My guess is it makes them feel better as to why they're failing to reach EPA estimates. In every car forum I've been in, there's always a couple of those types. If you read through most mpg posts in this forum, more often than not people are happy and meeting EPA estimates. So I'd say those that say Mazda lied are the outliers with their experience.
2017 fuel economy
- Thread starter piotrek91
- Start date
My guess is it makes them feel better as to why they're failing to reach EPA estimates. In every car forum I've been in, there's always a couple of those types. If you read through most mpg posts in this forum, more often than not people are happy and meeting EPA estimates. So I'd say those that say Mazda lied are the outliers with their experience.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I may be an outlier, but I have never been on a forum with so many people who are outliers in this regard. Ever. Sure, a few people here and there fail to meet EPA consistently, but this forum takes the cake by a massive margin.
- :
- 2015 Mazda CX-5 Touring FWD
With a 2015 FWD Touring 2.5 liter over 23.588 miles, and 85 tank fill ups my average at the pump, is 28.1, on the dash it is 27.7. At 70 with the a/c on I will get 30/31. Yes the factory mileage can be hit. My 2013 2.0 Touring averaged 29.0 over 27,868 miles, with a number of tanks hitting 32 - 35. People that cannot get these figures are not driving economically. It really isn't that hard.
Considering this vehicle took over a substantial number of duties of a 15 MPG vehicle... I am more than content with my 27-28MPG average.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
The EPA highway rating for 2014 CX-5 2.5L FWD is 32 mpg; for 2016 CX-5 2.5L FWD is 33 mpg. So if your highway MPG is 30/31 which is still short of 32 from EPA estimate.
As I've said many times, don't accuse people who don't know how to drive economically! We're mostly experienced drivers for many years, and we know how to drive "economically"! And we did that with many other vehicles and have no problem to meet and beat EPA highway marks!
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
No, the EPA didn't change any of its process! The EPA merely issued a new guideline provides the automotive industry with detailed information about how EPA conducts audits of road load force values. The EPA defines road-load force as the force "imparted on a vehicle while driving at constant speed over a smooth level surface from sources such as tire rolling resistance, driveline losses, and aerodynamic drag." Getting these values correct is one key for EPA fuel economy rating that is closer to the real-world environment.
Mazda is not clean as far as lying its specifications, i.e. 1999 Miata and 2003 RX-8. When a car company maximizes its effort getting the best possible results under preset EPA test cycles but totally ignores the real-world fuel efficiency, I'd call it exaggeration. Although its EPA numbers may be fully complied to EPA's test guidelines at times, but it creates a false image to average consumers on its fuel economy in the real-world environment! This huge 5 mpg highway drop on 2017 Mazda6 can only prove that those smart Mazda engineers utilize every gray area of EPA test cycles with their all available features such as i-ELOOP and programming capabilities to achieve the best fuel economy data under preset test cycles, but once some of the gray areas removed, it exposes the true colors of Mazda6's fuel economy ratings, especially for the highway!
As this argument has been used many times, your one example doesn't represent all cases. I've seen enough evidence that Mazda SkyActiv Technology is very sensitive to driving variables and environments as far as fuel economy goes. The fuel economy also varies widely in the same model with SkyActiv Technology. I also saw very disappointing real-world fuel economy on SA-G turbo in new CX-9 as some owners experienced very poor gas mileage which is way off the EPA mark! Recent Motor Trend article, Mazda's New People Hauler Heads to the Track and Real MPG Lab, also stated this:
Motor Trend said:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I managed 31.x mpg one time. It involved coasting up hills, driving 55-60, and never exceeding 2,000rpm when accelerating. In short, it was absurd and not realistic of anyone's actual usage who doesn't like getting flipped off all the time or causing traffic flow problems.
I don't think this is correct. The EPA replaced past guidelines with new guidelines as well as update the recommended procedure, this is why so many vehicles are affected.
That Mazada totally ignores real-world fuel-economy is your opinion, which I don't share.
Regardless, no car company ever publicizes any fuel economy numbers other than the ones which are the result of the EPA test cycle, even if they think real world economy would be better. Perhaps you want to direct your ire at the EPA silly test, if you think it is not real-world driving test. With a better test from the government, consumers will benefit. I will welcome it. I would not call the result of the EPA test an exaggeration because Mazda simply follows the procedure dictated by the government.
