Slight Concern about MPG

jhu8 said:

How can you say such a thing? Just go on fuelly. The CX-5 rates as I believe the top fuel efficient CUV, right next to the CR-V. The rouge, rav4, escape, etc all fall below. Yet, you still believe they dropped the ball with fuel efficiency on the cx5. What more do you need than REAL LIFE data?

Click to expand...

Some are never satisfied, subscribe to their own agenda, and ignore selected facts.
Like the Fuelly scores.
Or Consumer Reports.
CX 5s in all trims are known for their economy especially vs. Dodge or GM.
And Durangos do not directly compete w/ CXs.

Just looks like some sort of whizzing contest between two (MM, unobt) heavy posters.

Dr Awkward,

Funny you wrote about this. Cars are so much better than they used to be compared to when I first started driving and they significantly improve with each redesign. The way some complain about their vehicles; you would think they were driving the very first model T. It almost seems the better vehicles get, the more drivers have to complain about. I think some driver standards and expectations are rising faster than technology can keep up with for a given price point.

There's also the just plain spoiled typical take how good things are for granted American attitude out there too. Just ask anyone who works retail or has to deal with the public and they will likely tell you just how awful many are to them.

V8toilet said:

Dr Awkward,

Funny you wrote about this. Cars are so much better than they used to be compared to when I first started driving and they significantly improve with each redesign. The way some complain about their vehicles; you would think they were driving the very first model T. It almost seems the better vehicles get, the more drivers have to complain about. I think some driver standards and expectations are rising faster than technology can keep up with for a given price point.

There's also the just plain spoiled typical take how good things are for granted American attitude out there too. Just ask anyone who works retail or has to deal with the public and they will likely tell you just how awful many are to them.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of this so much and I am at a loss to explain how it slithered into our American consciousness.

I cannot believe the prevalence of negative and spoiled attitudes. Where did all these people come from that don't know how good they have it! People actually romanticize the crappy buckets of bolts that were called autos in the 1970's and 1980's! And if their new car doesn't wipe their butt and squirt it with a little warm water and blow it dry with a pleasant warm blast of air they whine about the lack of creature comforts.

I'm only 52 years old but the Americans that shaped my attitudes had an optimistic, "can do" attitude. A hearty and positive outlook on life that was based upon shrugging off hardships, focusing on the goodness, rolling up their sleeves and solving whatever obstacles might lie in their path. So many people now want someone else (or something else) to do everything for them. Even then, they will complain it wasn't done soon enough or it cost too much. Whatever happened to the desire to make the world a better place, to contribute to something bigger than themselves?

I'm a realist and I have to call things how I see it. I'm not one to put lipstick on a pig (but the CX-5 is about as far from a pig as you can get). I think the zombie apocalypse is actually already happening. It's just happening in such slow motion that most people cannot see that the zombies are amongst themselves and they are them!

SO I'm guessing your not part of the class action suit because the CX-5 doesn't play your tunes in the correct order? Grin

fdew said:

SO I'm guessing your not part of the class action suit because the CX-5 doesn't play your tunes in the correct order? Grin

Click to expand...

How did you guess? But mine actually does play them in the correct order and starts where it left off (2013). Even if it didn't, that is such a minor detail in the grander scheme of things I wouldn't waste my time or emotional energy on it.

To add another data point regarding mileage:

2015 CX-5 GT AWD (2.5L AT). I get 20 mpg in the city (parking lot might be a more apt definition given the rush hour crawl). I have hit 29 mpg when driving, quite spiritedly mind you, through mountainous highways. I don't see 30-32 mpg being out of the question for a straight run. Next time I head to the US, most likely Portland, I am going to see what kind of efficiency I can get. My 2012 Mazda 3 got 38 mpg on that run, and a portion of that was city driving in Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland.

Small update. Had a trip to the mountains this past weekend, so before heading home I had filled up. The trip back is 100% highway with hills, cruise set at 70MPH 90% of the time, 65MPH the remainder. Total trip is 177 miles or so, from there on I commuted to work up until today which is when I filled up. Manual calculation yields 26MPG. Still not impressed, I used to get 20MPG highway in my 02' Avalanche, 5.3 V8, mud tires, weighted in at roughly 6000lbs on a scale...same trip too!

Looks like the 2016 CX5 just can't get the same fuel mileage my 2014 can. I never saw less than 29 on mine for highway calculated by the mileage\gallons.

russiankid said:

The trip back is 100% highway with hills, cruise set at 70MPH 90% of the time, 65MPH the remainder.

Click to expand...

One thing that distorts the CX-5 HWY mpg unfavorably is that most people report their CX-5 speedometer is generally spot on with the GPS speed (I know mine is within 0.5 mph). However, every other car I've used extensively with GPS reports 70 mph when you're only going 66-68 mph. This 2-4 mph difference can make a BIG difference in HWY mpg. Bigger than you might expect. The very accuracy of the CX-5's speedometer is a liability when comparing mpg's at various cruising speeds with vehicles that over-report the speed.

Secondly, my odometer UNDER REPORTS distance traveled. This is true whether I have the OEM Geolanders or my winter rubber mounted. Most vehicles I've owned OVER REPORT the distance traveled when using the OEM tire size so any comparisons between the CX-5 and most other vehicles are distorted twice (both times in a direction that is unfavorable to the CX5). And these distortions are compounded by the speedometer distortion mentioned above. The cumulative impact can be quite significant. Of course none of these unfavorable distortions are present during the EPA test cycle because speed and distance is measured by the dynamometer.

