Gas Mileage issues...

[mr. roboto]

So I read in the USA Today article about the CX-7:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2006-04-27-cx-7_x.htm

...and it mentions that the CX-7 will run in an "emergency mode" while burning 87 octane fuel. My question is...why would they make a CUV that 'requires' premium gas? I know it's because the MazdaSpeed 6 engine requires high octane, but it's not like this thing is a Porsche Cayenne or a Range Rover Sport. I mean, this car is supposed to appeal to both a younger audience (mid 20's to 30's with not a ton of dispensable income) and practical thinking soccer moms....and it's going to cost us more at the pump? That doesn't seem so cost effective....why not buy a RAV4 or a new Ford Edge? Both, from what I understand run fine on 87.

Personally, I love the CX7 and will probably end up buying one....but this is a major sticking point while gas prices continue to soar ever day. I'll be trading in my Mitsu Endeavor SUV for it....but it doesn't sound like it's going to save me much $$$ by doing so. Maybe I should hold off until the new 2008 Nissan Altima Hybrid makes its way here....but, on the other hand, by the time that happens, we might have already started drilling for more oil in Alaska. Here's to hoping:)

[Vision67]

So I read in the USA Today article about the CX-7:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2006-04-27-cx-7_x.htm

...and it mentions that the CX-7 will run in an "emergency mode" while burning 87 octane fuel. My question is...why would they make a CUV that 'requires' premium gas? I know it's because the MazdaSpeed 6 engine requires high octane, but it's not like this thing is a Porsche Cayenne or a Range Rover Sport. I mean, this car is supposed to appeal to both a younger audience (mid 20's to 30's with not a ton of dispensable income) and practical thinking soccer moms....and it's going to cost us more at the pump? That doesn't seem so cost effective....why not buy a RAV4 or a new Ford Edge? Both, from what I understand run fine on 87.

Personally, I love the CX7 and will probably end up buying one....but this is a major sticking point while gas prices continue to soar ever day. I'll be trading in my Mitsu Endeavor SUV for it....but it doesn't sound like it's going to save me much $$$ by doing so. Maybe I should hold off until the new 2008 Nissan Altima Hybrid makes its way here....but, on the other hand, by the time that happens, we might have already started drilling for more oil in Alaska. Here's to hoping:)

The only free lunch is found in a mouse trap. :)

Turbocharging an engine vastly increases its volumetric efficiency and power density, but the cost is that it requires higher octane fuel to prevent detonation.

The metric you ought to consider is cost per mile. I'll bet its not more than the other cars you are considering.

If you can't afford the gas, get a cheaper car.(peep)

[syadasti]

According to Edmunds.com, the true cost to own (financing, fuel costs, maintenance, depreciation, repair, taxes&fees, and insurance) for a mid-upper 27K variant of either works out to $.53/mi for the regular 87 using RAV4 V6 CUV and $.56/mi for the premium 91 using CX-7 4cyl turbo DI CUV.

It cost 5% more per mi over the life of the vehicle or about $450 a year more assuming you drive 15000 miles a year and keep the car for 5 years. Thats not a lot of money. The use of premium versus regular is a false concern when you look at the complete scheme of vehicle ownership.

Also the CX7 is a high performance SUV easily surpassing those overweight "sports" luxury SUVs in handling and braking. In fact it virtual matches a WRX in slalom and beats in braking. Edmunds.com full test results:

2002 Subaru WRX AWD 3,085 lbs.
60-0 braking: 115 ft
Slalom: 64.5 mph

2007 Mazda CX-7 AWD 3929 lbs.
60-0 braking: 112.9 ft
Slalom: 64.3 mph

2006 Range Rover Sport Supercharged 4WD 5670 lbs.
60-0 braking: 115.63 ft
Slalom: 58.1 mph

2004 Porsche Cayenne Turbo AWD 5200 lbs.
60-0 braking: 116.34 ft
Slalom: 63.5 mph

(first)

[mr. roboto]

you guys rock...thanks for the info! Already making me feel better about my future purchase:)

[GAMacky]

Yet another report of only getting "16 MPG in suburban use".

[syadasti]

Yet another report of only getting "16 MPG in suburban use".

Check vehicle reviews on www.consumerguide.com - vehicles never get their EPA sticker and thats why for 2008 MY they will be revised downwards. If you look at various reviews of the new RAV4 V6, they are only getting between 16-19 mpg, so their EPA sticker of 21/28 doesn't mean jack in the real world either.

As Edmunds says, the true cost to own difference will only work out to less than $500/year and is the third most expensive part of total vehicle ownership, not the first or second...

[novAKs47]

Check vehicle reviews on www.consumerguide.com - vehicles never get their EPA sticker and thats why for 2008 MY they will be revised downwards. If you look at various reviews of the new RAV4 V6, they are only getting between 16-19 mpg, so their EPA sticker of 21/28 doesn't mean jack in the real world either.