Sure, there are always outliers and people with unreasonable expectations, but it seems that there are many CX-5 owners which are happy with their millage as well. For this reason, as well as Fuelly data, I don't think that the CX-5's numbers are exaggerated.
Regarding the 6 (which I don't own and I think you do not too), yes 5 MPG highway drop is shocking and I guess i-ELoop is not very effective, though it is a very nice innovation which should improve city and stop & go performance. Despite this, combined MPG has barely changed. I am not going to address the CX-9, which has a totally different engine, though I don't usually look at car magazines for real-world fuel economy numbers.
IMHO the engineers at Mazda did an excellent engineering job, which is why I bought this vehicle, my first ever Mazda. Is the CX-5 perfect? No. But it is, at least to me, a good balance of what is important to me at a good price. In fact, I know what is the fuel economy of my CX-5 and do not require the government to tell me what it is.
Last edited:
It's YRWEI52 that is the negative Nancy on this forum. He ALWAYS complains about anything and everything. I try and not read his posts any longer since he is Debbie Downer.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I don't think mazda lied. I just think they gamed it. Programmed the car to kill it in epa tests.
An example is what has been done by some companies in dod testing. They over gas and over spring the test rifles. They run great full of muck and sand. Who cares if recoil is worse and component life is less? They destroy sand tests...
Much the same as I think mazda gamed epa testing. Tune the valve events and rpm for maximum efficiency during testing parameters. Who cares if it's much worse than standard bell curve outside of that? See, my other vehicles followed a normal bell curve. My mazda, not so much. I think the skyactiv driveline has enough variable events, especially air and fuel related, to truly game this epa mess. And yiu see what happened when the epa test was tweaked just a little...boom...mazda crapped the bed.
An example is what has been done by some companies in dod testing. They over gas and over spring the test rifles. They run great full of muck and sand. Who cares if recoil is worse and component life is less? They destroy sand tests...
Much the same as I think mazda gamed epa testing. Tune the valve events and rpm for maximum efficiency during testing parameters. Who cares if it's much worse than standard bell curve outside of that? See, my other vehicles followed a normal bell curve. My mazda, not so much. I think the skyactiv driveline has enough variable events, especially air and fuel related, to truly game this epa mess. And yiu see what happened when the epa test was tweaked just a little...boom...mazda crapped the bed.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
There's no update of test procedures, but the new guidelines refine and clarify the procedures. Yeah many cars got affected, but none of them got affected that much as Mazda6!
You should be fully aware that there're many fuel economy standards and test procedures around the world other than EPA rating from the US; European Union, Japan, Australia, etc. to name a few. And EU fuel consumption numbers are often considerably lower than corresponding US EPA test results for the same vehicle.
The point is when the EPA refine and clarify the test procedures, Mazda6 suffered the huge drop on highway estimate while others suffer a lot less. It's the indication that Mazda fully utilize every gray area of establishing vehicle road-load force and dynamometer settings for the best results. Once some of the gray areas are refined and clarified, it exposes the true colors of Mazda6's fuel economy more than everybody else!
Well, I've been only criticizing EPA highway rating on AWD CX-5, but overall I'm satisfied with the gas mileage. Just several posts above the poster is satisfied with his best highway mpg at 30~31, but in fact his FWD CX-5 rated at 32 mpg on the highway.
Fuelly's data for CX-5 are mixed with FWD and AWD and there's no way to tell the fuel economy number for AWD only unless you manually examine them one by one.
The 2nd-gen CX-9 uses full SkyActiv Technology like Mazda6 and CX-5 plus a turbo. I'd say the fuel economy characteristic should be similar among the all, at least it's not "totally different"! Motor Trend has been doing real-world fuel economy test for the last 3~4 years. The result is credible to me and it's actually consistent with several reports by new CX-9 owners in CX-9 forum.
Apparently we agree upon this otherwise it wouldn't be like we both bought a CX-5 as our first Madza! In fact, I've been recommending all friends and families buying a CX-5 if they're in the market for a compact CUV. Luckily so far 6 had bought the CX-5 and one had bought a Mazda6 for the last 3 years.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Sorry I only bring up the fact and the honest opinion that I know. If you don't like them, you can either present your side of opinion or choose to bury your head in the sand. Either way it's fine with me.
