I use the computer mpg most of the time, but recently I did a 500 mile day trip and had the opportunity to fill and re-fill to hand calculate the mpg, which gave me a .8mpg advantage over the computer mpg. Here are the figures: 10.95 gal for 431 miles= 39.36 mpg. The reading on the computer was 38.6mpg at the time I refilled the tank.
This trip was along the front range here inColorado, going thru Denver and environs on I-25. There is considerable elevation change on this trip but apparently not too bad on the wind, and while there was some traffic, with stop and go in Denver, it didn't seem to hurt the mpg.
A couple of 1200 mile trips this last year got me roughly 35-36 mpg one eastbound, 31-32 mpg westbound. There was a lot of wind on each trip. One trip involved detours and a different route because of bridge construction. Headwinds are the worst for mileage of course, but crosswinds can hurt a lot, too.
I try to keep my tires inflated to 37-38psi. I removed the roof rack and rails because I don't use it that often. I think that helps some. I also use a SCANGAUGE obcii readout to monitor the TPS (throttle position sensor).

The owners manual has a chart for the recommended shift points, and for normal driving the shift point is always around 2700rpm.

 

[Lazy2.5]

I have the 2.0L w/6MT. The engine rpm at 70mph is about 2710, at 80mph around 3100.
I've found that in general I get better mpg at 70-72mph than when I go faster, but it seems like there could be exceptions. I don't think it's because the engine uses that much more fuel to spin 400 rpm faster, but the amount of wind resistance and load gets greater. While the CX-5 is has good aerodynamics for an SUV, it's not as good as a sedan.
I use the computer mpg most of the time, but recently I did a 500 mile day trip and had the opportunity to fill and re-fill to hand calculate the mpg, which gave me a .8mpg advantage over the computer mpg. Here are the figures: 10.95 gal for 431 miles= 39.36 mpg. The reading on the computer was 38.6mpg at the time I refilled the tank.
This trip was along the front range here inColorado, going thru Denver and environs on I-25. There is considerable elevation change on this trip but apparently not too bad on the wind, and while there was some traffic, with stop and go in Denver, it didn't seem to hurt the mpg.
A couple of 1200 mile trips this last year got me roughly 35-36 mpg one eastbound, 31-32 mpg westbound. There was a lot of wind on each trip. One trip involved detours and a different route because of bridge construction. Headwinds are the worst for mileage of course, but crosswinds can hurt a lot, too.
I try to keep my tires inflated to 37-38psi. I removed the roof rack and rails because I don't use it that often. I think that helps some. I also use a SCANGAUGE obcii readout to monitor the TPS (throttle position sensor).

The owners manual has a chart for the recommended shift points, and for normal driving the shift point is always around 2700rpm.

39mpg is very impressive for the CX-5 with a 2.0.

 

[Lazy2.5]

I find that fuel economy is based on your throttle position, not just the rpm you're at. For example, maintaining a certain throttle position (let's say less than half) ,allowing your RPM's to increase naturally while going down a hill, and letting them naturally fall a little while climbing a hill, ie. Maintaining a stable amount of load on the engine in hilly terrain I find is helpful for fuel economy, even if you're letting your speed and engine Rpms get quite high down certain hills, or quite low while climbing.

In short, I'd say it's about being patient as you leverage the terrain you're navigating to your advantage when you can. If you are about your fuel economy, be prepared to drive slower than what you're used to on certain stretches of road If not, don't complain about Mpg, just mash the pedal to whatever speed satisfies your brain and forget complaining about the fuel economy you're getting.

 

[Mazdiod2]

I find that fuel economy is based on your throttle position, not just the rpm you're at. For example, maintaining a certain throttle position (let's say less than half) ,allowing your RPM's to increase naturally while going down a hill, and letting them naturally fall a little while climbing a hill, ie. Maintaining a stable amount of load on the engine in hilly terrain I find is helpful for fuel economy, even if you're letting your speed and engine Rpms get quite high down certain hills, or quite low while climbing.

In short, I'd say it's about being patient as you leverage the terrain you're navigating to your advantage when you can. If you are about your fuel economy, be prepared to drive slower than what you're used to on certain stretches of road If not, don't complain about Mpg, just mash the pedal to whatever speed satisfies your brain and forget complaining about the fuel economy you're getting.

