Real Bad Gas Mileage!

[1Sleepy93]

If you aren't filling up with the needle directly on E, you're just filling up too soon. :p LOL

I routinely stick about 16.x gallons in the tank.

[mikey1981]

yea im at a routine 15.8/16.1 gallon fillups.

At first I thought the aggressive driving would kill the tank, but in reality, u might as well drive like how youd want to drive vs trying for consumption. What is 1 MPG worth to you working this truck thru city streets? You can either drive like you actually care about MPG (which is flat out boring and not the point of this car) or u can really get into it and enjoy your driving, to me, the difference in MPG (city driving) aggresive vs conservative is minimal, if non existant. You will get low numbers driving in the city no matter what style you want to call your drive thats just how this truck works.

[Alpha Wolf]

Seems odd.

I have yet to get the warning light on as I usually fill up around 1/4 tank and have gone over 255 miles and still not light 50/50 highway/city.

Now I think it is mostly how people drive. Because as soon as my wife takes if for a drive, the same amount of gas is used for 211 miles as she constantly kicks in the turbo and makes fast starts and hard merges as she like the feel of it going.

[mikey1981]

maybe this is a misconception amongst people, but turbo is always flowing, its not like there is an on/off button.

[Alpha Wolf]

maybe this is a misconception amongst people, but turbo is always flowing, its not like there is an on/off button.


Obviously you fail understand the basic operating principles of a turbo charger.

A turbo charger is driven by exaust gases.. These gases work on vanes within the rotor and housing of a a turbo to cause the central portion to spin. One the other side of the turbo are more vanes that are within the air intake portion of the engine. Here it acts as a pump.

While the turbo charger is indeed always spinning at some speed. It does not create boost, ie an increase in intake manifold pressure over standard atmospheric pressure, until the turbo is spinning at a high enough speed that the vanes in the intake track can cause this increase in pressure over atmospheric pressure on the output side. This characteristic is what causes "TURBO LAG". An increase in volume of air going into an engine requires and equal increase in the amount of gas in order to maintain the proper air/fuel ratio for efficient combustion. This increase in necessary fuel means higher fuel consumption. So boosting your engine effectively makes is larger. Large engines require more fuel. Hence poorer mileage.

In our cars this speed is reached when the engine rpm reaches 2,500 rpm. At that rpm, there is enough hot exhaust gas being produced to spin the turbo fast enough to increase the pressure in the engines intake ports. Below that the engine is not being boosted and hence strained. When you boost an engine you create increased heat and pressure to create the increase in power. This increases stresses and loads on rings, bearings, connecting rods, , crankshaft, pistons, etc... Turbos allow you create power when needed but to then allow the engine to operate in an unboosted mode for higher economy and longer life.

Also to increase velocity enough to create boost at idle you must reduce the turbo exhaust intake sufficiently along with redesigned vanes to create enough velocity to spin the turbo fast enough to boost. The problem is now the max flow capacity of the exhaust intake to the turbo is now reduced. Meaning you create less power at higher rpms. Our cars intake track to the turbo is smaller than that on the Mazda 6 to create boost 500 rpm sooner to reduce turbo lag and boost torque at the lower end of the operating range. This change cost us about 30 hp in top end HP as a trade off.

So if you hit the gas hard enough to get the engine to 2500 and above each gear, you will greatly increase your fuel consumption. You are now feeding fuel to match the now increased air volume going into the engine. More air, more fuel.

So by driving lightly and shifting early and keeping the rpms below 2500 you will greatly increase you fuel economy. In this rpm range it will act like the tiny 2.3 liter motor without a turbo, just don't expect it to jump like a 5 liter V8 would if you hit the gas while in this rpm range.

To get power, manually downshift until rpms are 3,000 rpms or higher then hit it.

If you want high power at low engine speeds you need a bigger engine, nitrous or a supercharger driven by the crankshaft.

[azcat]

I agree with you on most of your other points, but this one, not really. My last three tanks MPG has been 14.79, 13.12 and 13.03... even if what you say is true and I might have used a gallon less of gas than I thought, it would only change those numbers by about 1 MPG. My last fill up the car took 15.04 gallons of gas... but let's assume I ACTUALLY only used 14.04 gallons... My MPG would still only be 13.96 MPG for the 196 miles I drove.

I do agree that for the best accuracy you have to try to get the tank full the same way every time... I don't know about you, but I have a HARD TIME at some gas stations just getting the nozzle to nessle in there properly. A lot of the pumps at stations around here have those stupid rubber/plastic flexi-things around the nozzle and it's a tight fit on the Mazda (and a real pain in the a$s).

I am truly sorry that you have to deal with the "save the whales and icebergs for Jesus" fuel filler thingies.

My fuel low light comes on mostly when I have over 300 miles on one tank. I really, honestly, respectfully think that you're not getting it full. Or, you're filling up with Al Gore approved, low global warming, high ethanol fuel. Or maybe Exxon is just screwing y'all in the the Northeast. Really. Why these crazy differences in mpg?

