Official 2017 2nd-Gen CX-5 EPA Fuel Economy Ratings Are Out

Kaps

Contributor
:
CX-5 Touring 2016.5
On the 2.2 Diesel:
If you are in state where diesel is cheaper - I think it will give you a 36+ mpg - can go as high as 40 / 45 mpg - equivalent to gas adjusted US mpg.
In Texas the diesel should do 34 combined to 38 or 40 based on how good you drive and if you can upshift sooner than the ECU - based on current Diesel vs gas prices. That is very good though I was expecting 40 up.

3000 or so added cost for Diesel. So fully loaded one will end out to be 36-37K. Fuel savings will be about 6-8 mpg. which is 240 a year assuming 2 dollars gas. It is 370 based on 10 year average gas prices.
I would surely consider one used - but as things stand 2.2D if it consistently tops 40 I might be willing to upgrade.
 
:
2017 Mazda CX-5 GT
How is it possible that it gets worse gas mileage? As Donald Trump would say, 'Sad!'

EPA changed how they calculate the fuel economy from what I heard. I don't know why people are getting their panties in a bunch. If you don't like it buy something else. If this isn't a deal killer for you buy a Mazda. Test drive, look at the reviews. Look at the reliability ratings and choose what you think will make you happy.
 
Last edited:

Kaps

Contributor
:
CX-5 Touring 2016.5
For someone from UK - if you manually selected your upshifts would the 2.2D do 0 to 100 in about 7 seconds? Has someone seen this?
Seems to me the diesel would do 2.7 secs till 50 kmph and then just break away with amazing powah!!!!
It would be a neat alternative, ticking all boxes for eco users plus diesel faithful crowd.
Mazda's timing on Diesel in USA seems bad - they needed it in june or july or earlier, not august.
If we had diesels soon - there was an outside chance of 170K sales, right now it seems this MY should see 140K or so - still very solid number.

It seems if you were doing 45-50 with minmimal winds and flat road - the 16.5 FWD would do 43 mpg on its instantaneous mpg gauge, the 2.2 in similar would do 60+ that is just amazing number.
 

piotrek91

Member
:
2013 CX-5 6MT
US version 2017 CX-5 2.5L's are indeed heavier than 2016.5 - by 94 lbs in FWD and 66 lbs in AWD.

But final drive gear ration in FWD is still taller: 4.325 FWD to 4.624 AWD.

Looks like my speculation about the gear ratios was wrong!

It's interesting that the peak torque RPM for the FWD is lower than the AWD.
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
Looks like my speculation about the gear ratios was wrong!

It's interesting that the peak torque RPM for the FWD is lower than the AWD.
Actually it's the AWD which rises the rpm from 3,250 to 4,000 for maximum torque. But strangely FWD got affected more on the EPA fuel estimates than AWD but both with added weight.
 
:
'18 Mazda 6 Signature
Are we really starting another CRV v CX5 thread? Seriously?

?Heads off to find a real Mazda forum...

I'm with ya...

Can this not be kept in the 1 CX-5 vs CRV thread?

Either keep it just CX-5 related or put it in that thread if your throwing fuel on the vs fire that none of us care about.

There's enough "vs" crap going on for it to have it's own section!
 

yrwei52

2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech Pkg
Contributor
:
Plano, Texas, USA
I'm with ya...

Can this not be kept in the 1 CX-5 vs CRV thread?

Either keep it just CX-5 related or put it in that thread if your throwing fuel on the vs fire that none of us care about.

There's enough "vs" crap going on for it to have it's own section!
This thread was created on 3/7 and the other "vs" thread was created on 4/25. This thread was created when EPA just announced new fuel economy ratings for 2017 CX-5 in early March and I merely posted this info to let people know. I really don't understand why you bring up this old thread now and start criticizing the topic should be in a newer "vs" thread ⋯ (uhm)
 

ColoradoDriver

2014 CX-5 Touring AWD - 119k miles
Contributor
:
Denver, CO
This thread was created on 3/7 and the other "vs" thread was created on 4/25. This thread was created when EPA just announced new fuel economy ratings for 2017 CX-5 in early March and I merely posted this info to let people know. I really don't understand why you bring up this old thread now and start criticizing the topic should be in a newer "vs" thread ⋯ (uhm)
That's what ya call a "thread necro"!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
:
'18 Mazda 6 Signature
This thread was created on 3/7 and the other "vs" thread was created on 4/25. This thread was created when EPA just announced new fuel economy ratings for 2017 CX-5 in early March and I merely posted this info to let people know. I really don't understand why you bring up this old thread now and start criticizing the topic should be in a newer "vs" thread ⋯ (uhm)

That's my bad. It somehow came up into my feed earlier and, forgive me, but the whole way it went off into CRV vs CX-5 a tangent struck a nerve.

I clearly did not look at the dates.