It won't give me 39 mpg very often. I guess the conditions were good in this case.

 

[AL Cx5]

I find that fuel economy is based on your throttle position, not just the rpm you're at. For example, maintaining a certain throttle position (let's say less than half) ,allowing your RPM's to increase naturally while going down a hill, and letting them naturally fall a little while climbing a hill, ie. Maintaining a stable amount of load on the engine in hilly terrain I find is helpful for fuel economy, even if you're letting your speed and engine Rpms get quite high down certain hills, or quite low while climbing.

In short, I'd say it's about being patient as you leverage the terrain you're navigating to your advantage when you can. If you are about your fuel economy, be prepared to drive slower than what you're used to on certain stretches of road If not, don't complain about Mpg, just mash the pedal to whatever speed satisfies your brain and forget complaining about the fuel economy you're getting.

X2 driving habits can account for a 30% FE difference. Long haul truckers have a 30% spread in FE based on driving habits. They pay a bonus based on FE. My long haul trucker friend writes volumes, how to be more FE. He plans his trips down to which stations he fills up and where he eats. He taught me to stay out of the bunched up groups, use CC, concentrate on steering smoothly, look ahead to anticipate braking events try to accelerate downhill and coast when ever possible.

I used his driving log on long trips. I note every brake event, slow down, temp, wind direction and speed and pick places to eat and fill up where I can get off and on the roads easily. This really pays off when towing a 10K # car haul trailer.

I would love it if my 2.5 T got 35 MPG 39 seems out of question on an AWD CX 5.

What tires do you have on your car? I'm still on the OEM Toyo tire. I'll be switching to a
Continental TrueContact Tour 54 225/55R19 tires.

Over in the turbo diesel pickup world, the 6 spd manual is more FE than the 4 spd auto. I'd say you have a FE advantage, manual, FWD and lighter. STILL an occasional 39 is great.

IF I had the option for FWD over AWD, I'd have gone with FWD. Fewer moving parts to spin, lower weight and better FE.

I'm happy with the FE and performance of this AWD turbo package. Someday I might need AWD, who knows!

 

[N7turbo]

The FWD CX-5 used to get better economy because the rear PTU was always engaged at least 1% but part of the last refresh was a change to the drivetrain to essentially disable it while steady state cruising. The difference between the two is very small now.

 

[Mazdiod2]

The FWD CX-5 used to get better economy because the rear PTU was always engaged at least 1% but part of the last refresh was a change to the drivetrain to essentially disable it while steady state cruising. The difference between the two is very small now.

There's a bit of weight difference between the MT/FWD and a newer AWD w/auto. If you add a sunroof I'm sure that's a bit more.
Probably steady state cruising they might be pretty close, but the extra weight has some effect on overall mpg.

 

[AL Cx5]

There's a bit of weight difference between the MT/FWD and a newer AWD w/auto. If you add a sunroof I'm sure that's a bit more.
Probably steady state cruising they might be pretty close, but the extra weight has some effect on overall mpg.

X2 on the sun roof. I'd opt out of this option as well. Less safe in the event of a roll over, louder, EST 50# heavier. In the summer it's hotter. So much warmer, I put reflective between the shade and glass...

Another Americano thing I don't want....percevied luxury and quality.

I'd put the saving from AWD and sunroof towards a sports package. Lower, better coil overs, bigger anti roll bars and lighter wheels...

Those. OEM 19" wheels make great boat anchors.

 

[N7turbo]

I would also skip the sunroof.

However, having AWD now, I wouldn't skip it. The car handles a lot better than the FWD cars did.

 

[jadmt]

I would also skip the sunroof.

However, having AWD now, I wouldn't skip it. The car handles a lot better than the FWD cars did.

ditto, AWD is something that gets used a lot around here.....sunroof I think has been opened once just to see if it would open. always keep the inner shade pulled forward so forget we even have it. totally would do with out it if that was an option with the turbo.

 

[Lazy2.5]

My long haul trucker friend writes volumes, how to be more FE.

Would be interesting to read some of that.