I've quit driving with my foot in the intake (not that you do, still respectful), and my mpg is the same or better than the previous 2.7 liter AWD Hyundai Santa Fe. I'm still happy.

"Variability is the enemy." What are you doing different to cause these differences in mpg? Different stations? Different pumps? Too damn cold to mess around with filling it? 13 mpg?? I mean, really, I got better than that with my 1999 4x4 Dodge Dakota with the Full Testosterone V-8 Package. What's changed????

[CXRabbit]

LOL Azcat (re: iceburgs for jesus)

Oh, we are living with 10% ethanol fuel here in NY and "winter mix" gas and it's certainly hurting the numbers. I've tried filling up at different stations and do the best I can to get it full. And I get the gallons in I expect to based on what the gauge is reading. When the light is on I get almost 16 gallons in, and really, that's just about right.

I know my numbers are so low at least partially because I do so much around-town, stop-n-go, short distance driving. It KILLS the mileage. Only time I got over 18 mpg was when there was some significant highway time (I guessed around 40%). Some of it's probably the winter gas. Some of it's probably that I like turbo boost. I wonder if some of it has to do with the latest PCM update (but I've gotta get on the highway more to prove that).

13 mpg hurts... but ultimately I didn't buy the car for it's efficiency (luckily I wasn't counting on 20 mpg).

[mikey1981]

Obviously you fail understand the basic operating principles of a turbo charger.

A turbo charger is driven by exaust gases.. These gases work on vanes within the rotor and housing of a a turbo to cause the central portion to spin. One the other side of the turbo are more vanes that are within the air intake portion of the engine. Here it acts as a pump.

While the turbo charger is indeed always spinning at some speed. It does not create boost, ie an increase in intake manifold pressure over standard atmospheric pressure, until the turbo is spinning at a high enough speed that the vanes in the intake track can cause this increase in pressure over atmospheric pressure on the output side. This characteristic is what causes "TURBO LAG". An increase in volume of air going into an engine requires and equal increase in the amount of gas in order to maintain the proper air/fuel ratio for efficient combustion. This increase in necessary fuel means higher fuel consumption. So boosting your engine effectively makes is larger. Large engines require more fuel. Hence poorer mileage.

In our cars this speed is reached when the engine rpm reaches 2,500 rpm. At that rpm, there is enough hot exhaust gas being produced to spin the turbo fast enough to increase the pressure in the engines intake ports. Below that the engine is not being boosted and hence strained. When you boost an engine you create increased heat and pressure to create the increase in power. This increases stresses and loads on rings, bearings, connecting rods, , crankshaft, pistons, etc... Turbos allow you create power when needed but to then allow the engine to operate in an unboosted mode for higher economy and longer life.

Also to increase velocity enough to create boost at idle you must reduce the turbo exhaust intake sufficiently along with redesigned vanes to create enough velocity to spin the turbo fast enough to boost. The problem is now the max flow capacity of the exhaust intake to the turbo is now reduced. Meaning you create less power at higher rpms. Our cars intake track to the turbo is smaller than that on the Mazda 6 to create boost 500 rpm sooner to reduce turbo lag and boost torque at the lower end of the operating range. This change cost us about 30 hp in top end HP as a trade off.

So if you hit the gas hard enough to get the engine to 2500 and above each gear, you will greatly increase your fuel consumption. You are now feeding fuel to match the now increased air volume going into the engine. More air, more fuel.

So by driving lightly and shifting early and keeping the rpms below 2500 you will greatly increase you fuel economy. In this rpm range it will act like the tiny 2.3 liter motor without a turbo, just don't expect it to jump like a 5 liter V8 would if you hit the gas while in this rpm range.

To get power, manually downshift until rpms are 3,000 rpms or higher then hit it.

If you want high power at low engine speeds you need a bigger engine, nitrous or a supercharger driven by the crankshaft.

so far its been my experience with this car, that it really doesnt go anywhere UNTIL you reach 2, 2.5k , so IN ESSENCE, the turbo is flowing. Mazda , since most of us already know, released that update to send power under 2k. This would mean to me that unless you were riding down a hill, the turbo was kicking while you were moving at all times.

Moving the CX-7 and under 2.5/2k really dont go in the same sentence for city driving. Highway, then obviously you wont be reving the engine unless ur lane changing.

90% of my driving is in the city, and this truck just doesnt coast down streets under 2k

[mikey1981]

thanks for the long winded and 32423423 post about how turbos work, tho

[Alpha Wolf]

I have had mine flashed.

The ECM does not control turbo speed unless it uses movable vanes which as far as I know it doesn't. It does appear to control transmission auto shift points, fuel, and ignition timing.

It appears that when stock the engine would quickly shift into 5th in town doing 35mph. Now it will not go into 5th in town. 4th is max. It also stays in lower gears longer even when light footing the gas. So now it takes extremely light foot to keep it from hitting the 2,500 rpm magic turbo speed rpm.

