Slight Concern about MPG

[ALafya]

CX-5 AWD: After extensive almost 95% highway driving I avg 28.5 mpg, which is at least 1.5 mpg less than EPA estimates Mazda publishes for this car. My driving habits are good with no hard braking or acceleration. Furthermore I maintain the speed for 60 mph in 55, 70 in 65 mph zones with exhaustive use of Radar Cruise Control.

I can easily beat the 30MPG highway. In 2 recent trips, with long sections of 60 MPH but also 70 & 75 I finished once with 30 MPG (trip meter) and 31 MPG the 2nd time. It isn't really cold here though. I am an aggressive driver, but I drive at consistent speeds most of the time. It seems gas millage is slightly better after the last oil change, where I used Mazda oil with Moly.

 

[Unobtanium]

That is a very good point.

The 2.0L engine (even in AWD trim) frequently beats EPA estimates (and the 2.0L estimates are higher to begin with). Why people would care that it takes slightly longer to reach 60 mph is a mystery to me. It's not like you're going to be bragging to your friends and co-workers about the 0-60 times of either model variation.

I've driven vehicles that ranged from mid 3 second 0-60, to over 10 second 0-60. I found that 8 seconds is about the longest I care to be waiting to hit highway merging speeds. Otherwise it makes driving more dangerous IMO/IME. You begin to make people slam on their brakes OR you wait for a half hour to pull onto a busy freeway. neither are good.

 

[Unobtanium]

I can easily beat the 30MPG highway. In 2 recent trips, with long sections of 60 MPH but also 70 & 75 I finished once with 30 MPG (trip meter) and 31 MPG the 2nd time. It isn't really cold here though. I am an aggressive driver, but I drive at consistent speeds most of the time. It seems gas millage is slightly better after the last oil change, where I used Mazda oil with Moly.

You also live in CA. I have found that road-surface matters. I've averages 22-23mpg going 80 on concrete roads.

 

[Unobtanium]

True, with gasoline so incredibly cheap right now, the difference is almost nothing. Gas is so cheap right now, nobody cares. However, never under-estimate the ability for things to change suddenly. Complacency leads to unhappy endings and I don't expect cheap gas to last for long. All it takes is one major Middle East war (which is likely if the conservatives sweep the House and Senate) or one major U.S. refinery to be destructed by an earthquake and you could be staring at $6/gal or even higher. I live within 30 miles of 4 major West Coast refineries, all of them are ancient and all of them are subject to cataclysmic earthquakes exceeding 9.0. Nothing survives such a quake. When the big one hits, all 4 of these refineries will be off-line for YEARS! They will not all be rebuilt and the era of cheap gas will be over for good. An earthquake may be the least likely cause of the end of cheap gas in America but it would certainly be the most sudden and most dramatic. War is more likely and Americans have a nasty habit of electing politicians who represent the interests of the oil/gas industry. But the oil/gas industry doesn't want plentiful oil/gas because their profits are higher when they control a resource that is scarce. The oil/gas industry LOVES war. Warplanes burn TREMENDOUS amounts of petroleum products and instability in the Middle East makes the resource more scarce which increases profits.

I lived through the gas rationing of the 1970's, it wasn't pretty. When gas prices spike, fuel efficient vehicles APPRECIATE in value and the value of gas guzzlers plummet.

Don't let years of gradually declining fuel prices make you complacent. It won't last.

And this is part of why I bought a CX-5. I am going to be moving about 30 minutes from one of the facilities I work for, at the CLOSEST facility, and didn't want to end up burning $500/mo in gas. Regardless, still irritated at the dismal mileage vs. ratings on the CX-5 I am getting with mine. Who knows? Maybe the AWD diff was kicking in when it shouldn't have and was lowering mileage somehow? I'm curious how things are when it's replaced.

 

[MikeM.]

I looked in the emoticon library for a broken record but I couldn't find one. Darn!

 

[Unobtanium]

I looked in the emoticon library for a broken record but I couldn't find one. Darn!

I guess I'm only responding so that you can see I read it. Your jabs really aren't registering with me, MikeM. Probably less than mine do with you, even.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

 

[MikeM.]

I don't know how you did it, but you found one!

Thank-you!

