Real Bad Gas Mileage!

That's really the way you have to look at it... it's enjoyable to drive and that outweights the crappy mileage.

Around-town is SUCKS down the gas... trust me, I'm learning that fast since the majority of my driving is short trips around town. And some of that certainly has to do with the fact it's a Turbo engine. You can't compare a 4 cylinder Turbo to a 6 cylinder, because of COURSE the 6 cylinder will drink gas too. Compare it to another 4 cylinder WITHOUT Turbo and you'll see a difference (and off course, won't be able to "get up and go" either).
 
It's disheartening. I had a 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 quad cab with the baby V-8 (4.8L?). It would consistently get 13 mpg city and I would thrash the crap out of it. I have written a complaint to Mazda about the fuel economy.
 
9Hooker said:
It's disheartening. I had a 2002 Dodge Ram 1500 quad cab with the baby V-8 (4.8L?). It would consistently get 13 mpg city and I would thrash the crap out of it. I have written a complaint to Mazda about the fuel economy.
Click to expand...

9Hooker,

It it not Mazda who falsified this information of 18-24 MPG, it is our own government funded EPA. And I love this quote from the top of their page

"Your fuel economy will almost certainly vary from EPA's fuel economy rating"

The only job better than the weatherman! Lets all sue, oh wait that would mean we are suing ourselves. Well. at least it is going to change in 2008 (or so).
 
I think with mixed highway and around-town driving 18mpg is possible - I've gotten a tad better than that in those conditions. It's the around-town part that kills ya. People doing a lot more highway/open road/no traffic mileage are fairing much better... either that or a lot of people are calculating their MPG wrong (LOL)
 
My last 4 vehicles yeilded mpg figures that equaled or were slightly better than the EPA estimates. Those vehicles were a 1986 Saab turbo, a Volvo P1800, Jeep GC I6, and my present Subaru Forester. I would expect no difference with the 19/24 mpg figure (FWD) for the CX7. If I constantly used the extra HP of the turbo, then yes the gas mileage will fall. My complant is that even the EPA ratings are low comparded to say the new RAV4 (265 hp V6) & Mitsu Outlander (220hp V6) which will out run the CX7 easly and gets an EPA rating of 29 mpg or 5 more than the same size CX7. I do not beleive that the EPA is misleading us on the Mazda ratings as ALL vehicles are tested using a fixed driving profile. The EPA numbers should be very good when comparing vehicles.
 
Last edited:
the complaint is with the EPA, not with mazda. they provide the vehicle to the government, and the government comes up with the numbers. mazda has nothing to do with those numbers. if you choose to believe that there is a vast MPG conspiracy going on in Hiroshima, than go for it.

the government's test does not do a good job approximating real-life conditions; as with any other standardized testing, some cars will match those numbers more closely under different conditions than others will. if you accelerated like the EPA test does, you'd not make many friends in the traffic behind you, nor would you get to your destination in any reasonable amount of time.

as others have stated, real-world city driving takes a big toll on the CX-7's gas mileage (as it does with almost every turbo car, including the Saab turbo we traded on the CX. that car got 20 city, 31 highway). perhaps the natually-aspirated cars don't have such a dropoff under heavier real-world acceleration.

BTW, the 2007 RAV4 EPA numbers are: 23/27 (4-cyl); 21/28 (6-cyl). the Mitsu's are 19/26.
 
I understand that I should be blaming the EPA. Mazda can willing come forth and say "this car gets normally XXX or YYY mileage". My salesman talked up and down about all his supposed customers getting 20 mpg easy.

Hell, for near the same price, I could have walked away with a Honda Pilot (fitting car name) with more space, 3rd row seating!!), a bigger motor and would probably have gotten their EPA rated 17/24.

I like the CX-7 don't get me wrong. But it reminds me of the false claim of the RX-8 horsepower deal. Who is to say the motor doesn't make that much hp and the tranny eats it all up? Bah.