They did not "speed up boost" as this is still a function of engine rpm which controls the volume of exhaust gases hitting the turbo vanes. But by changing the fuel and ignition they have boosted some power down low and the tranny now appears to stay in lower gears longer, again helping to get you to the magic 2,500 rpm number sooner. The result is to allow you to get to 2,500 quicker even at small throttle positions.

While this smooths the turbo hit, I would guess it will also mean you will need even more restraint on the gas pedel as now it will go into boost by hitting 2,500 sooner. In auto mode it seems to hit 2,000 rpm regardless of how easy you touch the gas.

So this will make it a smoother driving car. But I fear it will make it even harder to get 24mpg than before.

Just my thoughts. (hi)

[CXRabbit]

Alpha, that's a good description and assessment, and so far in my experience, there HAS been a fuel efficiency hit. Since I was able to do more highway miles on my last tank of gas, I got a better feel for it as compared to before I had the update done, and my MPG have definitely been worse.

Problem is, it's also been real cold here too, so I can't really say how MUCH of an efficiency hit there is.

[ssteigss]

Alpha, that's a good description and assessment, and so far in my experience, there HAS been a fuel efficiency hit. Since I was able to do more highway miles on my last tank of gas, I got a better feel for it as compared to before I had the update done, and my MPG have definitely been worse.

Problem is, it's also been real cold here too, so I can't really say how MUCH of an efficiency hit there is.

Here is an interesting websight on the outside effects on gas mileage. Particularly the section on cold weather. This may help to answer why Mileage has been poor. Its been 5 degress the last 2 days in Boston. Some things that many dont consider includes the fact that if you have a short commute your mileage will be significantly worse. My wife only goes about 7 miles to work. By the time she gets there the car is probably at optimum operating temp for about 5% of her drive.(especially in freezing temps).
I have also seen many complain that they are doing 70MPH all highway so they should be getting great Mileage.. The article points out that doing 70MPH vs 55Mph will reduce you MPG by at least 12%
Lots more info at the site.

http://www.artsautomotive.com/Mileage.htm

[CXRabbit]

I've read all that and do understand that cold and driving habit effect the mileage, and sometimes in big ways.

But I know for me, I'm referring to the DIFFERENCE within the last few weeks, while my driving distance and style remain the same. The only change has been the cold weather and the update. According to that article, cold weather could account for 5.3% decrease in efficiency. If that were all I was experiencing I'd be losing less than 1 MPG in nearly identical driving conditions/distance. The difference I've seen is more like 2-4 MPG.

Not discounting you or other possibilities at all... I realize cold weather may be partially to blame... it's just that I've seen a pretty drastic drop-off in mileage... but it's hard to know for sure what's causing it.

[9Hooker]

from the above link:


1) Fuel atomizes poorly when cold. The fuel must be atomized to be burned in the combustion chamber. If a smaller percentage of the fuel atomizes, more fuel must be added to provide enough atomized fuel to burn. Therefore all cars run a "rich" mixture when they are cold, the colder the engine, the richer the mixture. The engine will eventually warm to operating temperature (about 190 deg. F), but the colder the engine is, the longer it will take. Even after the engine is fully warmed up, cold ambient air will continue to cool as it mixes with the fuel, causing poor atomization.

I don't buy into this really. There's no hard data behind it. I would be more inclined to believe if there were some numbers... like the nitrogen tire pressure thread.

190 deg F (generally on most cars) is the temperature at which the thermostat opens letting coolant that has absorbed heat from the cylinder walls and head out of those places and into the radiator, and coolant from the radiator into the motor to absorb more heat. Cylinder wall/head temperatures are considerably higher, factoring in things like specific heats and the temperature differential of the coolant in the radiator. Why 190? Well water boils at 212 (210??), and even with coolant and system pressurization the boiling point is not going up too high. It could be considerably higher. General aviation uses air (and oil) cooling for their motors, and they run about twice that temperature.

[dmitrik4]

what kind of numbers are you looking for? the premise behind that paragraph is sound. it's not purporting to calculate what effect a given drop in temperature is going to create. the fuel is cold all the way through the injector, regardless of cylinder wall temp.

[erhayes]

Has anyone reported on their gas mileage under the following conditions? Engine broken in for 5,000+ miles, tires at recomended pressure, relative flat country and a 200+ mile highway trip using cruise at a given speed like 65 or 70 or 75 mph? If one is on the turbo frequently then I expect the gas millage to be down. WOW bad run on sentence But hay it is that kind of day. LOL

[azcat]

Has anyone reported on their gas mileage under the following conditions? Engine broken in for 5,000+ miles, tires at recomended pressure, relative flat country and a 200+ mile highway trip using cruise at a given speed like 65 or 70 or 75 mph? If one is on the turbo frequently then I expect the gas millage to be down. WOW bad run on sentence But hay it is that kind of day. LOL

Well, yeah, somewhere I did; I thought it was in this thread. Under those conditions (5k+ miles, relatively flat, cruise on 74, no hard acceleration), I got 23 mpg, and I've got AWD. I haven't had the "smooth" ECU mod. I think, with the same conditions except the cruise set on 65 or less, one could get the "estimated" 24 mpg, provided one didn't get a semi in one's tailgate. However, since I couldn't use the same pump at the same station, the "long fill/short fill" thing might have skewed the results.

