Very disapointing fuel economy from recent roadtrip...

[buyingconstant7]

Going faster and decreased gas mileage? Yup that's a correlation that will be found in every vehicle around. But for your numbers, something is wrong. 10mpg difference with going just 10mph faster or slower should not be happening. I'm trying to think what else could be causing that. Hauling a bunch of stuff in your vehicle? How many passengers? Wind?

I'll be brutally honest, there was a TON of stuff on board the CX-5 as we were travelling for Christmas. No wind though, just cold temps and a heavy load. There was not one cubic inch of room left for anything else with 3 people on board. I'm just reporting what the computer tells me, and from what I can tell it's usually pretty accurate, if not a bit pessimistic. It was a 300 mile drive and hand calculated tank mileage was 32mpg, which the computer underestimated again. I'll have to dig through my fuelly logs to find out exactly, but it was very impressive, however low speeds did help.

 

[craigo]

I'll be brutally honest, there was a TON of stuff on board the CX-5 as we were travelling for Christmas. No wind though, just cold temps and a heavy load. There was not one cubic inch of room left for anything else with 3 people on board. I'm just reporting what the computer tells me, and from what I can tell it's usually pretty accurate, if not a bit pessimistic. It was a 300 mile drive and hand calculated tank mileage was 32mpg, which the computer underestimated again. I'll have to dig through my fuelly logs to find out exactly, but it was very impressive, however low speeds did help.

Winter blend gas will knock 10-15% off easily (3-4 mpg), all other things equal.

 

[mpkav]

I've seen enough wrecks at 50-60mph. Seen people come into my ER with their faces smashed, abdomens distended and full of blood, etc. etc. It's my conviction that speed doesn't matter as much as wearing your seatbelt, and praying to the right deity that morning, and not dicking with your cellphone/CD that fell on the floor, etc.

Interesting about your speeding tickets.

I am 30. I have had maybe half of that. 5-7 speeding tickets.

Worst ticket: 29 over (cop lied. It was significantly more than that. He just did us both a favor).

Most annoying ticket: Cop pulled me over on foot with a hand-held sign on a road with a 25mph speed limit. I did not see the sign because of the sun, and the road looked like a 35-40 to me. I was doing about that. Legitimately was not trying to lead-foot it, and debated with the officer until he showed me the sign (I wasn't an ass about it, and he threw me a ton of other favors such as ignoring a few things about the car, setting my court date MONTHS from then, etc.) because I literally could not believe it was 25mph.

Ticket I should have gotten but did not: Was doing 15 over, tail gating a cop, then brake-checked him when he threw the lights on after I got around him. It was an unmarked car and I didn't know, and was late for class, and he was one of those jerks who did exactly the speed limit. Not even a written warning. Asked me what was up, told him the truth about why I was late, and the guy let me motor on and said he knew what it was like to be late for things for reasons out of your control.

The laws around here are pretty strict, 40 km/h over the limit gets your vehicle immediately impounded, ~$400 ticket, and 3 points off your license.

That being said, people around Vancouver generally go 10 to 20 km/h over the limit with virtual impunity. I have on many occasions been alongside a cruiser going 20 km/h over with not so much a second glance. They seem to be, rightfully so, more concerned with people driving safely and with the flow of traffic. You REALLY need to be driving like a nut to get pulled over here.

I'll be brutally honest, there was a TON of stuff on board the CX-5 as we were travelling for Christmas. No wind though, just cold temps and a heavy load. There was not one cubic inch of room left for anything else with 3 people on board. I'm just reporting what the computer tells me, and from what I can tell it's usually pretty accurate, if not a bit pessimistic. It was a 300 mile drive and hand calculated tank mileage was 32mpg, which the computer underestimated again. I'll have to dig through my fuelly logs to find out exactly, but it was very impressive, however low speeds did help.

I think this may have affected my mileage on road trips, my two long distance runs were either loaded with camping gear or with my parents (4 adults). I got 28-29 mpg in those situations, I can't see why I wouldn't exceed EPA by myself or with my rather small partner. Speaking of payload, what does EPA use in their testing? Single occupant, average sized male?

