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

[yrwei52]

So the official 2017 2nd-Gen CX-5 EPA fuel economy ratings are out at FuelEconomy.gov website:

And new CX-5 indeed has worse MPG than previous gen CX-5 on EPA ratings. 2017 FWD changed from 2016's 29/26/33 to 27/24/31 and AWD changed from 2016's 26/24/30 to 26/23/29 combined/city/highway. By comparison new 2017 Honda CR-V Touring is rated at 30/28/34 on FWD and 29/27/33 combined/city/highway on AWD. The advantage on CR-V is as much as 4 mpg than CX-5. Now once the proud class leading CX-5 on fuel efficiency with SkyActiv Technology, "Sips gas like a miser, moves you like a Mazda"、"Best Highway MPG of any SUV - Including Hybrids" is no longer!

 

[dougal]

Oh my god, this is terrible. I think I am going to start cutting my self, or maybe pull all my fingernails out with a pair of pliers. I don't know how I can go on...life as we know it, is over...

 

[myke232]

24 city?! That blows...

 

[caverunner17]

Works out to about $100/year in fuel costs more than the CRV.

MPG doesn't matter, its L/100KM or Gal/100Mi that does.

 

[Mike_R]

Interesting! The mpg getting squeezed out of the CR-V is impressive. For the model years I'm currently shopping (used) the CX-5 gets better a better mpg rating and fuelly average so that's one of the things that has made me fall in love with it.

 

[Mike_R]

Here's the Rav4 for comparison.

 

[7eregrine]

Are we really starting another CRV v CX5 thread? Seriously?

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

 

[dougal]

Are we really starting another CRV v CX5 thread? Seriously?

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

I know, it is never ending.

The only thing I will add is that if you go to Fuelly you will find the 2017 CR-V is this :

169 fuel-ups and 45,537 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 26.36 with a 0.67 MPG margin of error.

and the 2016 CX-5 is this:

Based on data from 325 vehicles, 9,756 fuel-ups and 2,853,135 miles of driving, the 2016 Mazda CX-5 gets a combined Avg MPG of 26.06 with a 0.08 MPG margin of error.

This forum has turned into a bunch of babies.

 

[Unobtanium]

Well, the engine/transmission is the same, except in 2016 supposedly it was improved for better mileage, but Mazda is forced to be more and more honest as time goes by....another "I told you so" moment for me, I guess...

 

[craigo]

I know, it is never ending.

The only thing I will add is that if you go to Fuelly you will find the 2017 CR-V is this :

169 fuel-ups and 45,537 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 26.36 with a 0.67 MPG margin of error.

and the 2016 CX-5 is this:

Based on data from 325 vehicles, 9,756 fuel-ups and 2,853,135 miles of driving, the 2016 Mazda CX-5 gets a combined Avg MPG of 26.06 with a 0.08 MPG margin of error.

This forum has turned into a bunch of babies.

Most forums are dominated by complaints about expensive hardware failure. With little to note on that front, this one is dominated by petty MPG threads. Some folks just like to b****.

 

[mangoconchile]

How is it possible that it gets worse gas mileage? As Donald Trump would say, 'Sad!'

 

[Unobtanium]

I know, it is never ending.

The only thing I will add is that if you go to Fuelly you will find the 2017 CR-V is this :

169 fuel-ups and 45,537 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 26.36 with a 0.67 MPG margin of error.

and the 2016 CX-5 is this:

Based on data from 325 vehicles, 9,756 fuel-ups and 2,853,135 miles of driving, the 2016 Mazda CX-5 gets a combined Avg MPG of 26.06 with a 0.08 MPG margin of error.

This forum has turned into a bunch of babies.

So it outperforms the CX5 in every way, power-wise. Nice!

 

[Unobtanium]

How is it possible that it gets worse gas mileage? As Donald Trump would say, 'Sad!'

I don't think it does. I just think Mazda is being more honest. It uses the same drivetrain as the previous years, and supposedly it's "slicker".

 

[dougal]

So it outperforms the CX5 in every way, power-wise. Nice!

So math is not your strong point?

 

[Unobtanium]

So math is not your strong point?

Better 0-60, better 1/4 mile performance, and it gets better real-world economy and better EPA rated economy. What math are you looking a t?

 

[yrwei52]

I know, it is never ending.

The only thing I will add is that if you go to Fuelly you will find the 2017 CR-V is this :

169 fuel-ups and 45,537 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 26.36 with a 0.67 MPG margin of error.

and the 2016 CX-5 is this:

Based on data from 325 vehicles, 9,756 fuel-ups and 2,853,135 miles of driving, the 2016 Mazda CX-5 gets a combined Avg MPG of 26.06 with a 0.08 MPG margin of error.

This forum has turned into a bunch of babies.

And if you choose 1.5L Turbo for 2017 Honda CR-V, your trustworthy Fuelly data suddenly shows:

Based on data from 6 vehicles, 27 fuel-ups and 6,682 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 27.97 with a 1.08 MPG margin of error.

So don't just pick and choose the data you like. We want facts. When did people who presenting facts turn into a bunch of babies?

 

[Unobtanium]

And if you choose 1.5L Turbo for 2017 Honda CR-V, your trustworthy Fuelly data suddenly shows:



So don't just pick and choose the data you like. We want facts. When did people who presenting facts turn into a bunch of babies?

This forum has always been like that. It's the most emotional car-forum I've been on, honestly. Other than the "NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THEM! THEY HAVE CHARACTER! WORKING ON THEM IS JOY!" mentality of the Jeep forum, lol!

 

[Kaps]

Better 0-60, better 1/4 mile performance, and it gets better real-world economy and better EPA rated economy. What math are you looking a t?

This forum has always been like that. It's the most emotional car-forum I've been on, honestly. Other than the "NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THEM! THEY HAVE CHARACTER! WORKING ON THEM IS JOY!" mentality of the Jeep forum, lol!

I think to an extent both sides are propping up with selective facts. There is no big reward for Honda to outperform a 4 year old platform. Yes it does do those things better than a CX5 but its a FULL REFRESH! Its a totally brand new drivetrain, not sure about platform.
If you leave out the fun to drive factor - the 17 CRV goes toe to toe with CX5 in terms of feature and price points with CX5 being more driver friendly and CRV having more for each of the other seats but less for driver, factor in the traditional fun to drive the CRV still will not appeal to owners of Mazda because it has a CVT. Also because its core styling has something awfully wrong. For example, you do not put recycled toothbrush holders from Target as wood trim on the dash. The chrome, the wheels - awful.

I dont know when the next CX5 full refresh is, but if its not upto the notch - the sales will reflect that. If you and yrwei want to put money on the CRV thats fine - I know i would not buy the 17 if i was looking now. I also know quite a few other Mazda owners would not either. Just dont try and sell this point that CRV >>>>>> CX-5 - I think its not.

 

[RDK006]

How is it possible that it gets worse gas mileage? As Donald Trump would say, 'Sad!'

I doubt the 17 CX-5 gets worse gas mileage than before - it's just that the EPA is measuring things differently now. But don't worry, you can rest easy, your Honda still beats us in the mpg race.

 

[xtrailman]

Is the 2017 car heavier?

Since launch the cx-5 has got progressively heavier, mainly to satisfy customer and testers complaints about wind and road noise. You can't really complain at around 1mpg if the car is a quieter car to be in.