[9Hooker]

t's not purporting to calculate what effect a given drop in temperature is going to create.

Not trying to be argumentative here, but in the article he does claim that 50% of potential gas mileage can be recouped/lost by some means or other. I don't put any stock in that. Well maybe some speculative stock, but no more than 20% of my portfolio.

His statement is "Fuel atomizes poorly when cold". Can that be proven? I'm sure it can but I'm too lazy to do the google search and the author doesn't give any evidence to back it up. Until someone can back it up one way or another I will believe his premise is false.

Talk about what you know right...

So then airplanes (surprise I went there, right?) have fuel tanks in their wings right... It's really REALLY cold at altitude. The airflow over the wings FURTHER cools the fuel to below ambient (fuel from internal tanks is recirculated to the wing tanks to further cool it). Why would they do this if it atomizes more poorer (sic).

There is not the same energy potential in fuel regardless of temperature. As temperature goes UP, fuel expands. For any given volume of fuel, there is more energy contained the colder the fuel is.

Then there is the issue of viscosity of fuel vs temperature... but if the pumps and injectors are doing their jobs it should be a non issue.

And this does not take into consideration the winter/summer fuel mixture and energy of a given volume of each.

[dmitrik4]

you're not being argumentative. :) in all honesty, i only read that paragraph, not the whole article. i was speaking only to the proposition that heated fuel atomizes (and thus combusts) more efficiently. here's the link to an abstract of a paper regarding fuel atomization and temperature.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987abe..symp..193W


"the overall effect of an increase in fuel temperature is to reduce the mean drop size and broaden the distribution of drop sizes in the spray. Generally, it is found that the influence of fuel temperature on mean drop size is far more pronounced for diesel oil than for gasoline. For both fuels the beneficial effect of higher fuel temperatures on atomization quality is sensibly independent of ambient air pressure."

i've been out of engineering school for a while, so i was worried that my memory had failed on that point. but smaller drop size results in a greater surface area ratio, which aids in vaporization, and thus combustion, of the fuel.

automotive gasoline engines running around sea level are hugely different from aviation gas turbines using diesel or jet fuel at altitude. the conditions both inside and outside the engines, not to mention the engineering considerations, are so different that drawing a comparison between the two isn't particularly helpful. however, i would doubt that cooling the jet fuel is done for fuel efficiency reasons; it might be a safety thing, b/c cool fuel is more stable (less vapor = less chance of unintended combustion).

[9Hooker]

but smaller drop size results in a greater surface area ratio, which aids in vaporization, and thus combustion, of the fuel.


I can drink to that!

[PuroMexicano]

11.60 mpg on my third tank, I'm really pissed off, (pissed)

Well, I hope it gets better.

BTW, I have a slightly heavy foot (glare)

UDPATE

The next tank went up to 12.65.

The tank I filled out today went up again to 15.85 !!!!

Still not enough but a lot better!!!!

[BostonAmy]

2nd fill up: 15.7 MPG....better than my 14 MPG i used to average on my mountaineer

[CXRabbit]

Latest tank: 16.23 mpg. That's with about 30/70 percent city/highway.

[xavier]

Im still getting around 12 - 13 mpg. Ive averaged about 6 tanks so far.

[nkabak]

Nay, not so!!! Sayeth the Gummamint.(bowdown)
The new stats show that most of us are actually getting what the new info shows.(sad2)

For a really good site on gas and related items go to www.automotive.com

[CXRabbit]

Actually, I'm getting more like 14 city, not sure on purely highway, but 18 combined.

[Int3grity]

F*** Shell I am getting 12mpg this time on the So call V Power going back to sunocco

[Joffar]

F*** Shell I am getting 12mpg this time on the So call V Power going back to sunocco
You sure its not your driving?? ;)
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123662208

[Int3grity]

one quick race to see how the car performs surely this would not result in 12mpg

[9Hooker]

lol @ one quick race. You get it's a 4000# brick right? And on premium gas..

The more I think about it, the more that Honda Pilot, Toyota Rav4, or even the Hyundai Santa Fe look like better options than this piece from an economic standpoint.

I still enjoy driving it just not the pain I feel at the pump for 19.1 mpg (my average over 6000 miles) premium. How in the hell do you guys get less than 16... Even SoCal stop and go/80mph stints the car has never gotten below 16mpg.

[Top Jimmy]

lol @ one quick race. You get it's a 4000# brick right? And on premium gas..

The more I think about it, the more that Honda Pilot, Toyota Rav4, or even the Hyundai Santa Fe look like better options than this piece from an economic standpoint.

I still enjoy driving it just not the pain I feel at the pump for 19.1 mpg (my average over 6000 miles) premium. How in the hell do you guys get less than 16... Even SoCal stop and go/80mph stints the car has never gotten below 16mpg.

