• Welcome to Mazdas247, the 24/7 Mazda Community and Resource. Learn about the benefits of becoming a Member here.
  • We're an Amazon Associate and eBay Partner. We earn from qualifying purchases.

What did you pay for your CX-5?

:
Texas
:
'20 CX-5 Signature
Worried about fuel economy.
Have 2017 CX5 GT and fuel economy is quite poor.
Fuel economy is not one of the CX-5's best attributes. I've been averaging just under the combined EPA rating of 24 in my '20 Signature.

According to Fuelly.com:

"Based on data from 65 vehicles, 1,965 fuel-ups and 518,335 miles of driving, the 2019 Mazda CX-5 gets a combined Avg MPG of 25.11 with a 0.18 MPG margin of error." (2.5L non-turbo FWD & AWD)

"Based on data from 41 vehicles, 1,292 fuel-ups and 333,187 miles of driving, the 2019 Mazda CX-5 gets a combined Avg MPG of 24.71 with a 0.21 MPG margin of error." (2.5L turbo AWD)


So, there doesn't appear to be much real-world fuel economy disadvantage in exchange for the turbocharged engined and AWD.

For the 2017 CX-5, Fuelly.com reports:

"Based on data from 153 vehicles, 8,977 fuel-ups and 2,429,353 miles of driving, the 2017 Mazda CX-5 gets a combined Avg MPG of 24.95 with a 0.08 MPG margin of error."

So, unless there's something wrong with your 2017 CX-5 resulting in what you consider to be "quite poor" fuel economy, it's likely that a 2020 turbo or non-turbo would return similarly "quite poor" fuel economy.
 
:
2017 CX-5 GT
Fuel economy is not one of the CX-5's best attributes. I've been averaging just under the combined EPA rating of 24 in my '20 Signature.

According to Fuelly.com:

"Based on data from 65 vehicles, 1,965 fuel-ups and 518,335 miles of driving, the 2019 Mazda CX-5 gets a combined Avg MPG of 25.11 with a 0.18 MPG margin of error." (2.5L non-turbo FWD & AWD)

"Based on data from 41 vehicles, 1,292 fuel-ups and 333,187 miles of driving, the 2019 Mazda CX-5 gets a combined Avg MPG of 24.71 with a 0.21 MPG margin of error." (2.5L turbo AWD)


So, there doesn't appear to be much real-world fuel economy disadvantage in exchange for the turbocharged engined and AWD.

For the 2017 CX-5, Fuelly.com reports:

"Based on data from 153 vehicles, 8,977 fuel-ups and 2,429,353 miles of driving, the 2017 Mazda CX-5 gets a combined Avg MPG of 24.95 with a 0.08 MPG margin of error."

So, unless there's something wrong with your 2017 CX-5 resulting in what you consider to be "quite poor" fuel economy, it's likely that a 2020 turbo or non-turbo would return similarly "quite poor" fuel economy.

Thank you for that information.
in the city here in Boston, it’s hard to get more than 22mpg. On a 95% highway drive I can sometimes get to 27-28mpg but never can get anywhere close to 30.
Even though my civic was rated like 35 mpg highway, I frequently got 42-45mpg if I drove conservative.
Anyways maybe worth checking out the reserve than for the increased screen size and better engine then.

any thoughts on the pricing
 
:
Texas
:
'20 CX-5 Signature
Thank you for that information.
in the city here in Boston, it’s hard to get more than 22mpg. On a 95% highway drive I can sometimes get to 27-28mpg but never can get anywhere close to 30.
Even though my civic was rated like 35 mpg highway, I frequently got 42-45mpg if I drove conservative.
Anyways maybe worth checking out the reserve than for the increased screen size and better engine then.

any thoughts on the pricing
I pay cash for my vehicles, but I'm sure others can guide you on lease pricing.

The turbo engine's massive torque inspires a lot of confidence (and fun) and makes the non-turbo feel rather lazy - particularly while passing and merging.

The extra inch of screen size may not sound like much, but going from 7" to 8" is like going from a 65" TV to a 75" TV. The difference becomes very apparent when you get used to the 8" then go back to a 7" which looks somewhat lilliputian. :)

I've often been able to meet or beat the EPA estimates on my Hondas as well. I'll gladly give up some fuel economy for driving enjoyment, though. Most Hondas are very practical and efficient, but their reliability has declined to below-average in recent years and they're not the most exciting vehicles to drive. Mazda reminds me of how Honda used to be back in the 80s and 90s before they tried to go too mainstream resulting in sacrifices in quality.
 
Top