Mile Per Gallon!!!!

[not_too_shabby]

The down side to running leaner is you are more likely to have detonation issues. I "chipped" my passat 1.8turbo, and I did get better MPG on premium. The downside is the car wasn't tolerant of anything less than 91 octane. You could probably do something similar on the cx-9, but you would have to run premium, which is usually 20 cents more a gallon so the MPG increase would need to be enough to justify the added expense. Now if we got more power too, that would be nice.

 

[Asia]

I got 19.2 miles per gallon on the last fill-up in mostly suburban driving. I drove it very gently and coasted to red lights. I got 18 with the first two fill ups. It hasn't been as cold the last week which probably helped some too.

 

[NWCX9]

I got 17mpg on my first tank full driving 60% city / 40% hwy with hard starts off the line.

On my second tank driving mostly hwy miles (20%city / 80% hwy) I got almost 21mpg driving mellow with very little jack rabbit starts (no fun).

I'm about 1/2 through my third tank with once again mostly hwy miles and more jack rabbit starts than tank #2 and it looks somewhere around 19~20mpg.

Big change from my 99 Corolla that got an easy 32~35mpg and WAY more fun to drive!!! (drive2)

 

[Bumpin Mazda]

i can garrentee that ur engine is not broke in if u only have 4k miles on it
my previous car. toyota sequioa. i baught with 35k and the engine still wasnt broken in cause the lady before me drove like a grandmaw. it didnt get broken in and in a consistant 18-20 mpg untill i got to 45k. within the first 6k miles on a new car u have to drive it like a bat out of hell. all the sensors have to be maxxed out to be able to measure fuel efficiency and fuel distribution evenly to get a consistant and oem sugested gas milage.

 

[cccx9]

I got 17mpg on my first tank full driving 60% city / 40% hwy with hard starts off the line.

On my second tank driving mostly hwy miles (20%city / 80% hwy) I got almost 21mpg driving mellow with very little jack rabbit starts (no fun).

I'm about 1/2 through my third tank with once again mostly hwy miles and more jack rabbit starts than tank #2 and it looks somewhere around 19~20mpg.

Big change from my 99 Corolla that got an easy 32~35mpg and WAY more fun to drive!!! (drive2)

Your corolla was more fun to drive or your CX-9 is more fun to drive?

 

[bill42]

Some interesting theories there, Bumpin Mazda! I hope you realize some of what you said is controversial and not necessarily proven fact. Personally I did break in my sports car engine using a similar philosophy- there is a race proven method of reving a new engine throughout the RPM range under load, which is also controversial as manufacturers recommend babying the engine. However the purpose was to make all the engine seals break in properly, not for fuel economy. It seemed to work well for my high performance M3 engine so far, as she runs like a top and never burns a drop of oil 5 years later. But I didn't break in the family-oriented CX-9 using that method.

As for driving the CX-9 like a bat out of hell, well I don't even drive mine that hard at all and I get an average of 13mpg here in the suburbs. If I drove it hard, I bet I could get down to 9mpg or less, but why would I want to do that?

Lastly, let me remind everyone that the EPA has changed it's ratings after 2007, to reflect more accurate and lower mileage more consistent with real life driving. I just looked it up and a new Sequoia is rated at 13 city, 16 highway. That means it is virtually impossible to get 18-20 mpg. Real life driving will certainly be equal or lower to the EPA rating just like it is for the CX-9.

(except for the few of you with magic fairy feet ;-)

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

I drove ours moderate to occasionally hard with no problems for 'break in'.
Still get 19 to 22 mpg with ME driving. Ours can't be broken in favor of better mileage.

And yes, driving super hard on a new engine isn't a good idea. The "grandmaw" car didnt get better mileage at first because it was babied, sure. That is more due to carbon buildup from dogging the engine.

 

[Asia]

I just notice your car is an 07 which has a slightly smaller engine. I wonder if the 07's get better mileage that the 08 & 09's?

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

We've had this debate since 07. For some reason some people are getting horrible mileage, and calling me a liar when I state my figures.

 

[ceric]

Short drives (stop and go) kills MPG of heavy vehicles. A few more factors contribute to the so-so MPG of CX9
- weight (200lb heavier) of AWD (compared to FWD)
- tall 1st gear (high rpm on 1st gear when accelerating)
- wide tires (245) and big alloy wheel (18" 20").
Compared with Highlander, which is
- 200lb lighter
- 225 tires
- shorter 1st gear
Highlander can easier get 1-2mpg better than CX9.

Also, check your tire pressure. Every 5psi drop can cost you 2mpg.

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

I'm totally happy with our mileage for this vehicle.
I'd prefer it to be a H2 fuel cell car, but we're all supposed to pretend those don't exist.

And the Highlander is still a 4 adult turd.

