CX-9 fuel economy released

X

xwedge

Member
:
Mazda CX-5 2016 Touring AWD with Bose/Tech
Fuel economy figures for the CX-9 have been released.

According to motortrend:
"Front-drive versions of the new CX-9 are rated at 22/28 mpg city/highway, which is 5 mpg higher in the city and 4 mpg higher on the highway compared to the old V-6-powered CX-9. Opting for all-wheel drive drops those figures down to 21/27 mpg, which is an increase of 5 mpg across the board versus the outgoing all-wheel-drive CX-9."

Pretty nice figures for such a large SUV.

Frankly, I can't wait to see the next-gen CX5 and what will be under the hood. Turbo or NA???

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-mazda-cx-9-epa-rated-up-to-2228-mpg/
 
I'd trade for a cx5 with that motor, even with the switch e brake
 
Even if it'll be available on the CX-5, it's the first iteration of the Turbo, I'd wait for a year or two to see if any serious problem will arise .... But yeah, definitely want a Turbo CX-5!
 
Chris_Top_Her said:
I'd trade for a cx5 with that motor, even with the switch e brake
Click to expand...
I'm at the opposite. I'd not want a turbo unless there is no other choices as I still have doubts on longevity of the turbo system.

And I'd think SkyActiv-G with a turbo not only helped the power, but also helped manipulating the EPA numbers. I'd bet in the real-world fuel economy, new CX-9 will have a hard time to meet any of the EPA estimates.
 
I'm tempted to trade in the cx5 for this cx9. Though I will definitely sit out the first year. With a newborn, the cx5 feels cramped.

Two things, first the mpg numbers are in line with the likes of Honda, Toyota and Ford, I was expecting Mazda to beat them and hit that 30mpg highway number. Regardless, turbos are notoriously bad at real world MPGs in these applications, so it remains to be seen if they can deliver these numbers in the real world; although, Mazda says they designed the car with this in mind.
 
I wonder how their tuning will affect the real-world fuel economy. Apparently they tuned this thing for real world drivability, which is high torque at low RPMs. As long as drivers don't rev the engine all the time, I'm willing to predict that they may actually beat the EPA mpg estimate.
 
yrwei52 said:
I'm at the opposite. I'd not want a turbo unless there is no other choices as I still have doubts on longevity of the turbo system.

And I'd think SkyActiv-G with a turbo not only helped the power, but also helped manipulating the EPA numbers. I'd bet in the real-world fuel economy, new CX-9 will have a hard time to meet any of the EPA estimates.
Click to expand...

Much like the Ford Ecoboost motors.
 
xwedge said:
Fuel economy figures for the CX-9 have been released.

According to motortrend:
"Front-drive versions of the new CX-9 are rated at 22/28 mpg city/highway, which is 5 mpg higher in the city and 4 mpg higher on the highway compared to the old V-6-powered CX-9. Opting for all-wheel drive drops those figures down to 21/27 mpg, which is an increase of 5 mpg across the board versus the outgoing all-wheel-drive CX-9."

Pretty nice figures for such a large SUV.

Frankly, I can't wait to see the next-gen CX5 and what will be under the hood. Turbo or NA???

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2016-mazda-cx-9-epa-rated-up-to-2228-mpg/
Click to expand...

This is best in class, AFAIK.
Pilot and Pathfinder get 20/27 FWD 19/26 AWD.
Highlander gets 20/25 FWD with a wimpy 2.7L engine, 19/25 FWD with a 3.5L V6 and 27-28/28 Hybrid
 
Yeah, it's fair to say that the new CX-9 stomps on the competition in terms of fuel economy. 310 lb/ft of torque doesn't hurt either.
ALafya said:
This is best in class, AFAIK.
Pilot and Pathfinder get 20/27 FWD 19/26 AWD.
Highlander gets 20/25 FWD with a wimpy 2.7L engine, 19/25 FWD with a 3.5L V6 and 27-28/28 Hybrid
Click to expand...
 
I drove a turbo VW Tiguan for 3 years/55,000 miles before trading for my CX-5 and was able to beat the EPA estimate by 1 to 2 mpg consistently without making much effort. I would even put it in sport mode and run the gears to redline on occasion (highway merging mostly) when I felt frisky and my average was still better than EPA with 60-70% city driving. Most of the time I drive pretty conservatively, though. MPG is just one of those things that will always be debated. Personally, I miss the extra 20-25 horsepower advantage my VW had but otherwise I think the CX-5 is great. I would definitely be interested in a turbo model CX-5.
 
The 2.5 turbo in the CX-5 would make it quite the nimble rocket. I bet we'll see that engine first be optioned into the Mazda6. Lack of a V6 or 4 cylinder turbo option is the only thing holding it back.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
    • Like
CX-5 Fuel efficiency, comfort and handling
Replies
12
Views
3K
sonny1
S
S
Average MPG less than 20mpg, am I alone?
7 8 9
Replies
176
Views
23K
jadmt
jadmt
J
2014 CX-5 100k service
2
Replies
23
Views
676
RedBaron
RedBaron

Latest posts

Back