I don't get it when people say, "I get 19.1 (or whatever)....How in the hell do you guys get less than 16." Are you trying to insinuate there is something wrong with our vehicle? Well, there is nothing wrong with mine and I get 14.5-15mpg doing almost all short trip (under 6 miles) city driving. Dude, it is what it is. You said yourself, it is a 4000 pound brick. Shit, I hate that I only get what I get as far as gas mileage goes, but I try not to bitch about it too much. And there you are bitching about pretty decent gas mileage (19.1), after you specifically noted that this thing weighs a lot.

I don't get it man. Maybe it's just me.

[mikey1981]

The more I think about it, the more that Honda Pilot, Toyota Rav4, or even the Hyundai Santa Fe look like better options than this piece from an economic standpoint.



i hope ur joking here

2 people in my office have pilots and they get 12-14mpg add to that, the driving experience most resembles a school bus in terms of excitement u just have to be kidding me.

[mikey1981]

said it a million times, there is nothing on the road for the money and direct comparison that drives handles and performs better than the cx-7. and with MPG in the 17-22 mpg range, WHAT R U PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT LOL. u want good mpg, go buy a V4 rav or a crv and coast in th right lane at 55 mph. Doing everything that the 7 does with the MPG that it makes is awesome. the tradeoff in MPG & driving excitement is not as big as some people on here make it sound.
i mean hell, the mazda 6 V6 loaner i had ate gas almost as quick as my 7 and beyond a nice little engine, my final thoughts about the car- it sucked.

the complaints about teh MPG really need to stop. if ur getting 12-13, complain all day, but if ur getting 17+ in this then just shut up already. the new epa is 17 city so urgetting exactly what is stated.

[UpNorth]

I agree and hope he was joking. Had I wanted the economic option, I would have gotten the CRV and perhaps been bored to tears.

I find it quite easy to get low mileage, what with my almost completely city driving, very cold weather and inability to purchase anything higher than 90 octane in state.

I bought the car because of the styling and it being such a kick to drive. The mileage was important to me only to the extent that it is reasonably respectable, so I wouldn't feel like a total boor.

[meanstreak]

lol @ one quick race. You get it's a 4000# brick right? And on premium gas..

The more I think about it, the more that Honda Pilot, Toyota Rav4, or even the Hyundai Santa Fe look like better options than this piece from an economic standpoint.

I still enjoy driving it just not the pain I feel at the pump for 19.1 mpg (my average over 6000 miles) premium. How in the hell do you guys get less than 16... Even SoCal stop and go/80mph stints the car has never gotten below 16mpg.
I don't think the Honda Pilot will do much better in gas mileage and it drives like a boat. I was able to move the steering wheel from left to right several inches with no change in steering. Whe I pointed it out to the salesman he tried to tell me that it was designed that way to prevent any sudden bodyroll. I doubt it but I'll bet most people buy into that....LOL

[meanstreak]

said it a million times, there is nothing on the road for the money and direct comparison that drives handles and performs better than the cx-7. and with MPG in the 17-22 mpg range, WHAT R U PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT LOL. u want good mpg, go buy a V4 rav or a crv and coast in th right lane at 55 mph. Doing everything that the 7 does with the MPG that it makes is awesome. the tradeoff in MPG & driving excitement is not as big as some people on here make it sound.
i mean hell, the mazda 6 V6 loaner i had ate gas almost as quick as my 7 and beyond a nice little engine, my final thoughts about the car- it sucked.

the complaints about teh MPG really need to stop. if ur getting 12-13, complain all day, but if ur getting 17+ in this then just shut up already. the new epa is 17 city so urgetting exactly what is stated.
More like a "Boston Whaler" than a schoolbus. LOL

[meanstreak]

I agree and hope he was joking. Had I wanted the economic option, I would have gotten the CRV and perhaps been bored to tears.

I find it quite easy to get low mileage, what with my almost completely city driving, very cold weather and inability to purchase anything higher than 90 octane in state.

I bought the car because of the styling and it being such a kick to drive. The mileage was important to me only to the extent that it is reasonably respectable, so I wouldn't feel like a total boor.

CRV "Civic Recreational Vehicle" I really tried to like it during the test drive but the mere thought of driving that thing for 4 years or more brings shivers to my spine.

I've learned that if you do a lot of driving it's real important to like what you drive. There is nothing like taking a 2 or 3 hour trip and feeling like you only been driving an hour or so. I get that experiance from my Jetta and from my CX7 because they were built for people who enjoy driving. You can tell how much fun it is to drive because my wife no longer minds taking the wheel and in fact sometimes she actually insists on driving. Sorry, but life's too short to drive something boring and the extra money I spend in gas just means a little less I'll leave behind when I meet the "Great Architech" some day. Me, I'd rather spend my kids inheritance.

[9Hooker]

In order to get 19mpg I to drive like the average Joe. In my mind if that's how I drive to get 19, in order to get sub 16 my brain (logically) thinks that the driver conveniently forgets it's a 4000# brick and treats it like a Honda Civic circa 1999-2000. Sure it's peppy in 1st and 2nd gear, I agree! Apparently I'm not content unless I'm bitching about something and in this case it's the mileage and that it uses premium. I would almost consider the Ford variant with the V6 and regular pump gas.