As Edmunds says, the true cost to own difference will only work out to less than $500 and is the third most expensive part of total vehicle ownership, not the first or second...

Exactly! Show me a car that gets it's rated mileage. Even the Prius isn't getting anywhere near it's rated mileage(especially in city driving).

[mirt]

Exactly! Show me a car that gets it's rated mileage. Even the Prius isn't getting anywhere near it's rated mileage(especially in city driving).

"If you can't afford the gas, get a cheaper car."

I plan on doing just that...buying a different car. $450 at the end of the year buys a couple NICE gifts for someone...or a nice "toy" for me. Over 3 years it buys many more! Bad decision IMHO on the part of Mazda

[syadasti]

"If you can't afford the gas, get a cheaper car."

I plan on doing just that...buying a different car. $450 at the end of the year buys a couple NICE gifts for someone...or a nice "toy" for me. Over 3 years it buys many more! Bad decision IMHO on the part of Mazda

:bs:

Thats about $1.23 a day, the price of can of small can of soda from a vending machine or a snack from a convenience store.

Elminate some junk food from your diet and you'll be healthier with a better, safer (more standard safety equipment and better handling and braking to avoid accidents) crossover than the boring offerings from Honda or Toyota...

[mirt]

:bs:

Thats about $1.23 a day, the price of can of small can of soda from a vending machine or a snack from a convenience store.

Elminate some junk food from your diet and you'll be healthier with a better, safer (more standard safety equipment and better handling and braking to avoid accidents) crossover than the boring offerings from Honda or Toyota...



Why buy soda for $1.25 per can when you can get it on sale in a regular food store very easily for $.25 per can? Similar savings with snacks. For the soda, 50 work weeks per year, 5 days per work week, that's 250 work days per year. If you buy the soda on sale, and only drink one per day, that's an additional $250 per year I can spend on my "toy". Savings is greater if you drink more than one can of soda per day.

For commuters and mom's running erands, the extra price paid for premium fuel is extra money NOT well spent. Now if it's a second car and performance you're after, then the turbo engines are worth considering. But, most of us can't afford a second "play" vehicle, let alone the additional insurance cost. Again, just my humble opinion.

I'll choose a vehicle that cosumes 87 octane AND buy my groceries on sale, and NOT in a convenience store, and have more to spend on other items.

[Vision67]

Why buy soda for $1.25 per can when you can get it on sale in a regular food store very easily for $.25 per can? Similar savings with snacks. For the soda, 50 work weeks per year, 5 days per work week, that's 250 work days per year. If you buy the soda on sale, and only drink one per day, that's an additional $250 per year I can spend on my "toy". Savings is greater if you drink more than one can of soda per day.

For commuters and mom's running erands, the extra price paid for premium fuel is extra money NOT well spent. Now if it's a second car and performance you're after, then the turbo engines are worth considering. But, most of us can't afford a second "play" vehicle, let alone the additional insurance cost. Again, just my humble opinion.

I'll choose a vehicle that cosumes 87 octane AND buy my groceries on sale, and NOT in a convenience store, and have more to spend on other items.


Actually, if you want to minimize your cost of driving, buy a used car. You can get a 3 year old lease return for about half the cost of a new car. The largest cost of any car is depreciation. Fuel cost is way down the list.

[syadasti]

Actually, if you want to minimize your cost of driving, buy a used car. You can get a 3 year old lease return for about half the cost of a new car. The largest cost of any car is depreciation. Fuel cost is way down the list.

Yes CPO is a much more financially viable option than 87 vs. 91 octane using brand new cars. A new car is a terrible investment if you want to save money.

[mirt]

Actually, if you want to minimize your cost of driving, buy a used car. You can get a 3 year old lease return for about half the cost of a new car. The largest cost of any car is depreciation. Fuel cost is way down the list.


GREAT point Vision67!! My latest purchase, a 626, was used in fact. I got burned on 2 new vehicles (both Mazdas), that were 2 years old and got totalled in car accidents(neither was my fault). Since insurance pays only FMV, I lost my @$$. I admit, tho, it is nice to buy a new car.

[syadasti]

Its also been scientifically studied that its more ecologically responsible to buy used and keep repairing than to upgrade to a new cleaner/more efficient vehicle since 20-40% of resources a vehicle consumes in its lifetime occur before you even take ownership of the new vehicle.

[Vision67]

Its also been scientifically studied that its more ecologically responsible to buy used and keep repairing than to upgrade to a new cleaner/more efficient vehicle since 20-40% of resources a vehicle consumes in its lifetime occur before you even take ownership of the new vehicle.

