i have only had my cx-5 a little over a month and so far the mileage has been spot on to what was advertised, approximately 29 mpg for mixed driving. this is with a touring fwd model. i couldn't be happier. this is better mileage than what i was getting with my 2.3l mazda-3 hatchback with a manual transmission.
Displeased with mileage
- Thread starter Unobtanium
- Start date
Took a 300 mile trip to the Outer Banks a couple weeks ago. Until that point I was averaging about 23 in mostly suburban driving. With two adults, one dog and a fully loaded car we were getting 32.8 on mostly rural roads with many traffic signals, so it wasn't constant 60 mile driving. That's a little better then the MPG Mazda posts.
Car is a 2016 with apprx 3,000 miles on the odometer. Car was comfortable and performed flawlessly.
Car is a 2016 with apprx 3,000 miles on the odometer. Car was comfortable and performed flawlessly.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Trip to/from Tulsa was 28mpg in my CX5, friend gets 24-25 in their 2.0XT Forester. It's just my area. Lots of mountains. Friends in Texas get 28+ in their Forester turbo, and I did a lot better around San Antonio than I do here in the mountains. I'm just not used to the mountains, and am used to my vehicles outperforming the EPA rating on the highway with my driving style. Not so much anymore maybe.
I know there are a lot of variables involved in MPG but FWIW I'm getting above the EPA ratings. Three tanks of gas so far on mine all all three averaged above 30mpg. FWIW I live on the top of a mountain that is 1,000' higher than the surrounding area. So to go to anywhere I have to descend 1,000 feet and climb 1,000 feet going home. I usually average 36mpg going to town and 27mpg going home. The overall average is still over 30mpg. On the freeway I get 33-35mpg going no faster than 75mph.
I consistently get 32mpg on my 20 mile morning commute to office. I have several lights but can go at 45-55 between the lights. I get 25-26 on the reverse commute because of bumper to bumper traffic between the lights.
I believe 45-55 is the speed band for optimal mileage. Anything higher will have to fight with air drag. Anything lower might result in downshift.
Also, I noticed an increase in mileage after the car hit 1000+ miles. Maybe the engine is running better after wear-in.
I always drive with windows closed and AC on. Overall I'm very happy with gas mileage.
I believe 45-55 is the speed band for optimal mileage. Anything higher will have to fight with air drag. Anything lower might result in downshift.
Also, I noticed an increase in mileage after the car hit 1000+ miles. Maybe the engine is running better after wear-in.
I always drive with windows closed and AC on. Overall I'm very happy with gas mileage.
That's because 20% of Texas families live off petroleum money. It's built into the culture, "Com' on, put the pedal to the metal, we've got some oil to burn. It'll never get above $100/barrel if you keep pussy-footing around at 60 mph!". (glare)
Yeah its that wear in period. I noticed the most significant change after the first oil change.
Studies have shown you get better drag efficiency with ac on and windows up vs windows down.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
That's just one mountain, though. I am ALWAYS on one Loooonnnngggg incline or another. That's how NWA is. Water flows uphill to the untrained eye, because the grades are so long. I may drive for 5 minutes at 65 with instant read-out of 23-24mpg and not "know why" if I didn't know I was ascending, logically.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
No, it's because Texas is a lot larger than those tiny little runt states and if you don't drive at a reasonable pace, you'll never get anywhere in any sensible amount of time.
True, and when you arrive, you might discover you still haven't got anywhere:
If I were sentenced to live in Texas the rest of my life and couldn't leave, I'd probably chose Austin due to it's (relative) greenery, etc. Even then, I would wonder why people would choose to live there of their own free will:
Last edited:
I seriously doubt there are significant differences between the cars that would account for the differences in MPG. IMHO the significant differences in MPG we are seeing here are attributed to something external to the car (gas, weather, terrain, driving style, etc.) To prove my theory we need to assemble a few CX-5s and have them drive in a caravan and measure the MPG 
I'm an immigrant from a hot and humid part of the world. So the weather in Houston is fine for me. Don't like snow and never have to worry about it. It's a vibrant and diverse city with lots of jobs. Cost of living isn't much.
I love it here and see no reason to leave. To each their own.
- :
- 2016 CX-5 Sport FWD Auto
My first tank on my 2016FWD was 26mpg 90% city. That's about right, considering I've tried out sport mode and manual shifting a few times, for fun.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
True, and when you arrive, you might discover you still haven't got anywhere:
If I were sentenced to live in Texas the rest of my life and couldn't leave, I'd probably chose Austin due to it's (relative) greenery, etc. Even then, I would wonder why people would choose to live there of their own free will:
I'd avoid Austin, personally, but that's just me.
Austin does have a decent swimming hole, though:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I seriously doubt there are significant differences between the cars that would account for the differences in MPG. IMHO the significant differences in MPG we are seeing here are attributed to something external to the car (gas, weather, terrain, driving style, etc.) To prove my theory we need to assemble a few CX-5s and have them drive in a caravan and measure the MPG
Agreed. Unless my vehicle somehow changes itself depending on where in the country I am, lol
- :
- Mazdaspeed6
Pretty funny.
And while it may be true a large portion of income earners in the state earn from "petroleum money", it's nonsense to propose we exploit inefficiency for commerce.
I earn from oil - I work in refined products, supply and distribution. It's coincidental. I can promise you I'm always looking for ways to improve efficiency in all aspects of my lifestyle, in addition to reducing wastefulness, and improving conservation.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Except that it's not in Austin - it's a 45 minute drive out of town. One bright spot, your CX-5 should be able to get over 30 mpg due to rural roads.
The waterfall dries up to a trickle in the dry season - which is more than half the year. Unless it's too wet (like right now), then swimming is prohibited because it's deemed "too dangerous".
When you arrive it's $15 to enter (if you can even get in) - after you wait over hour for enough people to leave that you are allowed to enter. Or, if the line to enter is too long you are not even allowed to wait - you have to turn around and leave (even if you arrived before the gate was opened during busy periods). I thought Texas was anti-tax and anti-regulation? I'm accustomed to free parking, no entrance fee or gates, come and go as you please, swim at your own risk 365 days/year and pets play with the humans.
You will get sick if you take a drink of water while swimming because of poorly regulated septic systems upstream. Yuck!
Is it ideal? No, but for Texas it must be decent or it wouldn't be so crowded. Yes, Texas is a big state. Hardly an advantage if 90% of it is wasteland. Bigger is not always better. I'd rather live in a "puny" state where we don't have to drive 350 miles to get somewhere else interesting.