The pilot has MUCH more room standard 3rd row seating, is generally bigger and has more creature comforts (as I recall when test driving one) than the base CX-7 which is what I own. As a matter of fact aside from the smaller size I thought the Rav4 was probably the nicest to ride in.

For comparo, I drove:
Hyundai Santa Fe, Tuscon (AWD)
Subaru Forester (AWD)
Honda CRV, Pilot (AWD)
Mazda CX-7 (AWD)
Ford Escape (AWD) & Hybrid (ripoff BTW)
Toyota Rav4 (AWD)
Nissan Xterra

Why the 7? Who knows. It's a good thing it's a 2 year lease.

As for mileage figures... if I had seen 16/21 instead of 18/23 I can assuredly say I would be on a Honda or Toyota forum right now.

[UpNorth]

Different things are important to different people. The most important thing is to find what makes you happy. If the smile at the gas pump is what does it for you, then this may not be the right car. But I know I'm smiling in all six gears as I drive my CX-7 sport.

In my price range, this was the most fun and had the right mix of features and utility.

We all have to make that assessment for ourselves, based on what matters to us.

And if complaining makes you happy as you round out your lease, more power to you too. Venting is good for the soul too sometimes. We're lucky we don't often have real problems on this forum.

[9Hooker]

Well kind of my point. I don't suppose any of us (except the post whores) would come here just to post up:

Everything is going fine today, will check back tomorrow.

[CXRabbit]

Well let me just say:

Everything is going fine today...

LOL

Anyway, while I'd like to be getting better gas mileage, I decided a few weeks back not to let it get to me. I LOVE the zoom zoom of this car, and that comes with a price.

It's also easier for me not to let it bug me when I don't have a long commute most of the time -- but of course, ask me again in the middle of July when I'm doing 80 miles a day taking my daughter back and forth to camp (thank GOD it will be all highway miles!)

[nkabak]

[QUOTE=CXRabbit]Well let me just say:"

Everything is going fine today...

Oh Ya!!(boom06)

Price of 93 octane today is 2.92 per gallon.
Ten days ago it was 2.59
Is anyone making money on this? It ain't all going into taxes!!!

It's also easier for me not to let it bug me when I don't have a long commute most of the time -- but of course, ask me again in the middle of July when I'm doing 80 miles a day taking my daughter back and forth to camp (thank GOD it will be all highway miles!

Long Island Expressway AKA LIE is worlds longest parking lot. LOL
Both the Northern and Souther State Parkways are almost as bad .

Happy Motoring!!

[9Hooker]

checking in
all is well on saturday
cx7 still a pig
9Hooker out

[UpNorth]

(lol2)
checking in
all is well on saturday
cx7 still a pig
9Hooker out

Good man. Thanks for laugh.

[meanstreak]

(lol2)

Good man. Thanks for laugh.
Not only is my 7 getting good mileage but the CEL lght went out the other day about 2 or 3 days before I brought it in for service. That was the longest it had been out since it started coming on and offdue to code P2006. On Thursday they reset the computer and so far it has not come on. They are waiting for a part... supposedly a stronger spring??

[mikey1981]

In order to get 19mpg I to drive like the average Joe. In my mind if that's how I drive to get 19, in order to get sub 16 my brain (logically) thinks that the driver conveniently forgets it's a 4000# brick and treats it like a Honda Civic circa 1999-2000. Sure it's peppy in 1st and 2nd gear, I agree! Apparently I'm not content unless I'm bitching about something and in this case it's the mileage and that it uses premium. I would almost consider the Ford variant with the V6 and regular pump gas.


The pilot has MUCH more room standard 3rd row seating, is generally bigger and has more creature comforts (as I recall when test driving one) than the base CX-7 which is what I own. As a matter of fact aside from the smaller size I thought the Rav4 was probably the nicest to ride in.

For comparo, I drove:
Hyundai Santa Fe, Tuscon (AWD)
Subaru Forester (AWD)
Honda CRV, Pilot (AWD)
Mazda CX-7 (AWD)
Ford Escape (AWD) & Hybrid (ripoff BTW)
Toyota Rav4 (AWD)
Nissan Xterra

Why the 7? Who knows. It's a good thing it's a 2 year lease.

As for mileage figures... if I had seen 16/21 instead of 18/23 I can assuredly say I would be on a Honda or Toyota forum right now.

why r u comparing a Pilot to a cx7? ur comments are focused on how the pilot stackcs up against ur bsae cx7. and, why did u buy a 7? No kidding the Pilot is MUCH much bigger with more storage etc etc is a large suv w/a 3rd row. take the pilot comparo talk to the cx9 board. with alot less storage aside, your BASE mazda will smoke a v4 rav, crv, AND the pilot. you buy a 7 cuz u like to drive not cuz u want to carry a fam of 4+ a dog and the kitchen sink.

