Very disapointing fuel economy from recent roadtrip...
- Thread starter buyingconstant7
- Start date
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Wait, EPA highway estimate for your FWD CX-5 is 46 MPG?! I know you may have used bigger British Gallon for calculation, but it's still way higher than EPA's 33 highway MPG in the US!
Looks like your post used imperial MPG's. we have smaller gallons here in the US.
My "changes" are in red.
buyingconstant7
Member
- :
- 2014 CX-5 GS AWD
What road were you on? Was this on the #2? Where in Alberta are you located? I drove the CX-5 around this morning using a granny driving style, I could only do 8.0l/100km. These thing are either very temperamental or very sensitive...or both.
buyingconstant7
Member
- :
- 2014 CX-5 GS AWD
87, just like you, but tests have been shown that our fuel quality is much higher for some reason. So that could be it.
buyingconstant7
Member
- :
- 2014 CX-5 GS AWD
Car and Driver posted something that I agree with 100% in their MPG test of the smaller, turbo civic, versus the NA 2.0L and said:
"Turbochargers may be synonymous with big power and torque, but automakers have a very different motive for embracing forced induction. Smaller turbo engines fare better than naturally aspirated ones with similar performance on the EPA’s granny-like driving schedule. However, it’s not always clear if the fuel-economy advantage holds up on public roads with quicker acceleration and higher speeds."
Obviously our CX-5's are not turbo'd, but Mazda did try to compete with the smaller turbo route, with Skyactiv tech, so it still applies to us. The CX-5's are rated for nearly best in class economy....with the EPA...not in the real world. Like I said a few pages ago, our 2.0T Tiguan got better on the highway, than the lighter, less powerful, and more economical(on paper) CX-5
"Turbochargers may be synonymous with big power and torque, but automakers have a very different motive for embracing forced induction. Smaller turbo engines fare better than naturally aspirated ones with similar performance on the EPA’s granny-like driving schedule. However, it’s not always clear if the fuel-economy advantage holds up on public roads with quicker acceleration and higher speeds."
Obviously our CX-5's are not turbo'd, but Mazda did try to compete with the smaller turbo route, with Skyactiv tech, so it still applies to us. The CX-5's are rated for nearly best in class economy....with the EPA...not in the real world. Like I said a few pages ago, our 2.0T Tiguan got better on the highway, than the lighter, less powerful, and more economical(on paper) CX-5
Last edited:
- :
- 2014.5 CX-5 GS FWD 2.5L
I use 87............most pumps carry 87 - 89 - 91
Correct, in 2014 the EPA was 46mpg. We purchased our CX5 when a few 2015's had already arrived and the 2015 EPA's were 15% less at 38/39mpg. That created a lot of questions when parked side by side on the lot. What, Mazda was playing that mpg game too? Apparently in 2015, Mazda labeled the EPA numbers at more realistic driving. That's why I can easily beat the 2015 numbers but the 2014 numbers are pretty much impossible.
PIOTREK91..........thanks for posting the US numbers. Yes I know our gallon is a little bigger. It does throw a few people off but I was tired of always posting 3 different versions of mileage. Either way, still better than our new way "Litres per 100 Kms".
- :
- 2017 Mazda CX-5 GS AWD, 2017 Honda Pilot EX
The ratings had nothing to do with Mazda playing a numbers game. MPG in Canada is listed as higher because of using the British Gallon measurement. Also in 2015, the Canadian Government changed the testing criteria for the government fuel economy ratings to closer reflect real-world driving using the new 5-cycle test. All companies posted the new lower numbers on their 2015 models. My 2014 Honda Odyssey was listed as getting 7.2L/100km on the highway and now shows 8.4 on current models, which is closer to real world.
- :
- 2014.5 CX-5 GS FWD 2.5L
I'm in Red Deer and yes on the QE2. We went to Canmore, all 4 lane. Had to go through downtown Calgary both ways (wife shopping).
So what's wrong with 8L/100? Is that in town?
buyingconstant7
Member
- :
- 2014 CX-5 GS AWD
Oh wow, usually on the QE2, I get awful mileage in all my vehicles. Going from red deer to calgary is uphill, and same with going from calgary to canmore. So I have no idea how you got your mileage. And the 8.0l/100km was today and it was quite windy. I would say 70% of the driving was directly against the wind while the rest was going with it, or having a cross wind, so yeah, maybe 8 is respectable given the circumstances. I did a little city, but not much...
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
- :
- 2014.5 CX-5 GS FWD 2.5L
Since the OP and myself are almost neighbors, he can relate to this last road trip. So thought I would post some recent numbers.
Just did a trip from Red Deer to Lethbridge, return. Took the QE2 half way and then down the back roads (Vulcan). Yep took the detour east to miss that mean storm that dumped 4" of hail. Cruise set between 107 and 120 kph depending on what highway we were on. Registered 7.0L / 100 km. (40.3 mpg Can) (33.6 mpg US).
Our CX5 isn't perfect, we've had a few issues, but I've never complained of the mileage.
Just did a trip from Red Deer to Lethbridge, return. Took the QE2 half way and then down the back roads (Vulcan). Yep took the detour east to miss that mean storm that dumped 4" of hail. Cruise set between 107 and 120 kph depending on what highway we were on. Registered 7.0L / 100 km. (40.3 mpg Can) (33.6 mpg US).
Our CX5 isn't perfect, we've had a few issues, but I've never complained of the mileage.