If you are a good mechanic, with the resources available now on the internet, it's easy to maintain old cars. Personally, I'm still driving a 1995 Eagle Vision and it runs so well I can't bear to part with it. I use the website Dodgeintrepid.net to learn how to fix it when it breaks. (infrequently)

Although this car is worth only about $1K, it costs me only $23 per month. No need to carry collision and comp on an old car. License plate is $26 per year.(enguard)

A Mazda CX-7 has to be really good to convince me to actually buy one! (first)

[REMillers]

Exactly! Show me a car that gets it's rated mileage. Even the Prius isn't getting anywhere near it's rated mileage(especially in city driving).



Rx-8 :) we get the rated 18-24mpg (city/highway)

:)

[syadasti]

Rx-8 :) we get the rated 18-24mpg (city/highway)

:)

I doubt it.

A lot of people say that in forums about their car but don't actually calculate via compiling their fill-up receipts.

The EPA stickers are wrong on a majority of cars and are being revised downward for 2008 MY...

[lilarry]

My Jeep Grand Cherokee averages around 12 MPG. I am expecting the CX-7 to average around 16-17 MPG. For me, that is an increase in mileage of 33%. Premium fuel around here costs 20 cents a gallon more than regular, 7% or 8%, depending on how much they're ripping us off - err, I mean "charging" for gas on any given day. So even if actual mileage figures are way below EPA estimates, I figure I'll still be ahead of the game. Remember, this is still an SUV - it is not a Prius.

[stangmatt66]

Rx-8 :) we get the rated 18-24mpg (city/highway)

:)

Then either you keep it below 3000 RPM or you don't hit any traffic. I get 17mpg in my RX-8 whether I'm sitting in traffic, flying on the freeway or babying it around town.

[REMillers]

Then either you keep it below 3000 RPM or you don't hit any traffic. I get 17mpg in my RX-8 whether I'm sitting in traffic, flying on the freeway or babying it around town.

Typically I do 50/50 highway/town to work which is 72 miles one way.

Its strange how some get different mileages even if they do the same driving. Generally shift around 6k for everyday driving. On the highway generallly doing about 80-85 which is around 4k-4.5k rpms in 6th gear for half of those 72 miles.

Dunno but right now I'm about 20 miles away from the 300 mile mark and got 1/4 tank of gas. Generally I fill up at 240-260 miles and put anywhere between just over 12 gallons in.

It is capable of getting the rated mileages, and really 17...thats 1 off big whoop :)

[Sveivo]

Exactly! Show me a car that gets it's rated mileage. Even the Prius isn't getting anywhere near it's rated mileage(especially in city driving).
My car does.

[stangmatt66]

It is capable of getting the rated mileages, and really 17...thats 1 off big whoop :)

That's 17mpg COMBINED! If I drove purely in the city I would understand 17mpg, but driving both the freeway and city, combined 17mpg sucks!

[hooolala]

Check vehicle reviews on www.consumerguide.com - vehicles never get their EPA sticker and thats why for 2008 MY they will be revised downwards. If you look at various reviews of the new RAV4 V6, they are only getting between 16-19 mpg, so their EPA sticker of 21/28 doesn't mean jack in the real world either.

As Edmunds says, the true cost to own difference will only work out to less than $500/year and is the third most expensive part of total vehicle ownership, not the first or second...


i'm sorry.. but i'm getting average 24mpg on my new RAV4 V6 with 50/50 local/highway..

[Lord_Zath]

This is precisely the reason I'm really debating between CX-7 and 6 wagon. Either way I'll win, I figure. I'll be waiting a good two or so more years to make my decision, though - loving the p5 too much!

[Longhaul412]

This is precisely the reason I'm really debating between CX-7 and 6 wagon. Either way I'll win, I figure. I'll be waiting a good two or so more years to make my decision, though - loving the p5 too much!


My first opportunity to check the mileage in the CX-7 came this morning. Had exactly 21mpg. About a 50/50 mix city/hwy. I'm sure I've been a bit heavier on the gas foot as well, as I'm still breaking myself into the car and feeling out the quickness. For an SUV, 21 works for me.

[080669]

I'm sure I've been a bit heavier on the gas foot as well, as I'm still breaking myself into the car and feeling out the quickness.

I think that driving styles are going to matter a lot because of the turbo. Just driving to work today, I noticed I could either cause the turbo to kick in or not, while pretty much maintaining the same distance between me and the car in front.

On my 100 mile trip home from the dealership last night, I put the cruise on part of the way, and noticed the car stayed just under 2500 rpms at about 78mph. When I took the cruise off, my foot was unsteady enough that the rpms would climb into the turbo range then drop down, even though I was pretty much maintaining the same speeds.

(And if I've flubbed the #s and turbo doesn't kick in at 2500, someone feel free to yell at me.)

