I found out that the gas mileage on the 2011 Mazda Cx9 Front wheel drive model is rated at 17 City and 24 Highway. The numbers are slightly higher than 16 city and 22 highway for the 2010 Mazda cx9 Front wheel drive model. I wonder if the Mazda dealership is able to update the engine software on 2010 CX9 to increase the gas mileage to 2011 specs. Does anyone has any answer?
2011 Mazda cx 9 gas mileage VS 2010 Mazda cx9 gas mileage
- Thread starter olajuma
- Start date
Don't kid yourself, our 2011 GT FWD gets at most 22 mpg highway and about 15 around town. Our 2007 with the 3.5l engine we averaged at least 25 mpg highway and 18 around town. This is not good guys as the Chevy/GMC Tahoes gets the same mileage and 6000 lb towing capacity.
I suspect the decreased towing capacity may also have to do with the CX-9 being a unibody vs the other full size SUVs like the Tahoe being a body on frame construction.
Last edited:
The point is the GMC twins are heavier vehicles (by at least 800 lbs) with V8s and get the same mileage as the CX-9. I was just saying don't kid yourself that just because our CX-9s are V6s and lighter that it doesn't translate to better mileage. I've said it many times before and no one has given a good reason why Mazda went to the 3.7l engine with no performance gains and lost 15% fuel efficeincy over the 3.5l engine. I remember going to Disney World with our 07 CX-9 with 5 passengers and a car top carrier at mostly 80mph driving and getting 27mpg on two successive tanks of gas. The 3.5l engine is a better engine IMO.
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
jrtouareg,
3.7L has more torque and horsepower than the 3.5L due to larger bore.
Mazda did it to increase offline responsiveness, especially for towing.
However, due to abnormally short 1st gear, CX9 suffers from bad city mileage.
I sometimes start off with 2nd gear (with "M" gear), and it pulls just fine.
On highway mileage, I got 24mpg@65mph w/o trying hard.
On a longer trip from San Jose to Sacramento (120 miles), I easily got 23mpg@70-75mph on Highway#5.
Mine is 2008 GT AWD with four people plus some luggages on that trip.
As you can see from my signature, I have tons of accessories on my CX9....
3.7L has more torque and horsepower than the 3.5L due to larger bore.
Mazda did it to increase offline responsiveness, especially for towing.
However, due to abnormally short 1st gear, CX9 suffers from bad city mileage.
I sometimes start off with 2nd gear (with "M" gear), and it pulls just fine.
On highway mileage, I got 24mpg@65mph w/o trying hard.
On a longer trip from San Jose to Sacramento (120 miles), I easily got 23mpg@70-75mph on Highway#5.
Mine is 2008 GT AWD with four people plus some luggages on that trip.
As you can see from my signature, I have tons of accessories on my CX9....
This is the wife's car and I don't think she even knows how to use the manual mode. I have seen a lot of complaints about the gas mileage of the CX-9 in this forum. I have owned a lot of cars over the years and we love the CX-9 in how it drives but fuel mileage compared to other vehicles which are heavier with larger engines is a head scratcher. The power gains with the 3.7l is minimal and you will be hard pressed to notice it even driving both back to back as I did. Our 2004 Honda Odyssey minivan with a 5 speed auto, shaped like a brick and weighed 300 lbs more than the CX-9 got between 27 - 29 mpg on the highway consistently and at least 17 mpg around town. My 2008 VW Touareg which weighed 5190 lbs, full time all wheel drive, air suspension with a 3.6l engine (380 HP) gets the same mileage as the CX-9 and it has a 7700 lb towing capacity. BTW, the Touareg uses the same Aisin 6 speed as the CX-9.
shodanusmc
Member
Our old BMW X5 4.4 V-8 averages 3 MPG better than the 2011 GT. Same type of driving....stange to say the least. The X5 was heavier, and quicker
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
Look at there. Many owners reported about 16-17 mixed-driving MPG with 4.4L V8. That is about what I would expect.
http://www.truedelta.com/fuel_econo...nd=BMW&modelCode=29&email=Guest&session_code=
I had a '98 BMW 540iA (similar/older V8 4.4L). My average was about 16-17mpg as well (a sedan, remind you, at 500lb lighter) same driving style.
MPG varies from person to person. I have been getting 18mpg with my GT AWD with 50/50 mixed driving. That's 1-2mpg better than
my old 500lb lighter BMW 540iA. Expected. As I said, CX9 has very short 1st gear. It hurts city mileage.
Last edited:
After I quick research on 2011 Mazda cx 9 spec, I found a article on caradvice.com which stated "Mazda says fuel economy improvements were a result of work done on the models AWD differential gear control, engine optimisation for better combustion control (during deceleration and at idle) and reduction in transmission friction.
Depending on variant, new 18 and 20 inch alloy wheels will set the 2011 Mazda CX-9 apart. The new alloys are lighter than before and come wrapped in tyres that offer better rolling resistance (better fuel economy)."
Looks like most of the updated to improved the fuel economy are hardware related, undated the engine software has nothing to do to increase the fuel economy.
Depending on variant, new 18 and 20 inch alloy wheels will set the 2011 Mazda CX-9 apart. The new alloys are lighter than before and come wrapped in tyres that offer better rolling resistance (better fuel economy)."
Looks like most of the updated to improved the fuel economy are hardware related, undated the engine software has nothing to do to increase the fuel economy.
I'm not too impressed either. I thought it may improve a bit with some break-in miles, but ours is up over 1800 now so should be mostly broken in. And it's getting 16mg in mixed driving - maybe 50/50 city-freeway, with an average speed of 28 as a reference point. I wasn't expecting miracles, but figured it would be more like 17 under those conditions since the city rating is 16. Seems to me the city rating is optimistic. Ours is a touring AWD with the 18" wheels.
Now, it is a lot better than the BMW x5 it replaces - the 4.6is model with a 340hp V8 that was lucky to hit 13 under the same conditions. I figured on average the CX9 would be save 25% on fuel costs. So far it's closer to 20%, but maybe with some more break-in miles and also factoring in 2-3% savings using 87 instead of 91 octane.
On pure highway trips so far I'm getting right around 20.
Certainly nothing to write home about. I'd say the bigger Pilot would be doing better by at least 1 if not 2mpg.
Now, it is a lot better than the BMW x5 it replaces - the 4.6is model with a 340hp V8 that was lucky to hit 13 under the same conditions. I figured on average the CX9 would be save 25% on fuel costs. So far it's closer to 20%, but maybe with some more break-in miles and also factoring in 2-3% savings using 87 instead of 91 octane.
On pure highway trips so far I'm getting right around 20.
Certainly nothing to write home about. I'd say the bigger Pilot would be doing better by at least 1 if not 2mpg.
