MPG...whats going on here?
- Thread starter VanguardX
- Start date
OP, I have a 2014 AWD 2.5 and I'm averaging ~20 MPG. I live in Chicago and do almost all city driving. It even dropped to 17.8 a couple days ago but went up to ~21.5 after a suburb highway ride. Overall, I averaged 20 MPG on my first tank of gas.
I'm assuming it's common knowledge that manual vs auto trans, FWD vs AWD, 2.0 vs 2.5 all make significant differences in MPG.
I'm assuming it's common knowledge that manual vs auto trans, FWD vs AWD, 2.0 vs 2.5 all make significant differences in MPG.
Last edited:
This is true, but when you go to the dealer, they want to say that all CX-5 get >30mpg. One even told me that the 2.5L gets the same as the 2.0L because the engine doesn't have to work as hard.
Mike, your statement is wrong.
See: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml
Specifically, the questions about
"Do EPA fuel economy estimates account for the use of ethanol blends that are common today? "
and
"Why don't EPA fuel economy tests use ethanol-blended gasoline now that most gasoline contains ethanol?"
Thanks for that. I was going by memory which clearly is not always accurate!
The trip computer calculates based on information stored from previous driving history. When you first pick up the car, there is no history. So the MPG is low. I didn't reset mine and the average comes up quickly as you add more miles. If its still like that after the 2nd tank of gas then I'd reset it like others have mentioned and see what the results are.
Keep it 55-65 and you will see a huge jump in mpg.
My last tank was about 60% freeway at 70-80mph, the rest city and suburban driving. That tank was MPG was 28.5 (hand calculation) which falls within range per EPA ratings on 2013 model year.
Excellent MPG for lux AWD SUV running AC entire tank in 80-95 degree weather.
Excellent MPG for lux AWD SUV running AC entire tank in 80-95 degree weather.
- :
- 23 CX-5 Premium
I'm always amazed when you refer to the CX-5 as "lux" or "near-lux"; especially in light of the fact that your other cars are a Merc and a Lexus. CX-5 has a lot going for it, but I would never characterize it as even near-luxury. Mazda just does not build cars in that category and there are far too many corners cut on this car to mistake it for that. And who would expect to get a luxury CUV for $25-$30k anyway?
Last edited:
The CX-5 (specifically the GT) is near-lux easily when compared to the highest volume sport sedans Benz, Lexus, BMW, Audi (which happen to be the compact sport sedans) and/or the GLK, Q5, X1, X3 compact SUV's. Of course the big price tag is missing, plus the more sophisticated engine power/refinement, power passenger seat, rear console vents, lighted door switches, struts to hold hood up, and premium name plates. Most of the corner-cutting of a Mazda CX-5 GT is quite similar to that in the higher volume premium cars today.
And that's exactly the point, only 1 version of the CX-5 is near-lux, and agreed just as it should be for a $30K GT w/tech pkg and AWD. (See my post earlier today, a recap of complaints about "lack of GT features" that have been posted in this forum over last year or so for giggles).
Oh I almost forgot (as it relates to topic here), the best-in-class CX-5 MPG.
Last edited:
- :
- 23 CX-5 Premium
This is exactly why many people in the industry despise the term "near-lux". It's a totally arbitrary marketing construct that allows manufacturers to compare a heavily optioned Chevy Impala to an S-class Mercedes and get away with it. In this case you're comparing a CX-5 GT AWD w/tech to a more expensive German car that was designed from the git-go with "all mod cons" and concluding they're somehow "near-equal", although by your own reckoning the Mazda lacks things like "more sophisticated engine power/refinement, power passenger seat, rear console vents, lighted door switches, struts to hold hood up, and premium name plates". I would also question your definition of the "near-premium" CX-5. The GT makes intuitive sense as it is the top of the range. AWD and tech? Those would be your choices, not necessarily mine. At that point, determining just how many option boxes checked defines "near-lux" becomes a moving target at best.
It's not a matter of what people in the industry despise, it's more a matter of what consumers prefer and buy in significant volume. I only mentioned AWD in the discussion because it pushes MSRP to the $30K price point, although premium automaker Audi thinks AWD is essential in US lux market for their particular brand (but that's more because they they don't want to be selling common FWD).
Near lux it is, not just my choice, but the choice of consumers and therefore the GT with Tech is a popular configuration. And agreed GT and Tech is the config that's top of range. This config allows me with 2 other premium cars in garage to get comfy going back and forth between the 3 vehicles with ease.
Yes, by my own description "more sophisticated engine power/refinement, power passenger seat, rear console vents, lighted door switches, struts to hold hood up, and premium name plates", those are the main things missing. And all except "more sophisticated engine power/refinement" are petty. The modestly powered w/modest refinement 2.0L/2.5L inline fours are downmarket and this is intentional because it gets the CX-5 best-in-class MPG, better MPG than any of the much more expensive premium branded compact SUVs.