Anyway, that 100 miles brought the fuel gauge down from full to 3/4. I'm going to have to assume the car was topped off when I got it, and idiot that I was, I didn't reset the trip meter, so I'm going to have to assume it was reset when the car was topped off. Lot of assumptions there in my first tank.

[Lord_Zath]

yeah that is one advantage of the cx-7's 4 cylinder vs. the 6 wagon's 6 cylinder.

[kbrennan]

On a trip from Bakersfield to Los Angeles and back I got 23.9 MPG. This was using the cruise control and setting it +5 the speed limit. So average speed was somewhere in the neighborhood of 72 MPH. I was being very easy on the gas pedal during acceleration as I was trying for high mileage.

[cruzdreamer]

Then either you keep it below 3000 RPM or you don't hit any traffic. I get 17mpg in my RX-8 whether I'm sitting in traffic, flying on the freeway or babying it around town.
I get 17.5 on average in my RX 8......mostly around town....sticker said 19 I think.....I am ok with this I knew it might be less than stated. I have an automatic by the way. I am figuring about the same on the CX 7 should I decide on that over the Mazda5.

[G-Papi]

I got 368 miles on the current tank, but it's bone dry now. I'll post how much it takes to fill it. I've got 2900 miles on it.

BTW - When I shift and do one of my two-lane blacktop passing moves, I can actually watch the turbo suck the gas needle downwards.

[Lord_Zath]

wow that's crazy

[080669]

Yeah, 368 is amazing. I've gotten close to 300, but not over. But I usually fill up with near 1/4 tank remaining. My commute is 25 miles each way, and I don't like to fill up around work, or worry that there's a carbeque on the way, and my drive home unexpectedly takes an hour and a half, or something.

The two worst trips were when there was a jumper on the wilson bridge, and once when it was snowing. Those took over 2.5 hrs to go 30 miles. On 9/11, I stayed at work till like 9pm or something because I just assumed traffic would be horrible. (I live less than 10 mins from the Pentagon, if there's no traffic)

[G-Papi]

It's not really all that phenomenal. It took 17.3 gallons to fill it. By my calcs, that left .7 gallons in the tank. It also was at 371 miles on the trip. That''s an average of 21.45 mpg. Only about 40 miles was heavy city traffic, but the a/c was wide open the whole time.

All this leads me to one qonclusion, and one question.

1. Conclusion - not to run this empty again. Though it's relatively new now, and I presume there's no accumulation of sediment and what-not in the tank, I don't want to do it like that again.

2. Question - I did do something differently. Instead of running cruise control with the tranny in automatic, I made it a point to run it in the manual 6th gear. This prevented the transmission from making decisions to downshift on occasions where I didn't choose to do so. It kept the rpm's down, though I never let it really bog down. Those automatic downshifts at the last minute to make the last 20 yards over the crest of a minor hill were eliminated. Is this a difference maker (provided, again, that the motor isn't allowed to gog down?

[cruzdreamer]

Rx-8 :) we get the rated 18-24mpg (city/highway)

:)

I have an RX 8 and I am finally getting the rated mpg. I just had my best tank at 19.1 mpg....mostly city driving! I was averaging 17.5 mpg for a long time and now with 35,000+ miles on the car it's gone up again. Depends on how you drive and conditions.....I am expecting to get similiar MPG on the CX7. I was hoping for better gas mileage on the CX7 but the extra $ is worth it to me for the style and most of all fun to drive aspect of this car...it's Zoom, Zoom with great utility!!!!!

[Protege52003]

I'll be waiting a good two or so more years to make my decision, though - loving the p5 too much!

i am starting to feel this way about my P5. we have a love-hate relationship and she has been nice to me recently. plus i will own her soon. no monthly payments will be nice!

[Lord_Zath]

It's not really all that phenomenal. It took 17.3 gallons to fill it. By my calcs, that left .7 gallons in the tank. It also was at 371 miles on the trip. That''s an average of 21.45 mpg. Only about 40 miles was heavy city traffic, but the a/c was wide open the whole time.

All this leads me to one qonclusion, and one question.

1. Conclusion - not to run this empty again. Though it's relatively new now, and I presume there's no accumulation of sediment and what-not in the tank, I don't want to do it like that again.

2. Question - I did do something differently. Instead of running cruise control with the tranny in automatic, I made it a point to run it in the manual 6th gear. This prevented the transmission from making decisions to downshift on occasions where I didn't choose to do so. It kept the rpm's down, though I never let it really bog down. Those automatic downshifts at the last minute to make the last 20 yards over the crest of a minor hill were eliminated. Is this a difference maker (provided, again, that the motor isn't allowed to gog down?

I noticed the same thing w/my cruise control. I've also kept it in 4th gear (my highest gear) while going up hills. That or I just disengaged CC and took the hill myself. I'm not sure if that leads to any fuel savings or not...