Gas Mileage issues...

M

mr. roboto

Member
So I read in the USA Today article about the CX-7:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2006-04-27-cx-7_x.htm

...and it mentions that the CX-7 will run in an "emergency mode" while burning 87 octane fuel. My question is...why would they make a CUV that 'requires' premium gas? I know it's because the MazdaSpeed 6 engine requires high octane, but it's not like this thing is a Porsche Cayenne or a Range Rover Sport. I mean, this car is supposed to appeal to both a younger audience (mid 20's to 30's with not a ton of dispensable income) and practical thinking soccer moms....and it's going to cost us more at the pump? That doesn't seem so cost effective....why not buy a RAV4 or a new Ford Edge? Both, from what I understand run fine on 87.

Personally, I love the CX7 and will probably end up buying one....but this is a major sticking point while gas prices continue to soar ever day. I'll be trading in my Mitsu Endeavor SUV for it....but it doesn't sound like it's going to save me much $$$ by doing so. Maybe I should hold off until the new 2008 Nissan Altima Hybrid makes its way here....but, on the other hand, by the time that happens, we might have already started drilling for more oil in Alaska. Here's to hoping:)
 
No free lunch

mr. roboto said:
So I read in the USA Today article about the CX-7:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2006-04-27-cx-7_x.htm

...and it mentions that the CX-7 will run in an "emergency mode" while burning 87 octane fuel. My question is...why would they make a CUV that 'requires' premium gas? I know it's because the MazdaSpeed 6 engine requires high octane, but it's not like this thing is a Porsche Cayenne or a Range Rover Sport. I mean, this car is supposed to appeal to both a younger audience (mid 20's to 30's with not a ton of dispensable income) and practical thinking soccer moms....and it's going to cost us more at the pump? That doesn't seem so cost effective....why not buy a RAV4 or a new Ford Edge? Both, from what I understand run fine on 87.

Personally, I love the CX7 and will probably end up buying one....but this is a major sticking point while gas prices continue to soar ever day. I'll be trading in my Mitsu Endeavor SUV for it....but it doesn't sound like it's going to save me much $$$ by doing so. Maybe I should hold off until the new 2008 Nissan Altima Hybrid makes its way here....but, on the other hand, by the time that happens, we might have already started drilling for more oil in Alaska. Here's to hoping:)
Click to expand...

The only free lunch is found in a mouse trap. :)

Turbocharging an engine vastly increases its volumetric efficiency and power density, but the cost is that it requires higher octane fuel to prevent detonation.

The metric you ought to consider is cost per mile. I'll bet its not more than the other cars you are considering.

If you can't afford the gas, get a cheaper car.(peep)
 
According to Edmunds.com, the true cost to own (financing, fuel costs, maintenance, depreciation, repair, taxes&fees, and insurance) for a mid-upper 27K variant of either works out to $.53/mi for the regular 87 using RAV4 V6 CUV and $.56/mi for the premium 91 using CX-7 4cyl turbo DI CUV.

It cost 5% more per mi over the life of the vehicle or about $450 a year more assuming you drive 15000 miles a year and keep the car for 5 years. Thats not a lot of money. The use of premium versus regular is a false concern when you look at the complete scheme of vehicle ownership.

Also the CX7 is a high performance SUV easily surpassing those overweight "sports" luxury SUVs in handling and braking. In fact it virtual matches a WRX in slalom and beats in braking. Edmunds.com full test results:

2002 Subaru WRX AWD 3,085 lbs.
60-0 braking: 115 ft
Slalom: 64.5 mph

2007 Mazda CX-7 AWD 3929 lbs.
60-0 braking: 112.9 ft
Slalom: 64.3 mph

2006 Range Rover Sport Supercharged 4WD 5670 lbs.
60-0 braking: 115.63 ft
Slalom: 58.1 mph

2004 Porsche Cayenne Turbo AWD 5200 lbs.
60-0 braking: 116.34 ft
Slalom: 63.5 mph

(first)
 
Last edited:
GAMacky said:
Yet another report of only getting "16 MPG in suburban use".
Click to expand...

