- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I tried e free. Zero difference.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Very disapointing fuel economy from recent roadtrip...
- Thread starter buyingconstant7
- Start date
I tried e free. Zero difference.
Good discussion. Pretty good consensus that mileage drops quite fast after 65 or 70 mph or with a load (incline or wind). I've been happy with the in-town and lower speed (40 to 55 mph 2 lane road) mileage. Would have liked to have a less steep drop off in mileage with increasing highway speed, but it's the nature of this particular beast.
caverunner17
Member
- :
- 2014 6MT Sport
I had exactly the same feeling of OP's mom, as the gas mileage was fine during daily city driving, and we're expecting much better MPGs for the long highway trip. But the outcome from the trip was very disappointing, not much better or even worse than what we can get from daily city driving!
Forget about all the science you guys are thrown in. They are irrelevant to our complaints because we're comparing different compact CUVs under similar condition and environment on the highway. Also the compared vehicles are a lot easier to meet EPA's highway estimates if we really tried. OP's mom made 1,700-mile trip and was getting 25 mpg. OP said his mom's 2014 CX-5 AWD, comparing to her previous VW Tiguan, a compact CUV, had unsatisfactory gas mileage during her recent long trip. Unobtanium made a long Texas trip and was getting 24~25 mpg. Comparing to his previous Jeep, gas mileage is unsatisfactory. We made 800-mile trip to Houston and Austin and was getting 26~27 mpg. Comparing to our Honda CR-V AWD, we also experienced unsatisfactory gas mileage during this trip! I could never see anything close to EPA's 30 mpg highway mark no matter how hard I'd tried.
People who have outstanding gas mileage (30+ mpg) on 2.5L CX-5 are either have FWD or their 2.5L SA-G's somehow been manufactured more efficient than others. They also failed to mention when we're complaining about the MPG on CX-5, we're comparing to other vehicles doing the trip in similar conditions.
Yeah, let's throw out all that wizardry and go back to doing rain dances. (ugh)
Fact:
- The CX-5 is an SUV with a large frontal area
- The faster you go over ~60-65mph, the worse your gas mileage will be
- Wind speed and elevation changes DO matter
I hit 41MPG on Friday for a 90 mile stretch from Chicago to Milwaukee. There was traffic and I was limited at around 60 mph. On the way back, I was averaging around 34MPG going 75. Now, yes, I have the 6MT FWD, but still, 15mph can make a huge difference.
That being said, I find the CX-5 to be just as efficient (actually, a little more so) than my old 2013 Hyundai Elantra GT Hatchback (same size as the Mazda 3 hatch). My average fill ups had me at around 31MPG with a 50/50 mix. After 3 fill ups on the same commute with my CX-5, I've averaged around 32MPG with a car that is 400lbs more and has about 30% more interior space.
iced_theater
Member
I did lose 1-2 mpg when they stopped carrying ethanol free gas. I also lost another 1-2 mpg when I put on heavier wheels and tires.
B-ham Gary
Member
- :
- 2016 CX-5 Touring AWD
Well, I've run it in multiple vehicles and never seen a difference. 87 octane has more energy than 93, by the way...ever notice yours drop when you run 93? Hmmmm?
Not true, I'm afraid. Both premium and regular have about the same BTUs. Additives may make a difference, but it's not much.
Not true, I'm afraid. Both premium and regular have about the same BTUs. Additives may make a difference, but it's not much.
The 91+ octane fuel is less prone to detonate (self-ignite) in high compression engines. 87 octane will sometimes ignite without a spark, just based on heat, it can self-ignite.
- :
- 2015 Mazda CX-5 Touring FWD
There are still gas stations that carry Ethanol free gas. Check out http://www.pure-gas.org/.
My reference point, FWIW, was a 2002 Acura TL sedan. Heavy car. Once you were on the highway, 70+mph was 2000rpm. Mileage was 31.5 at 70. Same at 75. Less when you went to 60mph - best mileage was above 65 up to 75. But city was like 17 to 19 mpg.