He plans his trips down to which stations he fills up and where he eats. He taught me to stay out of the bunched up groups, use CC, concentrate on steering smoothly, look ahead to anticipate braking events try to accelerate downhill and coast when ever possible.

I used his driving log on long trips. I note every brake event, slow down, temp, wind direction and speed and pick places to eat and fill up where I can get off and on the roads easily. This really pays off when towing a 10K # car haul trailer.

I've made it quite obvious throughout this forum, that I am particular about fuel economy, but wow, now that is really particular!

I'm no longer willing to save a bit of fuel when the butt gets sore from sitting. Regular stops to stand and stretch is important.

I'll be switching to a

Continental TrueContact Tour 54 225/55R19 tires.

I have these exact tires on my "6", in 225/55R17 size. I'm happy with them.

Here's a quick review: Continental TrueContact Tour Tire Review - 2015 Mazda6 - 225/55/R17

fast forward to 17,000KM or so on these tires, with regular rotations, and I am amazed with how great the tread life is on these.

- These tires do not hold up well to hard cornering. but I also blame that on my ancient original struts and the crappy stock open diff.
- Wet traction is still a mixed bag. Braking and acceleration is good, wet turn handling ranges from decent to downright poor. They seem fine at higher speeds though.
- I am overall impressed with their performance in light snow. They hold up to their promise.

The tires are overall well suited to the way our Mazda's are tuned, and I recommend them highly, unless you like to corner hard, quickly and frequently. If you can test them in the wet first, do that.

- They are quiet, comfortable and responsive for a touring tire.

IF I had the option for FWD over AWD, I'd have gone with FWD. Fewer moving parts to spin, lower weight and better FE.

Smart choice! Other than the very rare occasion that I actually need to drive somewhere and the snow is heavy, never had any complaints with FWD. With some careful steering and pedal work, you can get the FWD'er to oversteer pretty gracefully, at least with the lower and longer, lighter 6.

Someday I might need AWD, who knows!

Probably not!

 

[Lazy2.5]

It won't give me 39 mpg very often. I guess the conditions were good in this case.

Comparing your CX-5 to my 6, considering that you have the smaller engine, with virtually the exact same curb weight, and the shorter 4,5,6 gearing of the manual, it makes sense that you've experienced a similar figure as myself with highway driving.

When my 2.5L auto 6 was on the stock 87 octane tune, I averaged something similar, and pretty consistently.

Switching to 91 octane, and then getting the 91 octane tune on top of that made a huge difference. With continuous refinement to my driving style over the last two years, I recorded my best tank ever at around 5L/100km, or approx. 47-48mpg. I'm finding it hard to believe. I think i may have actually gotten even better.

 

[AL Cx5]

Would be interesting to read some of that.

I'll cut and past some of this soon.

I'm no longer willing to save a bit of fuel when the butt gets sore from sitting. Regular stops to stand and stretch is important.

"Slowmover" would respond, planning ahead, regular stops is important so the driver is alert and can drive smoothly and safely. He has several million miles logged and never a accident charged to him.

I have these exact tires on my "6", in 225/55R17 size. I'm happy with them.

Here's a quick review: Continental TrueContact Tour Tire Review - 2015 Mazda6 - 225/55/R17

I researched tires until my eyes were blurry. I bought a set of TrueContact 54s. I had buyers remorse last night and read reviews again. I'll mount these in a month or so.

Aside, I bought a set of 3 oz balancing beads. I'm going to use these AND balance the tires. We will see if I ever balance the tires again. I have balancing beads in my truck tires and love them. 50 K mi on the tires, run smooth and never been rebalanced. I read on smaller tires like 22/55R17 need both.

 

[N7turbo]

I don't need AWD when it snows (though it will be nice to have). Been driving in it for 20+ years with front-wheel drive cars. But I like the way the car feels when the rear does some of the pushing while turning. Mazda seems to agree if you look at their new rear drive based platforms.

 

[AL Cx5]

@Lazy2.5 here is one of several dozen how to get better FE sprinkled in this post I started.

As you can see, there is a group of diesel truck owners working together to improve FE. We have added aero mods, turning vanes in the intake sections and have learned how to coax more FE out of these old dinosaurs.

I've become a conscious driver after following many of SlowMover's suggestion. Concentrating on driving smoothly, staying out of the packs and anticipating braking.