"Negative Nancy"? "Debbie Downer"? You can read all of my posts and see if I "ALWAYS" complain about anything and everything! It's much better to bring up negative facts and opinions against a product than use negative comments for personal attacks! And it's funny that this "negative" thread about huge EPA downgrade on 2017 Mazda6 wasn't even started by me!buyingconstant7
Member
- :
- 2014 CX-5 GS AWD
I got 34mpg on my mountainous roadtrip...
That's government talk for what comes next replace and update sections in the procedure. These are their own words. It is a modified standard which affects many vehicles, especially in highway millage.
Not aware of all other world standards, though I think Australians also like the fuel economy and in some other countries 2L is the top gas engine ... so need to be careful about comparisons. In Australia the CX-5 is rated 31MPG and the 6 35MPG for combined cycle. So, higher than the US. I had the same impression regarding the EU, but I am not really following their ratings. Do you have other number to show?
I don't agree. I think the modified updated test affected 6's results more than others.
The reason for this, I believe, is that getting the very last few MPGs is very hard. If it was easy, we would have many vehicles which cross the 40 MPG level, without an electric motor. As drivers, we still expect at least same amount of power and to drive our cars fast and still be extremely efficient, even when we insist on inefficient form factor of a high riding vehicles that never leave the pavement and not getting a CVT etc. So, any additional load on the engine translates to loss of these last, hard to come-by MPGs.
If you had a gas-guzzler, where engineers never attempted to get high efficiency, then sure, it will not be as sensitive because it already gets crappy MPG.
In any case, I have no reason to believe ill-will or exaggeration in this case (but perhaps I don't know something). It is very likely that Mazda engineers will bring this number up again.
OR that you consider the variance and see that it is lower than comparable vehicles, like the CR-V and realize that FWD and AWD are not very far apart to get this variance.
I don't have data to say either way, however, this is an oversimplification.
Last edited:
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
During our 800-mile family trip last winter, I'd tried every means to get a better highway gas mileage. We have speed limit at 75 on the interstate, and I'd slowed down to 60 and the instant MPG readout was still showing between 28~29! The instant MPG had never reached 30 unless we're going to downhill. The overall MPG for the trip is close to 28 hand calculated with Shell regular gas and very conservative driving style. Honestly, I fully expect getting at least 30 mpg from our CX-5 for this annual family trip as we're always getting better than EPA highway estimate from all other vehicles we'd been driven for the same trip!
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
No roof rack and it's winter time in Texas so definitely no open windows and no AC. Even the load was the same as it's our annual family trip, unless some family members gained too much weight during holiday season without knowing...
Before the road trip I was skeptical about poor highway gas mileage reported by Unobtanium during his Texas trip as I was a true believer of the fuel efficiency technology brought by Mazda SkyActiv. But after my personal experience during our own road trip, in addition to many others had experienced in this forum, I now believe my expection is too high and the EPA highway estimated for an AWD CX-5 is "exaggerated"!
I do understand YMMV and it's just our CX-5 and some others unfortunately have an "out-of-spec" SkyActiv-G engine which is not as efficient as others! It's like Mazda rotary engines in the RX-7/8, some could get 17~18 mpg but others could only get 12!
I've been following Subaru owner forums for a while and remember the Impreza MPG thread. This car was rated 27/30/36 but many complained they barely get 26~27 combined. Some even got really bad 21 MPG. This thread was started at 2012 and is still going strong ...
People were complaining that they can't get to 36 no matter what they do.
At least there, Fuelly data supported these claims, people were only getting ~27.5 on average, well below the 30 combined.
In 2015 Subaru raised efficiency by 1/1/1 MPG and it really reflected in Fuelly as well, still 37 or even 36 is elusive for many.
People were complaining that they can't get to 36 no matter what they do.
At least there, Fuelly data supported these claims, people were only getting ~27.5 on average, well below the 30 combined.
In 2015 Subaru raised efficiency by 1/1/1 MPG and it really reflected in Fuelly as well, still 37 or even 36 is elusive for many.