 

[mpkav]

I just spoke with my sister, she just drove from New Orleans to Ontario in her 2016 GS (2.0 L, FWD, everything stock based on the US-spec). She wasn't paying too much attention to mileage but she made it there on three full tanks. That would be approximately 168 L for a 2,222 km trip. It isn't precise, but that would be around 31 mpg, with two adults and loaded with cargo (she is spending the summer in Ontario). She mentioned that it wasn't straight highway either, and she was changing speed a lot.

It is perhaps too anecdotal for some but it is another data point that seems to hit close to EPA.

 

[Unobtanium]

FYI, just checked my "cold" tire pressure. 37-38psi all around. Should be at 34psi per the door, but I air them up with cold weather in mind, too. Operating temp is likely 40-42psi, based on my experience with pressure read-outs in my other vehicles that gave individual pressures in real time.

 

[arunka007]

Winter blend gas will knock 10-15% off easily (3-4 mpg), all other things equal.

I've been noticing this. My drive is 75% city/suburban and 25% hwy. The mpg went up from 25.x to 27.x in past couple of months

 

[erhayes]

After reviewing all the "information" concerning this vehicles mileage, I have decided we may have a social malcontent, to which there is little hope. Ed

 

[jhu8]

Well did some "testing" and going 70mph managed about 30mpg. Going 75mph yielded 29.4. So, speed yes does affect but barely anything. This needs much more testing but this was done over the same stretch of highway and same weather. My main takeaway was that if gas mileage was as bad as some of you suggest at doing higher speeds, even one trip would of no way yielded just about EPA estimates. It would of been 3-5 below like a few of you suggest. Also, based on my previous hand calculations, the cx5 tends to undercut actual gas mileage so I may even be hitting 30mpg. I can post pictures too. Just on my phone and its a pain.

So I will be testing this more. As I was surprised at the negligible difference between 70 and 75.

 

[craigo]

Well did some "testing" and going 70mph managed about 30mpg. Going 75mph yielded 29.4. So, speed yes does affect but barely anything. This needs much more testing but this was done over the same stretch of highway and same weather. My main takeaway was that if gas mileage was as bad as some of you suggest at doing higher speeds, even one trip would of no way yielded just about EPA estimates. It would of been 3-5 below like a few of you suggest. Also, based on my previous hand calculations, the cx5 tends to undercut actual gas mileage so I may even be hitting 30mpg. I can post pictures too. Just on my phone and its a pain.

So I will be testing this more. As I was surprised at the negligible difference between 70 and 75.

Head winds have a larger impact at those speeds as well. If you're driving into a 10 mph wind, then your economy will be similar to driving 85 on a still day. Another reason why winter economy tends to be worse, besides winter blend gas - its windy.

 

[jhu8]

Head winds have a larger impact at those speeds as well. If you're driving into a 10 mph wind, then your economy will be similar to driving 85 on a still day. Another reason why winter economy tends to be worse, besides winter blend gas - its windy.

Yeah good point and wind was minimal those mornings. But each commute was at the same time, same direction. So some basic variables were at least constant. I definitely want to test it out more but it was interesting. Than if going below I always hit above EPA. Also, my area is very hilly. If I was in flat ground I assume my results would be even better. So, the cx5 is most certainly able to hit EPA at higher speeds.

 

[Unobtanium]

Yeah good point and wind was minimal those mornings. But each commute was at the same time, same direction. So some basic variables were at least constant. I definitely want to test it out more but it was interesting. Than if going below I always hit above EPA. Also, my area is very hilly. If I was in flat ground I assume my results would be even better. So, the cx5 is most certainly able to hit EPA at higher speeds.

Wind DEFINITELY matters. My 75mph mileage was measured on a road trip where I drove from a full tank until empty.

 

[Unobtanium]

C&D observed only 21mpg with their 2014 AWD 2.5L:

EPA city/highway driving: 24/30 mpg
C/D observed: 21 mpg

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-mazda-cx-5-25-awd-test-review

They observed only 23mpg with their 2016 AWD 2.5L:

EPA city/highway driving: 24/30 mpg
C/D observed: 23 mpg

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-mazda-cx-5-25l-awd-test-review
It is very possible that Mazda chose to send broken cars to Car and Driver, considering that my car must be broken, as well, and I have identical performance (averaging around 22.5-23).