Check vehicle reviews on www.consumerguide.com - vehicles never get their EPA sticker and thats why for 2008 MY they will be revised downwards. If you look at various reviews of the new RAV4 V6, they are only getting between 16-19 mpg, so their EPA sticker of 21/28 doesn't mean jack in the real world either.

As Edmunds says, the true cost to own difference will only work out to less than $500/year and is the third most expensive part of total vehicle ownership, not the first or second...
 
Last edited:
syadasti said:
Check vehicle reviews on www.consumerguide.com - vehicles never get their EPA sticker and thats why for 2008 MY they will be revised downwards. If you look at various reviews of the new RAV4 V6, they are only getting between 16-19 mpg, so their EPA sticker of 21/28 doesn't mean jack in the real world either.

As Edmunds says, the true cost to own difference will only work out to less than $500 and is the third most expensive part of total vehicle ownership, not the first or second...
Click to expand...

Exactly! Show me a car that gets it's rated mileage. Even the Prius isn't getting anywhere near it's rated mileage(especially in city driving).
 
novAKs47 said:
Exactly! Show me a car that gets it's rated mileage. Even the Prius isn't getting anywhere near it's rated mileage(especially in city driving).
Click to expand...

"If you can't afford the gas, get a cheaper car."

I plan on doing just that...buying a different car. $450 at the end of the year buys a couple NICE gifts for someone...or a nice "toy" for me. Over 3 years it buys many more! Bad decision IMHO on the part of Mazda
 
mirt said:
"If you can't afford the gas, get a cheaper car."

I plan on doing just that...buying a different car. $450 at the end of the year buys a couple NICE gifts for someone...or a nice "toy" for me. Over 3 years it buys many more! Bad decision IMHO on the part of Mazda
Click to expand...

:bs:

Thats about $1.23 a day, the price of can of small can of soda from a vending machine or a snack from a convenience store.

Elminate some junk food from your diet and you'll be healthier with a better, safer (more standard safety equipment and better handling and braking to avoid accidents) crossover than the boring offerings from Honda or Toyota...
 
Last edited:
syadasti said:
:bs:

Thats about $1.23 a day, the price of can of small can of soda from a vending machine or a snack from a convenience store.

Elminate some junk food from your diet and you'll be healthier with a better, safer (more standard safety equipment and better handling and braking to avoid accidents) crossover than the boring offerings from Honda or Toyota...
Click to expand...



Why buy soda for $1.25 per can when you can get it on sale in a regular food store very easily for $.25 per can? Similar savings with snacks. For the soda, 50 work weeks per year, 5 days per work week, that's 250 work days per year. If you buy the soda on sale, and only drink one per day, that's an additional $250 per year I can spend on my "toy". Savings is greater if you drink more than one can of soda per day.

For commuters and mom's running erands, the extra price paid for premium fuel is extra money NOT well spent. Now if it's a second car and performance you're after, then the turbo engines are worth considering. But, most of us can't afford a second "play" vehicle, let alone the additional insurance cost. Again, just my humble opinion.

I'll choose a vehicle that cosumes 87 octane AND buy my groceries on sale, and NOT in a convenience store, and have more to spend on other items.
 
mirt said:
Why buy soda for $1.25 per can when you can get it on sale in a regular food store very easily for $.25 per can? Similar savings with snacks. For the soda, 50 work weeks per year, 5 days per work week, that's 250 work days per year. If you buy the soda on sale, and only drink one per day, that's an additional $250 per year I can spend on my "toy". Savings is greater if you drink more than one can of soda per day.

For commuters and mom's running erands, the extra price paid for premium fuel is extra money NOT well spent. Now if it's a second car and performance you're after, then the turbo engines are worth considering. But, most of us can't afford a second "play" vehicle, let alone the additional insurance cost. Again, just my humble opinion.

I'll choose a vehicle that cosumes 87 octane AND buy my groceries on sale, and NOT in a convenience store, and have more to spend on other items.
Click to expand...


Actually, if you want to minimize your cost of driving, buy a used car. You can get a 3 year old lease return for about half the cost of a new car. The largest cost of any car is depreciation. Fuel cost is way down the list.
 