The CX 5 seems to be very efficient in the city environment, also at lower highway speeds. Based on my Acura experience, I would anticipate 35 mpg on the highway since in-town is over 20 mpg. But this is a different animal. Since it is an AWD CUV, big car, 30 mpg on the highway at 70 is acceptable, if we get that. 22 to 24 mpg at 80 mph may be the nature of the beast. At 80 the Acura may have gotten 25 or 26 or more. Different car, more steamlined, tuned for the highway. CX is different.
The CX 5 seems to be very efficient in the city environment, also at lower highway speeds. Based on my Acura experience, I would anticipate 35 mpg on the highway since in-town is over 20 mpg. But this is a different animal. Since it is an AWD CUV, big car, 30 mpg on the highway at 70 is acceptable, if we get that. 22 to 24 mpg at 80 mph may be the nature of the beast. At 80 the Acura may have gotten 25 or 26 or more. Different car, more steamlined, tuned for the highway. CX is different.
B-ham Gary
Member
- :
- 2016 CX-5 Touring AWD
There are still gas stations that carry Ethanol free gas. Check out http://www.pure-gas.org/.
We slowly lost all our options out this way. Only one station with a dedicated ethanol-free pump within 10-15 miles... and it's ~$1/gallon more than premium. Bummer.
My reference point, FWIW, was a 2002 Acura TL sedan. Heavy car. Once you were on the highway, 70+mph was 2000rpm. Mileage was 31.5 at 70. Same at 75. Less when you went to 60mph - best mileage was above 65 up to 75. But city was like 17 to 19 mpg.
The CX 5 seems to be very efficient in the city environment, also at lower highway speeds. Based on my Acura experience, I would anticipate 35 mpg on the highway since in-town is over 20 mpg. But this is a different animal. Since it is an AWD CUV, big car, 30 mpg on the highway at 70 is acceptable, if we get that. 22 to 24 mpg at 80 mph may be the nature of the beast. At 80 the Acura may have gotten 25 or 26 or more. Different car, more steamlined, tuned for the highway. CX is different.
A sedan is going to have better mpg, all other things equal, simply because of the shape of the body. A good comparison would be the Mazda 6 vs the cx-5. Same platform, same engine but the 6 is rated at 38 highway. CX-5 is ~200 lbs heavier (~340 AWD), but that's not going to make much of a difference on the highway.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
We slowly lost all our options out this way. Only one station with a dedicated ethanol-free pump within 10-15 miles... and it's ~$1/gallon more than premium. Bummer.
I have tons of E-Free gas. It's something like $1.90/gal for the 87. Zero improvement in my 370Z, HEMI Jeep, or the CX-5. BTDT.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
A sedan is going to have better mpg, all other things equal, simply because of the shape of the body. A good comparison would be the Mazda 6 vs the cx-5. Same platform, same engine but the 6 is rated at 38 highway. CX-5 is ~200 lbs heavier (~340 AWD), but that's not going to make much of a difference on the highway.
Yeah, but people have bigger SUV's than the CX5, and are hitting EPA doing 70+, that's the "problem". We come from a domestic SUV that gets it done, and this little import ain't cuttin' it as for meeting our expectations, given our experiences. Go compare a WK Jeep to the CX-5 for frontal area, cD, etc. and get back to me on how that's "an excuse" for the CX-5 sucking.
"Hitting EPA" at 70+ is actually exceeding EPA, which maxes out at 60 mph. The evidence I've read in people's posts here make it pretty clear that the CX-5 does meet EPA highway at 60. I wonder if some of the vehicles that you've owned that exceeded EPA were geared for real world results rather than maximizing EPA highway mileage? My Volvo 854T with a top speed over 150 mph got better mileage at 80 than 60.
Yeah, but people have bigger SUV's than the CX5, and are hitting EPA doing 70+, that's the "problem". We come from a domestic SUV that gets it done, and this little import ain't cuttin' it as for meeting our expectations, given our experiences. Go compare a WK Jeep to the CX-5 for frontal area, cD, etc. and get back to me on how that's "an excuse" for the CX-5 sucking.
Okay cool dude.