My point being, I feel like my results are typical. I think Mazda gamed the EPA cycle, and I bet a lot of others in the CUV market have, too, "because sales..."
I think the complaints are valid.

I would also note that the CR-V 2015 AWD posted 25mpg, but posted significantly worse performance numbers (oddly with the same 1/4 mile trap speed though...which tells me that mid-range passing in the CR-V might trump that in the CX-5...).
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-honda-cr-v-touring-awd-test-review

By comparison the RAV-4 AWD posted pathetic everything.
http://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/rav4

What is interesting, is that the Turbo Forester turns in the same fuel economy numbers as the CX-5's, and dominates the RAV4, and lags only slightly behind the CR-V, while destroying all of them in "power related" performance:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-subaru-forester-20xt-test-review

Moral of the story?

Underpowered vehicles work hard in the real world. The EPA cycle hides this. Mazda needs to shoe-horn that turbo into the CX-5. I bet turbo CX-5 owners note impressive real-world mileage vs their N/A counterparts vs. the power delivered!



So, to all the people saying "Well sell your CX-5 and buy something else..." no. Because I actually thought that through. However, that does NOT mean that owners are not justified in being frustrated with the vehicle performing worse than their previous expectations.

In summary:

CX-5: 21 and 23mpg
RAV4: 19mpg
CR-V: 25mpg
Turbo Forester with 1 second faster 0-60 times than any of them, and nearly a 10mph trap-speed increase over the nearest competitor....: 22mpg

The caveat? Premium Required.

This monetarily drops the Forester to an "actual $ spent..." to the equivalent of 19mpg. Still hanging with the same class, equaling the sluggish RAV4 in "real dollars spent" fuel economy.

*The 2.5L Forester returned a 19mpg observed fuel economy, furthering my opinion that this class of vehicle is underpowered for the road, and buyers could get a real benefit from more powerful engines that match their driving style if they venture out onto the freeway, for literally NO cost increase in operations day to day.
http://www.caranddriver.com/subaru/forester
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2014-subaru-forester-25i-touring-page-2

This is likely why all of my past vehicles have done so well in comparison: They had POWER. I drive on the freeway A LOT. Around town, my mileage is actually better than the EPA rating for my CX-5, because I am smooth on throttle and braking and usually slightly vary vehicle speed to "go through on green".

Anyway, it was an interesting time on Google observing the trend: The crappier the acceleration, the worse the real-world observed mileage...(Except the CR-V, which wasn't too bad on the big-end, and did really well on real-world mileage)

 

[arunka007]

I'm very happy with the mileage. I consistently get 30+ on highways (65-70 mph) and 25+ in city (lots of stop and go with max 45-50 mph). Since I do mostly city driving I net close to 27 consistently

 

[Unobtanium]

I'm very happy with the mileage. I consistently get 30+ on highways (65-70 mph) and 25+ in city (lots of stop and go with max 45-50 mph). Since I do mostly city driving I net close to 27 consistently

65-70 in Htown? I do 80 through there.

 

[arunka007]

65-70 in Htown? I do 80 through there.

Looks like you haven't been here lately. The traffic has got much worse in past 2 years or so. I also do 75/80 during weekends when traffic isn't bad and during long drives, which doesn't happen often.

 

[Unobtanium]

Looks like you haven't been here lately. The traffic has got much worse in past 2 years or so. I also do 75/80 during weekends when traffic isn't bad and during long drives, which doesn't happen often.

Last time I went through there I left it on 75 or 80, cruise control. Things really must have changed! I went through last RIGHT AFTER construction on 59 was finished/close to it. That said, I typically hit towns like that at 0100 or so, by design, and that may well play a role in my experiences vs. yours.

 

[yrwei52]

C&D observed only 21mpg with their 2014 AWD 2.5L:
They observed only 23mpg with their 2016 AWD 2.5L:

It is very possible that Mazda chose to send broken cars to Car and Driver, considering that my car must be broken, as well, and I have identical performance (averaging around 22.5-23).

My point being, I feel like my results are typical. I think Mazda gamed the EPA cycle, and I bet a lot of others in the CUV market have, too, "because sales..."
I think the complaints are valid.

I agree as all automakers are trying to meet much more restricted fuel economy figures under CAFE standards. They're only trying to get better gas mileage under EPA test cycles, but not in "rear-world" environment.