 

[Unobtanium]

I think the point still stands that Mazda really dropped the ball on mpg ratings, as compared to what people expected

 

[dergibog]

Disagree.

 

[jhu8]

I think the point still stands that Mazda really dropped the ball on mpg ratings, as compared to what people expected

How can you say such a thing? Just go on fuelly. The CX-5 rates as I believe the top fuel efficient CUV, right next to the CR-V. The rouge, rav4, escape, etc all fall below. Yet, you still believe they dropped the ball with fuel efficiency on the cx5. What more do you need than REAL LIFE data?

 

[yrwei52]

I think the point still stands that Mazda really dropped the ball on mpg ratings, as compared to what people expected

How can you say such a thing? Just go on fuelly. The CX-5 rates as I believe the top fuel efficient CUV, right next to the CR-V. The rouge, rav4, escape, etc all fall below. Yet, you still believe they dropped the ball with fuel efficiency on the cx5. What more do you need than REAL LIFE data?

This:

CX-5 AWD: After extensive almost 95% highway driving I avg 28.5 mpg, which is at least 1.5 mpg less than EPA estimates Mazda publishes for this car. My driving habits are good with no hard braking or acceleration. Furthermore I maintain the speed for 60 mph in 55, 70 in 65 mph zones with exhaustive use of Radar Cruise Control.
In comparison:

2014 Honda CR-V which I drove last week (and it was equally cold) with the same COSTCO gas beat the published EPA by 1 mpg. Furthermore, Honda when in AVG display mode was usually hitting the EPA 80% of the time when driving. CX-5: Not once.
2015 Toyota Rav4 which went with me in this trip ALSO BEAT the EPA estimates by 1 mpg.

EPA calculations done by manufacturers are same, ie. the methodology. However, Mazda's EPA sticker values I did NOT see ever being met whereas for Toyota and Honda it was met and exceeded EASILY.

One of the MAIN reasons why I selected CX-5 was its supposedly stellar fuel economy. After clocking 3000 miles in this car I fear it's NOT stellar.

and from my personal experience during our recent 300-mile trip where 26.5 MPG is the result. And I couldn't get 30 MPG even driving at constant 60mph based on instant MPG readout! The temperature was 60~80F if anyone wonders about the cold weather effect. We beat EPA highway estimates routinely while driving our two other vehicles for the same trip.

I have no complaints for EPA city estimate on CX-5 as our average MPG for city is 26. The data from Fuelly is mixed with 2.0L and 2.5L, FWD and AWD, which exaggerates the real-world MPG when compare it to AWD.

So I also think the point still stands that Mazda really dropped the ball on MPG ratings as compared to what people expected, especially on highway ratings!

 

[bmninada]

How can you say such a thing? Just go on fuelly. The CX-5 rates as I believe the top fuel efficient CUV, right next to the CR-V. The rouge, rav4, escape, etc all fall below. Yet, you still believe they dropped the ball with fuel efficiency on the cx5. What more do you need than REAL LIFE data?

I was equally surprised to see the results. However, on close inspection I realized it does NOT differentiate between 2.0L and 2.5L engines. Furthermore, there's no breakup between FWD and AWD. What I have determined is this:

1. FWD 2.0L seem to be hitting the published city and highway EPA estimates
2. AWD 2.0L and AWD 2.5L : Do not meet the published EPA highway estimates
3. FWD 2.5L: No idea

It begs to bring forward then this argument: Did Mazda actually know about it since they did confirm they have indeed tweaked the AWD system 2016 onwards? I believe yes, but they were unable to address the full issue. I think their AWD system is the culprit here, especially in highway. Why? What is it that happens in an highway with AWD that does NOT happen when stop-and-go city driving?

 

[banjos-n-beer]

Our 2015 CRV AWD EX is rated at 25/31, 27 combined. We're getting ~28 combined. So, in our experience, the Honda is rated higher than the AWD CX5, but gets the same mileage as our CX5.

 

[jhu8]

However, on close inspection I realized it does NOT differentiate between 2.0L and 2.5L engines.

You can differentiate between the engines.

In order from 2016, 2015, 2014
CX-5 2.5L - 25.9, 26, 26.9
CRV 2.4L - 24.5, 27, 25.9

You can't compare AWD vs FWD though. But without having actual numbers, I'm will to say having AWD in a CUV is the majority and FWD is the minority. But you can see the CX5 and CRV are right in line with each other with the bigger engines.

