2014 CX5 edges out 2014 Forester in fuelly by 1.3 mpg

Was surfing fuelly and making a comparison of the 2014 CX5 gas motor to the same Subaru Forester and noted that the CX5 is getting better real world fuel mileage than the Subaru Forester by 1.3 mpg. This is significant because in Consumer Reports testing the Subaru Forester ousted the CX5 by 1 mpg and not that long ago even Fuelly showed that the 2014 Forester had a slight advantage in real world fuel mileage when comparing the gas motors.

I wonder how good Consumer Report is considering they don't even mention the ongoing oil consumption issue.

The problem with Fuelly is that it is very bad in classifying cars with completely different drive-trains.
When you look at average data for the CX-5, you'll see AWD/FWD manual and automatic all mixed together.
With the Forester, it is even worse, it will mix the Turbo 2L with the N/A 2.5L, CVT and manual as they are all 4 cylinders.

That said, I believe overall the CX-5 2.5L AWD will get better fuel economy than a 2.5L CVT Forester (AWD). I've been tracking the Impreza forum for a while and with 2L CVT it gets 27 MPG on average, which is on the city value of EPA estimates. This was cause for much frustration with owners expecting better economy. Now, the Impreza is lighter, more aerodynamic and with a smaller version of the FB engine found in the Forester. Therefore, I think the EPA estimates are exaggerated for the Forester.

For a while, I considered the Impreza as my next vehicle. Then, I learned about the oil-consumption issue as well as other quality issues they had.
Now, I am pretty satisfied I can get better MPG in my CX-5 than an Impreza.

Even more interesting/revealing than the Mazda/Subaru comparison is the almost 3 mpg spread between your 2.0 and 2.5 autobox CX-5s. So much for the "merely 1mpg hit" that most here have touted with the larger engine?

paris1 said:

Even more interesting/revealing than the Mazda/Subaru comparison is the almost 3 mpg spread between your 2.0 and 2.5 autobox CX-5s. So much for the "merely 1mpg hit" that most here have touted with the larger engine?

Click to expand...

I was thinking it was a 2 mpg hit for 2.0 vs. 2.5L, auto tranny, AWD versions, at least from what I read for the EPA combined ratings.. Yep, it's significant, to go along with the significant difference in power/acceleration.

CX-SV said:

I was thinking it was a 2 mpg hit for 2.0 vs. 2.5L, auto tranny, AWD versions, at least from what I read for the EPA combined ratings.. Yep, it's significant, to go along with the significant difference in power/acceleration.

Click to expand...

Have you driven a 2.5? If so, how much seat time?

paris1 said:

Have you driven a 2.5? If so, how much seat time?

Click to expand...

0 seat-time, not even a test drive in 2.5L, I really need to do it (although it's not a priority for me, nor am I expecting a big difference in fun to drive feeling).

But consistently all the major mags including C&D, R&T (and CR) are reporting significant differences in measured acceleration times, plus we have members here on mazdas247.com that have owned both and driven both extensively reporting similar significant perceived power difference too.

But the power doesn't come free; the 2mpg hit to EPA combined rating for AWD versions, combined with the $1100 difference in price for GT AWD versions.

CX-SV said:

0 seat-time, not even a test drive in 2.5L, I really need to do it (although it's not a priority for me, nor am I expecting a big difference in fun to drive feeling).

But consistently all the major mags including C&D, R&T (and CR) are reporting significant differences in measured acceleration times, plus we have members here on mazdas247.com that have owned both and driven both extensively reporting similar significant perceived power difference too.

But the power doesn't come free; the 2mpg hit to EPA combined rating for AWD versions, combined with the $1100 difference in price for GT AWD versions.

Click to expand...

So first, let me say that, if given the choice today between a 2.0 and a 2.5, I have no doubt that I would take the latter and not think twice about it. That said, I can honestly say that there have only been a couple of instances in almost a year and a half where it occurred to me that that extra 30/30 HP/torque would have been nice. Both of them involved long grades and a 3 passenger plus luggage load. Having learned how to managed the available power and torque with the throttle, 99% of the time I never feel at a disadvantage and find the smaller motor perfectly adequate and even moderately spirited in some situations. 2 liter engines are very much the norm in many countries and it is only in America that we see that displacement as being too puny for anything other than an econobox; certainly inadequate for a 3300# crossover! I pass by my local Mazda dealer every day and, like yourself, keep meaning to stop in for a comparison drive. But I don't expect miracles. The gearing is still the same as is the throttle mapping which short shifts the autobox at unnaturally low rpms under light throttle application. The extra torque of the 2.5 could very well help mask this tendency, but then again, I've learned to do that myself buy just keeping my foot in it a little more (unless of course I feel like just letting the tranny do its thing).

^ Agree completely. Had I purchased a model year 2014 CX-5 I'd have no choice but 2.5L because I require GT features (including leather, moonroof, 19s, Bose), no prob.

I used the fuelly filter to rule out the diesel engines but I didn’t consider that the CX5 has the 2.0 option in that mix where the Subaru only has the 2.5. Still what you get with the Mazda drive train is better acceleration for about the same mileage as the Subaru.
I owned the 2.0 for over a year and it was a decent mill. The gas mileage was unreal for an SUV. It had plenty of power in all but the most demanding situations like accelerating up hill on a highway on ramp and dealing with hilly highways with cruise control on. The 2.5 once broken in is definitely much quicker. Mazda is one of the few companies where there EPA numbers match more closely the real world numbers. In fact according to CR they exceed the EPA numbers slightly on average.