[9Hooker]

you buy a 7 cuz u like to drive not cuz u want to carry a fam of 4+ a dog and the kitchen sink.


For you maybe. I have 2 dogs that I carry around to the park, a wife, and have moved across country 3 times in as many years. I took them all to Montana this year in the 7 along with the proverbial kitchen sink. This was my "we need something bigger than the VW Golf hatch and I just bought that damn Honda Civic for you honey" vehicle.

Oh, and I pay ~$250/month for the 7, so it trumped the nicer more gas friendly cars. It offsets the gas a bit.

[mikey1981]

For you maybe. I have 2 dogs that I carry around to the park, a wife, and have moved across country 3 times in as many years. I took them all to Montana this year in the 7 along with the proverbial kitchen sink. This was my "we need something bigger than the VW Golf hatch and I just bought that damn Honda Civic for you honey" vehicle.

Oh, and I pay ~$250/month for the 7, so it trumped the nicer more gas friendly cars. It offsets the gas a bit.

given your description, you should have bought a base Pilot on clearance or something.

[Otto]

For you maybe. I have 2 dogs that I carry around to the park, a wife, and have moved across country 3 times in as many years. I took them all to Montana this year in the 7 along with the proverbial kitchen sink. This was my "we need something bigger than the VW Golf hatch and I just bought that damn Honda Civic for you honey" vehicle.

Oh, and I pay ~$250/month for the 7, so it trumped the nicer more gas friendly cars. It offsets the gas a bit.
I don't exactly follow you here... first off, if you look at 4,000+ pound vehicles with 200+ hp and AWD, they all get roughly the same mileage. Some are a little worse, some a little better but on the whole, you're pushing a 2-ton brick through air and it's gonna eat gas, no matter what engine you put in it (save for diesels).

Second, as has already been pointed out, the CX-7 is not in same class as most of the vehicles you mention. You cannot compare 5-passenger to 7-passenger in terms of cargo volume. As for gas consumption, the AWD Pilots are known to get 12-13 mpg city, FYI. It seems like you bought the wrong vehicle, given that you needed more cargo room... not bashing here, as everyone's needs and wants are different, I just don't see a point in the compariosns you make.

[9Hooker]

given your description, you should have bought a base Pilot on clearance or something.


Ah yes, but the price the price...

And as for 5 pass/7pass... the Rav4 offers 3rd row seating as well as being standard on the Pilot. The Rav4 is smaller than the 7 to boot. It's not an option I would ever use for anything so the point is moo (a cow's opinion).

I think I made the right decision on the 7. Had I bought anything else, I would easily find something to complain about too. You don't see me posting about how crappy the interior is, or how X or Y. My only pet peeves are 1) Premium gas and 2) Mileage. Again, the price I pay offsets the extra tank or the $2 per fill up.

[jdm4lyf9]

im agree with you!! I had an msp before that one has the worst milleage gas but i knew that if i get the cx-7 it will be the same or worst but either way i love this SUV and that for me matters!!! and yeah stop complaing enjoy your SUV !!!
My msp gets great gas mileage and I floor it quite a bit.

[PuroMexicano]

UDPATE

The next tank went up to 12.65.

The tank I filled out today went up again to 15.85 !!!!

Still not enough but a lot better!!!!

Another UPDATE, this tank went up to 17.73, I have to say that it was with a lot more highway driving than usual. (ricer)

[CXRabbit]

I was up this time to 17.25 MPG - and I think the change was mostly due to warmer weather and more highway driving last week.

[nkabak]

I was up this time to 17.25 MPG - and I think the change was mostly due to warmer weather and more highway driving last week.

I know that we are all complaining about the mileage we are getting in the Northeast. However, is it the temp or the gas that is the villian?

We are expecting (-10-20 degrees) farenheit
for the next few days, lets see if it is indeed the temp!

[9Hooker]

what part of the year do the oil companies go back to "summer formula" fuel?

edit: things still fine today.

[cruzdreamer]

Don't know where we are at on this....my latest numbers...mostly city driving...18.75mpg. Using remote start alot too. I am usually always between 18.5-20 mpg city....average driving I'd say. Gas went up lately huh....what amonth ago it was $2.04 and now it's $2.74 in Chicago burbs!

[9Hooker]

booo, i just paid 3.08 in san diego this afternoon, on base!

[Int3grity]

MY MPG has gone down the shit hole after ecu update but I suppose it makes up for the lag because that was annoying. I LOVE THIS CAR... Can't stress that enough wish it had a pinch more power and better on gas however but wow mazda did a good job on this car drives like a dream.

not to mention the style and looks you get when someone see's you.

[r07cx7]

my gas mileage was crappy around 14 - 15 mpg switched to royal purple oil synthetic mileage is now between 19 - 20 in the city

[BadakVT]

My mileage has been improving a lot lately... It could really be the temperature. I was getting 20-21 mpg when i bought the car back in november. Comes january i was getting around 15-17. Now im getting back to 19-20. I just got the PCM update as well.

[mwr577]

what part of the year do the oil companies go back to "summer formula" fuel?

edit: things still fine today.