23 and 25 MPG over 1300 mile Solo Trip

MPG against air temps is neither here nor there. Avoidance of traffic volume is the reason to start extra early (and finish for the day) as it’s the greatest penalty past fixed conditions.

Address-to-Address GPS navigation for each trip leg is: ideally, cruise control engaged at set speed coming down the ramp and neither throttle nor brakes used prior to exiting the Interstate at the ending address. The easiest method to replicate.

Unchanging test method is Signal-to-Noise Ratio reduction.

As before, once 100% cruise control + set speed below commercial traffic is in use, the penalty phase are those periods from CC Off to CC On to exit and later re-enter the roadway.

1). Chasing cheapest fuel is where most screw up.

— The ideal fuel stop is the one right next to the entrance ramp.

2). Not investigating each stop via satellite pic ahead of time is the second big mistake.

— Some planned stops are less-desirable than others. Farther off the road than normal is one for Rest Areas. A fuel stop at a highway junction with a great deal of retail or a major factory type of situation = too much traffic.

Both 1 & 2 are how one learns to trip plan.

— They’re time-wasters (which effects my sense of momentum), they’re riskier (higher propensity for damage), they cause undue wear via throttle, brake & steering inputs (a better choice of stop eliminates this), and there is no offsetting $ fuel savings that shouldn’t have been done during Daily Driver Miles.

** Buying fuel at Wal-Mart flat off-limits as an example of How Not to Do It when combining the very worst of 1 & 2.**

To back into that again: get the City MPG higher annually and there’s no savings on a road trip justifies chasing a few pennies.

Plan Every Stop
Start & Stop Early
100% CC

My opinion is that these three constitute adequate changes to ensure relative highest MPG. Chasing more tenths of a mpg entails higher stress and results which vary too much one trip to another.

— Doing each of these well has more detail which experience will light up.

.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

I like the best sure footedness of winter tires and AWD in the snow. I’m in a mountain pass nearly every weekend in the winter.. even with snow tires FWD/2WD is often required to chain up. AWD does not have too even though enforcement for winter traction tires should still be enforced on AWD /4WD vehicles.

I can only remember a few very rare times in an ice storm chains were required on AWD/4WD and it was a very short period of time.

Outside of some sports car or a Miata I will never purchase another FWD/2WD vehicle where I live. Last FWD was my ‘02 Maxima I sold back in ‘14.

 

[jadmt]

I don't need AWD when it snows (though it will be nice to have). Been driving in it for 20+ years with front-wheel drive cars. But I like the way the car feels when the rear does some of the pushing while turning. Mazda seems to agree if you look at their new rear drive based platforms.

AWD and good tires are pretty nice.

 

[N7turbo]

4-10 inches plus ice forecast for the next 48 hours.

 

[jadmt]

4-10 inches plus ice forecast for the next 48 hours.

got at least that today and still coming down.

 

[Mazdiod2]

Comparing your CX-5 to my 6, considering that you have the smaller engine, with virtually the exact same curb weight, and the shorter 4,5,6 gearing of the manual, it makes sense that you've experienced a similar figure as myself with highway driving.

When my 2.5L auto 6 was on the stock 87 octane tune, I averaged something similar, and pretty consistently.

Switching to 91 octane, and then getting the 91 octane tune on top of that made a huge difference. With continuous refinement to my driving style over the last two years, I recorded my best tank ever at around 5L/100km, or approx. 47-48mpg. I'm finding it hard to believe. I think i may have actually gotten even better.

To be honest, I've been thinking back about that trip and I remember it showing over 40mpg on the return and I decided to make sure and calculate the mpg because I didn't believe the computer. I was wondering at the time if the wind shifted direction mid-day giving me favorable winds going both directions. The winds were kind of 'shifty' that day and driving along the front range mountains you can encounter weird crosswinds, etc., so I think that is very possible. \
I know from experience I would be lucky to get 30 mpg if I encounter headwinds. I usually slow down a bit as I don't know how else to handle them. I still might be getting 27 mpg for the worst parts.

I was looking at the owner's manual on how to operate the manual transmission and noticed it only has a page and a half on how to operate it. The section on how to operate the automatic is over six pages!