Here's data...a lot of it, from Fuelly. 2016 CX-5 2.5L's avg 26 combined. EPA estimate is 26 for AWD, 29 for FWD. http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/cx-5?engineconfig_id=53&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=
I don't know what year or model your Jeep was. EPA adjusts the tests over time, so who knows how valid your one datapoint is. Let's use Fuelly. http://www.fuelly.com/car/jeep/wrangler
About 17 mpg for the past few years. EPA estimates 18. However, there are many more cx-5's than Wranglers of recent years. Either way, its about a 5% difference.
"Hitting EPA" at 70+ is actually exceeding EPA, which maxes out at 60 mph. The evidence I've read in people's posts here make it pretty clear that the CX-5 does meet EPA highway at 60. I wonder if some of the vehicles that you've owned that exceeded EPA were geared for real world results rather than maximizing EPA highway mileage? My Volvo 854T with a top speed over 150 mph got better mileage at 80 than 60.
Or driving pattern was simply different than EPA. If you drive a CX-5 on the highway at 60 mph for most of your miles, you'll exceed the rating.
Yeah, but people have bigger SUV's than the CX5, and are hitting EPA doing 70+, that's the "problem". We come from a domestic SUV that gets it done, and this little import ain't cuttin' it as for meeting our expectations, given our experiences. Go compare a WK Jeep to the CX-5 for frontal area, cD, etc. and get back to me on how that's "an excuse" for the CX-5 sucking.
Did you make manual MPG calculations for both cars? If not, why should we think the measurements are accurate at all?
To substantiate a claim like this you'd need more accurate data, better not just one vehicle (e.g. maybe yours is broken?). Sorry, but 1 sample is just meaningless and relying on inaccurate dashboard gauge for this makes all this just pointless.
Also, it is ridiculous to compare a gas-guzzler, with no efficiency what so ever, to a CX-5, on fuel economy when speeding. It is not meaningful at all.
Compare the MPG distribution of a direct competitor with similar configuration, the CR-V vs. the CX-5.
What you notice is that the CX-5's fuel-ups bars close to the average are higher then their neighbors, where as the CR-V gets higher bars away from the average, by a little bit (compare 22MPG bar at the CR-V is almost 1/2 that of the average, same bar for the CX-5 is clearly less than 1/2 the average). This implies a higher variance for the CR-V. Now, I am sure some people on fuelly drive faster than 75MPH on a daily basis, for both CR-V and CX-5 groups, only that the CX-5 distribution is somewhat tighter around the average.
If the CX-5 was finicky about getting best MPG in only very narrow set of conditions, the distribution would have shown it. It does not.
This is based on 128 different vehicles and 7470 fuel-ups for the CX-5, not 1 sample.
Did my first manual calculation today when fill up today. Car mpg average display stated 29.7. Hand calculation came out to 30.2. So my hand calculation was more! Never had that happen in my previous cars. So I'll be doing a couple more calculations to see. But yeah, the cx5 is without a doubt capable of great gas mileage.
caverunner17
Member
- :
- 2014 6MT Sport
I think I read the EPA is changing the tests again and it'll be reflected in the 2017 model year. It'll be interesting to see how the test changed and if the results are more realistic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What's realistic? You can easily beat the EPA numbers if you drive slower. Am I going to drive 15MPH slower on a 1000 mile trip to get an extra 5MPG? no. But I would drive 2-3MPH slower if it meant going from 34 to 36 or 37 something, which sometimes is the case.
B-ham Gary
Member
- :
- 2016 CX-5 Touring AWD
Did my first manual calculation today when fill up today. Car mpg average display stated 29.7. Hand calculation came out to 30.2. So my hand calculation was more! Never had that happen in my previous cars. So I'll be doing a couple more calculations to see. But yeah, the cx5 is without a doubt capable of great gas mileage.
My experience too. You would think that the OE calculated mpg would be optimistic, but it's conservative. I've been comparing it to hand-calcs and actual mpg is typically 0.2 to 0.7 mpg better than the display over the 11k miles I've driven thus far.