With unleaded there is no summer vs winter mix other than some stations may add up tp 10% of ethanol during extream cold, but that is a normal mix in a lot of areas all year long.
Diesel has a winter mix they blend it with a lighter fule to prevent geling.

[Platonium]

With unleaded there is no summer vs winter mix other than some stations may add up tp 10% of ethanol during extream cold, but that is a normal mix in a lot of areas all year long.
Diesel has a winter mix they blend it with a lighter fule to prevent geling.

Actually, this is not true. From Wikipedia:

Oxygenate blending adds oxygen to the fuel in oxygen-bearing compounds such as MTBE, ethanol and ETBE, and so reduces the amount of carbon monoxide and unburned fuel in the exhaust gas, thus reducing smog. In many areas throughout the US oxygenate blending is mandatory. For example, in Southern California, fuel must contain 2% oxygen by weight. The resulting fuel is often known as reformulated gasoline (RFG) or oxygenated gasoline.

In the midwest, we switch to this gas in the winter. On the coasts, it is typical year-round.

[Nash04]

If it wasn't for the gas mileage, this baby would be great!! But getting 18mpg on the hwy and paying around $3.00 a gallon, it gets to be pretty expensive. You can not blame the EPA for what is advertise on the MSRP sticker since they also get thei info from Mazda themselves. So basically some of us got screw by the misleading MPG info. Don't get me wrong, the vehicle is very good but for the price that I paid, could have bought the RV4 with V6 engine and have better mpg.

Also for some of the members in this forums, we are still allowed to say/write what we want in a nice matter, right! It's hard to sell your car back when you won't get enough to payoff the loan!!! or else I would!

[dmitrik4]

You can not blame the EPA for what is advertise on the MSRP sticker since they also get thei info from Mazda themselves. So basically some of us got screw by the misleading MPG info.

no, they do NOT. the EPA does its own testing and puts those numbers on the sticker. Mazda has NOTHING to do with it.


Not only is my 7 getting good mileage but the CEL lght went out the other day about 2 or 3 days before I brought it in for service. That was the longest it had been out since it started coming on and offdue to code P2006. On Thursday they reset the computer and so far it has not come on. They are waiting for a part... supposedly a stronger spring??

i just had a CEL fixed...intake manifold solenoid valve, i think. my light went on, then off, then flashed on for a few hours, and was off when we took it in.

EDIT: just got 17.3 on my last tank, whihc was 1/3 super-short (2 miles round trip) commuting and 2/3 fast (80-90mph) highway cruising, which the 7 is SOOO good at.

[HeavyH20]

All the nothern states should be moving to summer gas at this time, so mileage should improve. Winter gas is usually mandated by by local laws, and is nothing more than MTBE enhanced gasoline that has a lower boiling point. This is necessary for the gas to properly vaporize within the combustion chamber. The problem is, that as you add the oxygenate to the gasoline, you get less gas per gallon. So, couple that with thicker oil, longer idle times to warm up, and we go through gas much faster. A 20% hit can be expected. So, here's hoping for a little better mileage. :)

[mikey1981]

so i took a look at my window sticker the other nite, and you know how there were certain people up in arms over the stated numbers? (18/24) I forgot that ON THE WINDOW STICKER, it states, in clear black bold print, right under the big mileage numbers: cars within this category, you should expect to average between 15mpg+ etc etc. just thought that after 21 pages of bad gas mileage, that this was pretty much a beat to death topic over something that is on the window sticker, telling you what to expect. (obviously, people getting something like 12+, thats a diff story)

[9Hooker]

cars in the category... not the CX-7 in particular.

look at the honda civic, it will say cars get 60 mpg in this category...

[mikey1981]

exactly. which also means, take the numbers with a grain of salt cuz they dont mean shit. and, at the same time, those people who do trust the window sticker and expect specific results should read the finer print. they are exactly what they say, an estimate, nothing more nothing less. there are so many intangibles when calculating gas mileage that it just makes no sense.

all i know is, i now have a new explorer as a loaner. this piece of shit is getting 13.9 miles to the gallon. along with that, it drives like a school bus, and sucks at mostly everything. on the bright side, its pretty quiet other than the wind up toy car sound of whatever engine it has. im jealous of everyone driving their 7 right now.

[UpNorth]

I bought my AWD sport in January. Most of my driving is in town and with the cold weather and my use of my remote start, I was getting a modest 13-14 mpg.

The weather is now creeping into the 40s and I took my first road trip, 223 miles each way though winding mountain roads. Much to my delight, I averaged about 22 mpg. And I had FUN doing it, even in the rain on the way home. I drove much of the trip between 65-70 mph, occasionally faster. (Passing through towns was of course slower.)

This was using Chevron's 90 octane, which is as good as I can get up here. I am very impressed with the numbers and the performance I got this weekend. What a ride.

I can't wait for my next real road trip. (Mikey, I hope you get yours back soon.)

[Lord_Zath]

I think that 2008 models are now under new EPA standards and testing methods. So we'll probably see mileage drop across the board.