/rant
 
No dealership or car manufacturer is going to give you anything other than EPA, and it would be SUICIDE for Mazda to do so when none of their competitors do. Be realistic. If you drive the car like the EPA tests the vehicle, you'll get close to their ratings. Problem is, your results with a Turbo are going to vary a lot more than with a non-Turbo car.

And sure, you could have gotten the Honda Pilot but it wouldn't look half as good (you going for that Soccer Mom look?) nor be 1/2 as fun to drive... and for what? A few MPG better? Their EPA is actually nearly the same as the Mazda CX-7. We don't buy SUVs, sports cars or cross-overs to get good gas mileage.

It's not a false claim on Mazda's part, so it can't remind you of any car-maker's false claim. It's a goverment rating, so let it remind of you of... *clears throat*... okay we won't get into politics and the false claims of politicians ;)
 
Last edited:
Agreed

I agree with erhayes - coincidently my previous vehicle was a Subaru Forester (before that a Mazda B4000 4X4) - with both of those vehicles I got mileage numbers almost spot on to the EPA rating. My Forester said ~28mpg and that's what I got consistently for 6 years (and I drove the piss out of that thing). Of course the Soob wasn't 4000lbs and didn't have a turbo, but it was also shaped line a brick and had AWD.


erhayes said:
My last 4 vehicles yeilded mpg figures that equaled or were slightly better than the EPA estimates. Those vehicles were a 1986 Saab turbo, a Volvo P1800, Jeep GC I6, and my present Subaru Forester. I would expect no difference with the 19/24 mpg figure (FWD) for the CX7. If I constantly used the extra HP of the turbo, then yes the gas mileage will fall. My complant is that even the EPA ratings are low comparded to say the new RAV4 (265 hp V6) & Mitsu Outlander (220hp V6) which will out run the CX7 easly and gets an EPA rating of 29 mpg or 5 more than the same size CX7. I do not beleive that the EPA is misleading us on the Mazda ratings as ALL vehicles are tested using a fixed driving profile. The EPA numbers should be very good when comparing vehicles.
Click to expand...
 
11.60 mpg on my third tank, I'm really pissed off, (pissed)

Well, I hope it gets better.

BTW, I have a slightly heavy foot (glare)
 
Less than 12 mpg???? Damn.... My mpg has been dropping as well mainly because of the cold weather. Before the winter I was getting 19-21 mpg w/ some highway driving. On my last tank I got 15mpg with mostly very short city driving. But 12mpg... that's just sad...
 
PuroMexicano said:
11.60 mpg on my third tank, I'm really pissed off, (pissed)

Well, I hope it gets better.

BTW, I have a slightly heavy foot (glare)
Click to expand...

What brand of gas are you using? By heavy foot do you use manual mode alot? Keep the engine in the higher rev range? under 12 would make me suspicious that something isnt working right even if ur driving the piss out of it.

Trying to crush a full tank of gas and driving aggresive in any stretch of road, i have never gotten less than 240 miles out of a full tank. (16 gal fillup)

I know this may sound strange to some of you , but, i have actually noticed much better MPG when its very very cold out, im talking 10 - 20 degrees. Some reason, i get improvement during cold weather. It happened in NH, where i got close to 380miles from 1 tank. And, its happeneing now, we have had a week of weather below freezing, and again, i am getting about 100 miles more out of 1 tank of gas. Wierd, but true (shocked)
 
Mikey I use 93 octane Mexican gasoline. It's crap. But I don't think is the real reason of that low gas mileage.

I'll be monitoring 2 more gas tanks before going to the dealership.

I'll keep you posted
 
If you guys look at what people are saying in the Acura RDX forum, it's exactly the same as here.

EPA is to blame....not manufacturers. And when you have AWD + Turbo = so so gas mileage.