Also for those who keep using Fuelly's data, they're mixed with FWD and AWD on CX-5 and there's no way to distinguish them. Mind you according to 2016 CX-5 EPA fuel economy estimates, FWD (29 mpg) is 3 mpg better than AWD (26 mpg) on combined MPG. This'll heavily mask MPG numbers for poor gas mileage on CX-5 AWD.

I would also note that the CR-V 2015 AWD posted 25mpg, but posted significantly worse performance numbers (oddly with the same 1/4 mile trap speed though...which tells me that mid-range passing in the CR-V might trump that in the CX-5...).

Better real-world fuel economy on 2015 Honda CR-V AWD is definitely helped by its CVT. Honda's AWD system is also more fuel efficient than Mazda's AWD as it has only 1 mpg penalty from FWD as Mazda's AWD has 3 mpg penalty according to EPA!

Moral of the story?
Underpowered vehicles work hard in the real world. The EPA cycle hides this. Mazda needs to shoe-horn that turbo into the CX-5. I bet turbo CX-5 owners note impressive real-world mileage vs their N/A counterparts vs. the power delivered!

I believe the turbo-charged engine can be programmed more easily to achieve better fuel economy figure under EPA test cycles. The real-world fuel economy is still questionable unless you're making sure not spinning the turbo. Turbo-charged engine is not more efficient than naturally-aspirated engine. The extra power from turbo engine is from more air and fuel getting forced into the combustion chamber. Hence the more power you want, the more fuel you use.

This is likely why all of my past vehicles have done so well in comparison: They had POWER. I drive on the freeway A LOT. Around town, my mileage is actually better than the EPA rating for my CX-5, because I am smooth on throttle and braking and usually slightly vary vehicle speed to "go through on green".
Anyway, it was an interesting time on Google observing the trend: The crappier the acceleration, the worse the real-world observed mileage...(Except the CR-V, which wasn't too bad on the big-end, and did really well on real-world mileage)

The other factor you'd pointed earlier that automakers are more interested getting better EPA numbers but not real-world numbers. This trend is more obvious on newer vehicles. Older vehicles, even if they're under-powered like my 1998 Honda CR-V AWD, can easily beat EPA highway estimate with current faster speed limits. New Honda CR-V is benefited by CVT for real-world fuel economy, but suffered on performance because of it.

 

[yrwei52]

I'm very happy with the mileage. I consistently get 30+ on highways (65-70 mph) and 25+ in city (lots of stop and go with max 45-50 mph). Since I do mostly city driving I net close to 27 consistently

With FWD CX-5 I have no doubt you can get these MPGs as EPA combined MPG on 2016 CX-5 FWD is 29. My friend's 2016.5 FWD GT can easily get 30 mpg to-and-from work with 60% highway driving. But with AWD, I couldn't even get 30 mpg with instant MPG readout under any circumstance during the long trip to Houston and Austin. The average MPG for the 800-mile trip was 27 mpg.

Yeah, Houston keeps growing, especially in Sugarland area! Back to 80's people in Dallas and Houston each claimed they have the largest city in Texas. Now I guess there's no argument who is the largest. In fact, San Antonio now is the second largest city in Texas! We living in Dallas are jealous Houston always have a lot more free highway funds to build and widen highways as I-45 now is widened up past Woodland and State Highway 59 now becomes I-69 and winded pasted Rosenberg with some 10-lane section near downtown! In Dallas we either have to build tollways or wait like I-35E which is always under construction for 30 years just for one-extra lane!

 

[arunka007]

And we have this. Widest road on planet earth. 24 (or 26) lanes. Still bumper to bumper traffic during rush hour.

 

[craigo]

And we have this. Widest road on planet earth. 24 (or 26) lanes. Still bumper to bumper traffic during rush hour.

As much as I enjoy driving, widening roads isn't a very effective way to deal with that kind of traffic in the long term (or even medium as we can see in Houston, that expansion isn't even 10 years old). Mass transit makes much more sense for getting people to and from work - a single train can carry hundreds of people. Of course, this is not the Texas way and so we have terrible traffic in all the major cities...

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ This is an interesting proposal which is expand public transit and then make driving on those highways during rush hour more expensive, with the price based on the amount of congestion.