 

[CX-5um]

CX-5 AWD: After extensive almost 95% highway driving I avg 28.5 mpg, which is at least 1.5 mpg less than EPA estimates Mazda publishes for this car. My driving habits are good with no hard braking or acceleration. Furthermore I maintain the speed for 60 mph in 55, 70 in 65 mph zones with exhaustive use of Radar Cruise Control.
In comparison:

2014 Honda CR-V which I drove last week (and it was equally cold) with the same COSTCO gas beat the published EPA by 1 mpg. Furthermore, Honda when in AVG display mode was usually hitting the EPA 80% of the time when driving. CX-5: Not once.
2015 Toyota Rav4 which went with me in this trip ALSO BEAT the EPA estimates by 1 mpg.

EPA calculations done by manufacturers are same, ie. the methodology. However, Mazda's EPA sticker values I did NOT see ever being met whereas for Toyota and Honda it was met and exceeded EASILY.

One of the MAIN reasons why I selected CX-5 was its supposedly stellar fuel economy. After clocking 3000 miles in this car I fear it's NOT stellar.

Bmninada, at 3000 miles I can assure you based on my experiences with a then new 2.0 CX-5 in 2012 and my new mazda6 currently at 9k miles that your mpgs and engine responsiveness will only improve over time. You will see a noticeable difference especially after your first oil change. Hang in there and you'll see....errr feel what I'm talking about.

 

[Tccox]

Two month old 2016 CX-5 AWD here. 16 mile commute to work, two lane roads, light traffic in morning moderate to heavy in afternoon. A consistent 26 MPG. Going to visit my daughter about 80 miles away ALL interstate highway, always 31 mpg. I'm VERY happy with the MPGs on mine.

 

[bmninada]

Bmninada, at 3000 miles I can assure you based on my experiences with a then new 2.0 CX-5 in 2012 and my new mazda6 currently at 9k miles that your mpgs and engine responsiveness will only improve over time. You will see a noticeable difference especially after your first oil change. Hang in there and you'll see....errr feel what I'm talking about.

Thank you, that's what I believe too. My thoughts are: (a) It's freakish cold --- affecting MPG (b) 1st. GF-5 oil change.

I believe maybe at around 6.5k I'll get upwards of 31 mpg highway. Keeping my fingers crossed. If not: will be royally pissed off.

Just a note: I have a 2007 Rolla. I get 36 to 38 mpg easy on it. I am NOT comparing with CX-5 but just throwing out a note about my driving habits. It's good to solid when it comes to MPG.

 

[CX-5um]

Thank you, that's what I believe too. My thoughts are: (a) It's freakish cold --- affecting MPG (b) 1st. GF-5 oil change.

I believe maybe at around 6.5k I'll get upwards of 31 mpg highway. Keeping my fingers crossed. If not: will be royally pissed off.

Just a note: I have a 2007 Rolla. I get 36 to 38 mpg easy on it. I am NOT comparing with CX-5 but just throwing out a note about my driving habits. It's good to solid when it comes to MPG.

Just imho, the noticeable difference is felt while driving in the city and through lights. You're actually already getting decent numbers for hwy. I forsee little improvement in hwy mpg and but noticeable improvements in city hwy mpgs. I've still yet to see anyone meet the CX-5 2.5 epa hwy numbers. The 2.0 CX-5 we have even struggles with hwy mpgs but easily exceeds city mpgs. In the end combined epa mpgs are met for both the 2.0 cx-5 and 2.5 mazda6.

 

[bmninada]

Just imho, the noticeable difference is felt while driving in the city and through lights. You're actually already getting decent numbers for hwy. I forsee little improvement in hwy mpg and but noticeable improvements in city hwy mpgs. I've still yet to see anyone meet the CX-5 2.5 epa hwy numbers. The 2.0 CX-5 we have even struggles with hwy mpgs but easily exceeds city mpgs. In the end combined epa mpgs are met for both the 2.0 cx-5 and 2.5 mazda6.

Yeah the published EPA highway figures for 2.5L is a joke. I think they tested it with heated oil, 30 mpg or something..... even my instant reading MPG never crosses 30 mpg if I have my pedal on gas and speed greater than 40 mpg.