 

[bill42]

you seem to enjoy the word "turd."
I think the new highlander is a pretty nice crossover and to me it looks better than the Pilot and the MDX.
Anyway, I for one am not calling you a liar. If you are getting 22 mpg on the highway on your 07 Front wheel drive CX-9, then you are matching the EPA rating which is certainly possible. I do believe that others who have stated much higher mileage than you are mistaken, and probably didn't calculate accurately.
Then again I am not lying that I get 13 mpg overall, since I drive my heavier AWD nearly all short distances in suburbia, and my wife likes to launch the CX-9 at lights since she doesn't ever fill up the tank. And I did once get my EPA rating of 20mpg last summer when I babied the throttle on a long trip, so I know all of us can get the EPA ratings of our cars under the right conditions.

 

[nuhuskyfan]

Bill, I'm in the same boat as you. Granted I have 1000 miles on the car but I have never had a vehicle where gas mileage improved significantly as the engine broke in. I'm getting 15-16 MPG driving in suburbia. I don't see how this thing will get over 20MPG unless there is an endless downhill freeway that I'm not aware of

 

[vikefan7]

I'm with you guys. I got 13 MPG on my first tank, mostly suburban driving. I think it's actually worse than my Montero Sport. However, that's probably because I drove the Mitsu like an old lady because it was a frickin' tank and the CX is soooo much more fun to drive that I end up flogging it everywhere.... Should've bought a Prius... not really

 

[Asia]

I have an 08 with 1500 miles on it. I am averaging 18 miles per gallon on mainly short distance suburban driving. I drive 1 mile to work and back (walk when the weather is nice, but it has been cold in Ohio) and have carpool a couple days a week which involves some idling. On weekends it gets some highway mileage in, but not a lot. I'm guessing when the weather warms up I will get 1-2 miles per gallon better, so I am happy with the mileage. It will be interesting to see what it gets on a long trip.

 

[nuhuskyfan]

I have an 08 with 1500 miles on it. I am averaging 18 miles per gallon on mainly short distance suburban driving. I drive 1 mile to work and back (walk when the weather is nice, but it has been cold in Ohio) and have carpool a couple days a week which involves some idling. On weekends it gets some highway mileage in, but not a lot. I'm guessing when the weather warms up I will get 1-2 miles per gallon better, so I am happy with the mileage. It will be interesting to see what it gets on a long trip.

I'd sign up for 18 MPG in a heartbeat....

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

I've never accused anyone else of lying, certainly. My question is simply why some people are getting far worse mileage. This car in any form should get at least the sticker specs for mpg.

The AWD doesn't change the mileage significantly. Only 1mpg less than the FWD. Yes, the other options do add more weight, but still no more than an extra passenger. I've had a full compliment of adult passengers and still got decent mileage.

The other issue here is that the low mpg people all claim to be driving conservatively. I drive anything but conservatively, and still get good mileage for this size vehicle. I have as much fun in our CX9 as anyone can. And if you read my trip accounts, they are rarely flat smooth interstate driving. 99% of our interstate driving is I17 in Arizona from Prescott to Phoenix. It's hills and curves, and a 4000ft elevation change. Yes, that helps a bit going down, but is more than offset going back up, especially at 80mph.
Read my account earlier in this thread of a trip we took with a 14 foot boat on the roof. I got 22 on that trip. That wasn't flat straight 55mph driving, for sure.

During the week, my wife drives the car to work and back. It's about 1.5 miles and all 35mph or less. If we don't travel anywhere for an entire tank, her short slow trips still yield at least 17 mpg. I know if I drove on a long flat highway with the cruise set to a conservative speed I could get 25 with this car.

Therefore, I can't help but wonder if something isn't wrong with the low mileage CX9s, like a bad computer control parameter or something. I would definitely have it checked if I was getting anything less than the claimed mileage.

And yes, I like the word turd. Hehe he said turd...

 

[not_too_shabby]

Another tank for me, another 14.9 MPG average for the tank. I have about a 8 mile freeway commute with 2 miles stop and go in traffic on each end. I'm pretty disappointed. The best I have done was 17 with about 140 miles of highway driving. I have an AWD GT 2008. I am tempted to try higher octane. This may help improve mileage if the timing is being retarded to prevent pinging.

The 2008 MY also had the 3.7L verses 3.5L engines. Maybe that is a source of some of the discrepancy in mileage.

 

[bill42]

I am an avid MotorTrend Reader, and I am always noticing that the motorTrend staff never gets close to the EPA ratings when they do their long term testing. For the CX-9 and all the other cars in our weight class, MotorTrend reports around 13 or 14 mpg overall. And yet they never seem alarmed. So I am not thinking that there is anything wrong with our cars.
I think there is something wrong with your car, if you are able to actually get that 25 mpg that you think you might get! I accept your challenge- drive your next highway trip conservatively and calculate your tank to tank mileage and report back on this thread what you really got.
To quote Scotty, "You can't change the laws of physics, Captain!"

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

The challenge is driving our CX 9 conservatively, but ON THE next flat interstate trip I will see what we get.
The problem is finding a flat stretch. We live a mile up, and have 4 routes out of town. All 4 have a minimum 1000 foot elevation change, 2 up, and 2 down, within 30 miles. And the two interstates then drop another 3000 feet over 90 miles.

I still can't believe that our car could be broken in favor of better mileage. If there is, then I'm not going to fix it, since the car runs perfect. Most owners actually don't seem to get bad mileage, so I'd still take it to a dealer and have the codes run.