Vision67 said:
Actually, if you want to minimize your cost of driving, buy a used car. You can get a 3 year old lease return for about half the cost of a new car. The largest cost of any car is depreciation. Fuel cost is way down the list.
Click to expand...

Yes CPO is a much more financially viable option than 87 vs. 91 octane using brand new cars. A new car is a terrible investment if you want to save money.
 
Vision67 said:
Actually, if you want to minimize your cost of driving, buy a used car. You can get a 3 year old lease return for about half the cost of a new car. The largest cost of any car is depreciation. Fuel cost is way down the list.
Click to expand...


GREAT point Vision67!! My latest purchase, a 626, was used in fact. I got burned on 2 new vehicles (both Mazdas), that were 2 years old and got totalled in car accidents(neither was my fault). Since insurance pays only FMV, I lost my @$$. I admit, tho, it is nice to buy a new car.
 
Its also been scientifically studied that its more ecologically responsible to buy used and keep repairing than to upgrade to a new cleaner/more efficient vehicle since 20-40% of resources a vehicle consumes in its lifetime occur before you even take ownership of the new vehicle.
 
syadasti said:
Its also been scientifically studied that its more ecologically responsible to buy used and keep repairing than to upgrade to a new cleaner/more efficient vehicle since 20-40% of resources a vehicle consumes in its lifetime occur before you even take ownership of the new vehicle.
Click to expand...

If you are a good mechanic, with the resources available now on the internet, it's easy to maintain old cars. Personally, I'm still driving a 1995 Eagle Vision and it runs so well I can't bear to part with it. I use the website Dodgeintrepid.net to learn how to fix it when it breaks. (infrequently)

Although this car is worth only about $1K, it costs me only $23 per month. No need to carry collision and comp on an old car. License plate is $26 per year.(enguard)

A Mazda CX-7 has to be really good to convince me to actually buy one! (first)
 
novAKs47 said:
Exactly! Show me a car that gets it's rated mileage. Even the Prius isn't getting anywhere near it's rated mileage(especially in city driving).
Click to expand...



Rx-8 :) we get the rated 18-24mpg (city/highway)

:)
 
REMillers said:
Rx-8 :) we get the rated 18-24mpg (city/highway)

:)
Click to expand...

I doubt it.

A lot of people say that in forums about their car but don't actually calculate via compiling their fill-up receipts.

The EPA stickers are wrong on a majority of cars and are being revised downward for 2008 MY...
 
My Jeep Grand Cherokee averages around 12 MPG. I am expecting the CX-7 to average around 16-17 MPG. For me, that is an increase in mileage of 33%. Premium fuel around here costs 20 cents a gallon more than regular, 7% or 8%, depending on how much they're ripping us off - err, I mean "charging" for gas on any given day. So even if actual mileage figures are way below EPA estimates, I figure I'll still be ahead of the game. Remember, this is still an SUV - it is not a Prius.
 
REMillers said:
Rx-8 :) we get the rated 18-24mpg (city/highway)

:)
Click to expand...

Then either you keep it below 3000 RPM or you don't hit any traffic. I get 17mpg in my RX-8 whether I'm sitting in traffic, flying on the freeway or babying it around town.
 
stangmatt66 said:
Then either you keep it below 3000 RPM or you don't hit any traffic. I get 17mpg in my RX-8 whether I'm sitting in traffic, flying on the freeway or babying it around town.
Click to expand...

Typically I do 50/50 highway/town to work which is 72 miles one way.

Its strange how some get different mileages even if they do the same driving. Generally shift around 6k for everyday driving. On the highway generallly doing about 80-85 which is around 4k-4.5k rpms in 6th gear for half of those 72 miles.

Dunno but right now I'm about 20 miles away from the 300 mile mark and got 1/4 tank of gas. Generally I fill up at 240-260 miles and put anywhere between just over 12 gallons in.

It is capable of getting the rated mileages, and really 17...thats 1 off big whoop :)
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GTXT23
Clear Gas! Worth the $$$ or not?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Koko_Bandit
K
L
Mazda CX-7 rattle with a little tap on gas pedal
Replies
0
Views
2K
Livy
L
M
    • Like
Experience Running CX-90 Turbo S With US 87 Octane?
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
Snorting2.5
S

Latest posts

Back