The only thing in that where I think these manufacturers (Acura AND Mazda) have gone wrong is with telling people the 4 turbo offers the same performance as a V6 with greater fuel economy. Last time I checked some V6 were getting at least same or better gas mileage. Acura and Mazda both said a V6 can't fit in the CX-7 and RDX. I still think that with a little work they could have managed it. Some still prefer a turbo in their car. Me I don't care as long as it has guts under the hood. A V6 would have gotten the job fine in these vehicles too and with regular instead of premium.

Anyway, great vehicles but if you're looking at these and think you'll have above 20 mpg you are dreaming.
 
Last edited:
I'm not extremely familiar with Mazda's vehicles across the board - but, i think that the reason why the truck has a turbo 4 is because that was Mazdas most powerful engine type at the time? Their V6 in the 6 was severely inadequate for the CX-7, and as i can see it, the V6 was still either in development with Ford for the Edge/CX-9 or it just was flat out not available.

Also, in terms of a marketing standpoint, the CX-7 & the 9 would/should not share the same powerplant because that would just be a bad idea for sales.

As for the RDX, might have been better off with the V6 from the TL, but maybe it just really couldnt fit under the hood.
 
I am getting bad gas mileage as well. I have around 4400 miles on my CX 7 and the last two fill ups were 12.4 and 11.99 per gal. I took it to the dealer after the 12.4 fill up and they flashed some update; told me to let them know if it helped or not. I filled up and got the 11.99 per gal! I called them and they said they would call Mazda and ask some questions. I heard back from the service mgr and he said Mazda said that my car is still in the break in period and that I should bring it in so they can check some setting via the computer, and if that setting is ok, then they want me to drive the car in Manual mode for the next 30 miles. All my driving is in town. No highway driving for the most part. I also drive conservative!
 
9Hooker said:
I understand that I should be blaming the EPA. Mazda can willing come forth and say "this car gets normally XXX or YYY mileage". My salesman talked up and down about all his supposed customers getting 20 mpg easy.

Hell, for near the same price, I could have walked away with a Honda Pilot (fitting car name) with more space, 3rd row seating!!), a bigger motor and would probably have gotten their EPA rated 17/24.

I like the CX-7 don't get me wrong. But it reminds me of the false claim of the RX-8 horsepower deal. Who is to say the motor doesn't make that much hp and the tranny eats it all up? Bah.

/rant
Click to expand...
I also considered the Honda Pilot but I didn't need third row seating and the Pilot just doesn't handle like a CX7. I won't even talk about the looks. The Pilot's steering wheel had way too much play for my taste. I could move it back and forth quite a bit and it did not affect the steering. The salesmen told it was designed like that to avoid sudden manuevers that could cause a roll-over. ( I doubt it ) It's acceleration was smooth but let's face it the car is a behemoth and it drives like one. Also, I believe the Pilot would have cost me a bit more if I went feature for feature. The Pilot did not skimp on some of the obvious features that I felt should be included, but nothing that made me say I gotta have it. Also, their were some issues with wheel vibration at 70 I kept reading about.

Bottom line is that it depends on what you want or are used to and willing to trade off. No vehicle does it all. The other vehicles I drive eat up the road so I needed an SUV that could deliver the goods in the the drivability area. I saw nothing out there that could deliver the goods like the CX7 without going into German engineering and spending 40,000 and up, though it's possible I missed something.... and no I didn't want an RDX or a Murano.
 
Update on my car. My dealer just told me that my car was reading high in carbon. So they "de carbonized it" and told me to just drive it normal and check the gas mileage at the next fill up. I hope this works. I did noticed a lot of wispy white smoke coming from the exhaust after I turned the car off. We shall see if this helps with the gas mileage!
 
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
acidbug
    • Like
CX-5 Turbo: 87 vs 91 vs 93
Replies
5
Views
1K
N7turbo
N7turbo
E
Mazda6 2.5L petrol a good car? Any problems?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Buzzman12
B

Latest posts

Back