"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.
Did you make manual MPG calculations for both cars? If not, why should we think the measurements are accurate at all?
Yes, I did. The Jeep was relatively "on", within 0.5mpg typically, while my CX-5 is a bit pessimistic by 1mpg.
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.
"Maybe my CX-5 is broken". Well, that's pretty bad, huh? It's "broken" even though no SES lights are on, it runs smoothly, etc. Either you're very wrong, or Mazda has magic gremlins.
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.
I'd not consider my Jeep a gas guzzler. I got around 16mpg out of it during my daily commute while the CX-5 does 22.5. That's not really offputting to me.
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.
Who knows? It's hard to say, because there isn't a "highway only" comparison.
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.
With your personal calculations you're relying on an inconsistent variable, that is the volume of fuel pumped before the nozzle shutoff mechanism stops the pumping. Those are most certainly not created equal between varying nozzles and fill up stations.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.
With your personal calculations you're relying on an inconsistent variable, that is the volume of fuel pumped before the nozzle shutoff mechanism stops the pumping. Those are most certainly not created equal between varying nozzles and fill up stations.
I can tell you at 75 MPH the instant readings I see are much better (27~30), as long as the road is flat, no strong wind etc. To get an instant reading of 21 MPG I need to climb a small hill or accelerate.
Perhaps something is wrong with your vehicle? Or maybe your gauge is not working properly?
That is what I've been telling people. The area I live in is VERY hilly. That ENTIRE VIDEO was made on inclines and declines, hence the instant read-outs you saw. The inclines and declines stretch for miles. People on this forum, by and large, can't wrap their heads around it, and the video supports what I've been saying about NWA. It's one big hill. Literally. However, my complaints for mileage come from driving across Louisiana and Texas, too. Not just here.
Why are you stuck on instant mpg so much? It means absolutely nothing. You should be concerned with the average. Getting 15mpg going up a hill, than 45mpg going down a hill means absolutely nothing. It's your average that means everything. I also live in a very hilly area. I still average about 30mpg 50/50 driving.
That is what I've been telling people. The area I live in is VERY hilly. That ENTIRE VIDEO was made on inclines and declines, hence the instant read-outs you saw. The inclines and declines stretch for miles. People on this forum, by and large, can't wrap their heads around it, and the video supports what I've been saying about NWA. It's one big hill. Literally. However, my complaints for mileage come from driving across Louisiana and Texas, too. Not just here.
... but on the way down I get 99MPG instant reading for a while.
Driving to Tahoe, a ~7000 ft climb, and back still can get me respectable numbers ~28 MPG or even ~30 MPG if I drive through roads with 55 MPH limit part of the way. Hell, even just the up direction gets me 24~25 MPG (keep in mind 130 miles are relatively flat, 70 miles are uphill).
So, perhaps you have a problem in your vehicle?
These cars get s*** for mileage after 60mph. At 60, I can hit EPA ratings just fine. NOONE drives 60 though, unless they want to get in a wreck.
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.
These cars get s*** for mileage after 60mph. At 60, I can hit EPA ratings just fine. NOONE drives 60 though, unless they want to get in a wreck.
No. I don't regularly drive 60MPH on the highway and many others do not as well.
Look again at the distribution of MPG on > 100 of CX-5s. Your car is an outlier. Many drivers get very good fuel economy, whereas you, along with a small subset of other drivers, get lower MPG. Some of these drivers might be 100% city with short trips, so you belong to even a smaller subset of drivers which do mostly highway, yet get low average MPG.
The question is why your experience is different and not common?
Nah. They don't. Who knows why yours does, or you think it does. You seem to have a lot of issues. Pity.
Well, we have one of two conclusions. One, it just is what it is, or two, Mazda puts out junk vehicles that throw no SES codes, drive great, and have zero indicators of being junk except for having terrible mileage. Not very convincing, that latter. My mileage mirrors every other person who posts on here, who has a vehicle the same as mine, who is being honest about things, from what I've seen. For example, my mileage was in the mid 26's today, measured highway only, average speed 71mph per the read-out. That also seems to be what the vehicle is rated at per another chart posted. This is 3+ mpg short of the EPA sticker for highway, and I'm used to HITTING the EPA rating on the highway.
I challenge anyone to take their AWD 2.5L CX5 out, and make a 2-way trip over the same stretch of highway averaging 70+mph speed, and then to post up pictures of the mileage and average speed showing 29+mpg.
I guess you missed my post with all the data from other drivers (literally hundreds) that contradicts you. I'll copy/paste.
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
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.
Never owned a Wrangler, dunno anything about 'em.
That said, there are people on this board who poke along at 55-60mph. I figure they offset people like me, who drive 75-80 keeping pace with traffic.
You said a Jeep, so I picked a Wrangler. Let us know what year/model your Jeep was and look on Fuelly.
Again, that is hundreds of datapoints that contradict your claims. I don't know whats up with your car or how you drive it or whatever... but most people get mileage that is good and within 5% of EPA.