Of course the "near-lux' term is subjective and not that important. But for those of us that drive premium cars on a regular basis (including Benz, Lexus, BMW, Jag, Audi, Porsche), the driving experience of GT w/Tech is hardly a hardship.
Even the term "Luxury" is vague so near-lux is pretty meaningless IMHO.
One definition could be such that BMW would be included in it. But you can't really compare a BMW 116i to an Alpina B7. Even more so in other brands.
Another definition could be the quality of workmanship. It is known that at least some European brands require more 'love' at the shop then Japanese brands. If it is only by the superficial surface materials owners actually touch but otherwise pretty much the same then it is fake as it sounds.
Some brands use more powerful engines, more gears, Torsen differentials, faster transmission or other mechanical components (N/A for the CX-5 for the most part). Most people don't really need these, but it is alluring to some buyers.
Companies woo customers by offering all sorts of technology that is commonly half-baked or otherwise not ideal, such as a Nav system that is small, costs too much and is not up to par with the best in the business (and you can't take it with you). IMHO this extra technology is petty. Most of which are offered on lowly models as well.
If I could instead pay more to get a vehicle without vibrating parts or one with better AWD system I would be more likely to consider it.
It is your money to spend, so do what you want with it.
One definition could be such that BMW would be included in it. But you can't really compare a BMW 116i to an Alpina B7. Even more so in other brands.
Another definition could be the quality of workmanship. It is known that at least some European brands require more 'love' at the shop then Japanese brands. If it is only by the superficial surface materials owners actually touch but otherwise pretty much the same then it is fake as it sounds.
Some brands use more powerful engines, more gears, Torsen differentials, faster transmission or other mechanical components (N/A for the CX-5 for the most part). Most people don't really need these, but it is alluring to some buyers.
Companies woo customers by offering all sorts of technology that is commonly half-baked or otherwise not ideal, such as a Nav system that is small, costs too much and is not up to par with the best in the business (and you can't take it with you). IMHO this extra technology is petty. Most of which are offered on lowly models as well.
If I could instead pay more to get a vehicle without vibrating parts or one with better AWD system I would be more likely to consider it.
It is your money to spend, so do what you want with it.
I am getting now just under 28 MPG with 33 MPH average. My commute includes stop-and-go traffic.
For the last 2 tanks the dash reading is exactly the same as the actual calculated MPG. I have measured also the inaccuracy in my odometer and found it to be around 1%, so I've decided to ignore it and read the odometer as is.
If I drive on a longer trip, the millage improves to around 30 MPG. On the other hand, if I drive more around town, it can drop to around 25 MPG.
While I believe I can improve millage over long trips, I can't make any real difference over my regular commute, unless I wait for the commute time to end. Looks like a lot of fuel is wasted in the first ~1.3 miles out of the driveway followed by some recovery.
BTW, my tachometer is 2~3 MPH lower than reality, especially in the 60 to 75 range. This is about opposite to my former ride. If the needle shows 70, I am actually at 72~73 MPH. This is a bit inconvenient but not a big deal.
For the last 2 tanks the dash reading is exactly the same as the actual calculated MPG. I have measured also the inaccuracy in my odometer and found it to be around 1%, so I've decided to ignore it and read the odometer as is.
If I drive on a longer trip, the millage improves to around 30 MPG. On the other hand, if I drive more around town, it can drop to around 25 MPG.
While I believe I can improve millage over long trips, I can't make any real difference over my regular commute, unless I wait for the commute time to end. Looks like a lot of fuel is wasted in the first ~1.3 miles out of the driveway followed by some recovery.
BTW, my tachometer is 2~3 MPH lower than reality, especially in the 60 to 75 range. This is about opposite to my former ride. If the needle shows 70, I am actually at 72~73 MPH. This is a bit inconvenient but not a big deal.
Better MPG than expected.
Luxury is not something I desire, usually it stands for superficial amenities, porky weight, overly soft suspension, etc. I want good handling, firm and composed ride, quiet and comfortable cabin, supportive seats, good climate control, fresh smell, useful features, good sounding stereo that is easy to operate, versatile cargo handling, excellent reliability, a versatile GPS and low operating cost. I got it all except for the versatile GPS. The excellent MPG more than makes up for what the GPS lacks.
First and quick! Totally agree with cxsv on the "near lux". Yes it is opinion, but I have the gt with tech and I feel it is not very far off, actually it is a value compared to entry lux vehicles.
I am definitly lower than EPA avg but not by much, a few miles a gallon or less depending on my highway time. Still I am not one to be all like "what the hell, where is my awesome mpg" when I know how I drive. Not that I am a lead foot, but I drive quick and have a lot of city mixed in. The mpg is great, even if you are not getting claimed with your driving style.
I am definitly lower than EPA avg but not by much, a few miles a gallon or less depending on my highway time. Still I am not one to be all like "what the hell, where is my awesome mpg" when I know how I drive. Not that I am a lead foot, but I drive quick and have a lot of city mixed in. The mpg is great, even if you are not getting claimed with your driving style.