- :
- 23 CX-5 Premium
Suggestion Ed: Post the year of your Touring so people will know whether you're talking 2.0 or 2.5 ltr. I had to think for a moment because you do the same kind of driving I do and my avg mpg is 30, but that's for a 2.0 so your 28.6 is right in line for the larger engine.
Last edited:
buyingconstant7
Member
- :
- 2014 CX-5 GS AWD
That was a brutal storm. Okotoks got hit the worst, looked like winter hit. But since that trip, I took the car on another trip to the ice field parkway, near Banff. It's a beautiful mountain windy road, lots of ups and downs and twists and turns. I went to the Columbia ice fields and came back. All in all, a 500km drive, speeds were around 120 to 100km/h. Trip computer registered 6.7l/100km. Filled up and I actually got 6.5l/100km. I was astounded. So I just don't get the trick of making it super efficient that I got it to be on the ice field parkway, rather than a flat highway trip to Winnipeg, when it got 10.5l/100km.
Took my 2016.5 on its first little road trip to Hersheypark this past week. Nothing crazy but put on about 500m there and back. With a full car, packed cargo, AC all the way, I averaged a solid 30mpg there and back with some cruise control used. I was impressed it only took a half tank of gas each way.
After about 9 months of intensive driving and specifically checking MPG I have come to the following conclusion. I averaged 30.5 when doing full highway with maybe 3% city between NJ to VA. My avg highway speed was 70 mph and used radar cruise control. When returning, I avg 31.5 mpg again same highway/city %, but dropped speed to 60 mph but continued using radar cruise control. Today, had to go to PA and averaged 55 mph without radar cruise control, 99% highway and averaged 32 mpg.
Observation #1: This car is very, very sensitive to speed. I noticed when going above 70 mph, say 75 mph, the mileage drops quite a bit. This is a bit different than other cars. Not that they also don't suffer from high speed but this car is a bit overtly reactive to speed. My best bet is: due to its advanced AWD system.
Observation #2: Tail winds, head winds do play a part. Significant part. It's with ANY car. So when Mr. A says got X mpg and Mr. Y says for the same route but on a different date got worse, check winds.
Observation #3: If doing city at around +40%, the mileage in my case REALLY drops to 24 mpg avg! This again I find a bit different from other cars. The difference between exclusive highway and heavy mix of city/highway is rather steep.
Observation #4: MPG really does improve after about 1500 miles and then again after 1st. oil change. I am yet to do 2nd., but was told there will be some improvement. However, its critical to use Mazda's 0W-20 Moly as part of 1st. oil change to observe this difference
Observation #1: This car is very, very sensitive to speed. I noticed when going above 70 mph, say 75 mph, the mileage drops quite a bit. This is a bit different than other cars. Not that they also don't suffer from high speed but this car is a bit overtly reactive to speed. My best bet is: due to its advanced AWD system.
Observation #2: Tail winds, head winds do play a part. Significant part. It's with ANY car. So when Mr. A says got X mpg and Mr. Y says for the same route but on a different date got worse, check winds.
Observation #3: If doing city at around +40%, the mileage in my case REALLY drops to 24 mpg avg! This again I find a bit different from other cars. The difference between exclusive highway and heavy mix of city/highway is rather steep.
Observation #4: MPG really does improve after about 1500 miles and then again after 1st. oil change. I am yet to do 2nd., but was told there will be some improvement. However, its critical to use Mazda's 0W-20 Moly as part of 1st. oil change to observe this difference
Totally agree with above post! ^^^^
Just got back from a 1500 mile trip these last 5 days.
I got anywhere from 27.3-33 MPG. Pretty proud of my best ever 33 MPG! It was achieved with three people in the car! Speeds were 45-60 MPH hilly roads. (Black Hills S.D. and 89 octane)
Worst mileage (27.32) was at 75-80 MPH with a strong cross wind.
This car gets excellent mileage when driven at/under 70 MPH.
Yes, I have a OV Tune on my car for 89 octane and requested better mileage under 2500 RPM.
Just got back from a 1500 mile trip these last 5 days.
I got anywhere from 27.3-33 MPG. Pretty proud of my best ever 33 MPG! It was achieved with three people in the car! Speeds were 45-60 MPH hilly roads. (Black Hills S.D. and 89 octane)
Worst mileage (27.32) was at 75-80 MPH with a strong cross wind.
This car gets excellent mileage when driven at/under 70 MPH.
Yes, I have a OV Tune on my car for 89 octane and requested better mileage under 2500 RPM.
This is true, but for me the speed under which it gets excellent millage changes from drive to drive.
For example, on road trips, sometimes I'll get excellent mileage (33MPG+) at ~80MPH, but other times in seemingly identical conditions I'll be looking at ~27MPG at the same speed.
If I keep my speed ~70 the millage is always good, but sometimes it stays good even as I speed up. Other times it really goes down the toilet at high speeds.
I don't really know what causes this variation, but my best guess would be that sometimes the engine runs rich to prevent knock.
Some drivers (Unobtanium for example) likely frequently enter the "rich" operation parameters and are unhappy with their mileage while others do not.
Last edited:
My gas mileage has been less than impressive, I have a 2016 GT FWD with 35k, have used Mazda Moly on every oil change , best gas mileage has been at 27-28 if I keep it under 65 , above 70 - 80, it drops significantly to around 23-24, the Mazda is extremely sensitive more than any other vehicle I have owned in regards to gas mileage, my 2014 Subaru XT with the 2.0 turbocharged engine had the same gas mileage as the Mazda at the same speeds even though it was rated at 23/28, for the ones getting 30 plus mpg , you must be driving under 60 .