Also, you might consider controlling your speed the old fashioned way rather than relying on your cruise control. I've had cruise control on my previous 5 cars and I could always get higher MPG's without using the cruise control. I know CC is often cited as a good tool to get better MPG, but this only works if you set it to a slower speed than you would end up at without using CC. Some people decide to cruise at 65 mph but find they are constantly creeping up to 75 mph subconsciously. But, if you are one of those drivers who can naturally maintain a speed within a couple of mph of your intended speed with manual throttle control, you will find you get higher mpg's than with the CC on.

Russiankid, the numbers never scale down from bigger vehicles to smaller. 2014 4WD Tahoe is 1.57 times heavier, has 2.12 times larger displacement, 1.74 times more powerful engine, (1.81 times torque). It weighs 1.56 times more, yielding 22.19 lbs/HP. CX-5 is worse at 24.66 lbs/HP. And 2.5L AWD CX-5 is only 1.5 times more fuel efficient. Mind you, the LMG engine in Tahoe is port-injected low-compression push-rod, nothing fancy, compared to SkyActiv design.
That's how it is, I bet smaller cars compare even worse.

MikeM. said:

One thing that distorts the CX-5 HWY mpg unfavorably is that most people report their CX-5 speedometer is generally spot on with the GPS speed (I know mine is within 0.5 mph). However, every other car I've used extensively with GPS reports 70 mph when you're only going 66-68 mph. This 2-4 mph difference can make a BIG difference in HWY mpg. Bigger than you might expect. The very accuracy of the CX-5's speedometer is a liability when comparing mpg's at various cruising speeds with vehicles that over-report the speed.

Secondly, my odometer UNDER REPORTS distance traveled. This is true whether I have the OEM Geolanders or my winter rubber mounted. Most vehicles I've owned OVER REPORT the distance traveled when using the OEM tire size so any comparisons between the CX-5 and most other vehicles are distorted twice (both times in a direction that is unfavorable to the CX5). And these distortions are compounded by the speedometer distortion mentioned above. The cumulative impact can be quite significant. Of course none of these unfavorable distortions are present during the EPA test cycle because speed and distance is measured by the dynamometer.

Also, you might consider controlling your speed the old fashioned way rather than relying on your cruise control. I've had cruise control on my previous 5 cars and I could always get higher MPG's without using the cruise control. I know CC is often cited as a good tool to get better MPG, but this only works if you set it to a slower speed than you would end up at without using CC. Some people decide to cruise at 65 mph but find they are constantly creeping up to 75 mph subconsciously. But, if you are one of those drivers who can naturally maintain a speed within a couple of mph of your intended speed with manual throttle control, you will find you get higher mpg's than with the CC on.

Click to expand...

Mike - is there anything you won't find in order to explain that CX5 mileage is better or great. Initially it was all about FWD, then tires and now odo readings, GPS verses actual speed. Every reputed place I have seen says cruise control gives better MPG but I am sure you'll now pull up few websites which states otherwise. Can you dig inside your magic box maybe some more and find out even more reasons as to why CX5 mileage values are truly great? Maybe it'll be the clearance from ground, maybe it'll be the amazing paint quality which stream lines the flow of air?

V8toilet said:

Looks like the 2016 CX5 just can't get the same fuel mileage my 2014 can. I never saw less than 29 on mine for highway calculated by the mileage\gallons.

Click to expand...

I'm not getting quite as good as you are, but I'm close and very happy with the mpg figures so far.

MikeM. said:

Also, you might consider controlling your speed the old fashioned way rather than relying on your cruise control. I've had cruise control on my previous 5 cars and I could always get higher MPG's without using the cruise control. I know CC is often cited as a good tool to get better MPG, but this only works if you set it to a slower speed than you would end up at without using CC. Some people decide to cruise at 65 mph but find they are constantly creeping up to 75 mph subconsciously. But, if you are one of those drivers who can naturally maintain a speed within a couple of mph of your intended speed with manual throttle control, you will find you get higher mpg's than with the CC on.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on this Mike. Actually the best way I know to get better mpg isn't constant speed, it's constant throttle. If road conditions and traffic permit I'll gain some speed going down the hill and lose it going up the next one.

I believe that cold weather & winter gas mix combine to lower mpg. Someone mentioned that the mpg dash display was inaccurate. On my current CX-5 I have tracked mpg by the dash, and the pump math. With 76 fill ups the dash mpg average is 27.61, versus the pump math average of 28.0. This is a difference that I find negligible, so I think the dash mpg is pretty accurate. Cheers

Goguinness said:

I believe that cold weather & winter gas mix combine to lower mpg. Someone mentioned that the mpg dash display was inaccurate. On my current CX-5 I have tracked mpg by the dash, and the pump math. With 76 fill ups the dash mpg average is 27.61, versus the pump math average of 28.0. This is a difference that I find negligible, so I think the dash mpg is pretty accurate. Cheers

Click to expand...

Yep. Cold weather, winter gas, and now most gas at the pump is blended with ethanol. EPA doesn't use any ethanol in its testing fuel. Ethanol is less energetic so it lowers mpg by a few percent.

MikeM. said:

One thing that distorts the CX-5 HWY mpg unfavorably is that most people report their CX-5 speedometer is generally spot on with the GPS speed (I know mine is within 0.5 mph). However, every other car I've used extensively with GPS reports 70 mph when you're only going 66-68 mph. This 2-4 mph difference can make a BIG difference in HWY mpg. Bigger than you might expect. The very accuracy of the CX-5's speedometer is a liability when comparing mpg's at various cruising speeds with vehicles that over-report the speed.

Secondly, my odometer UNDER REPORTS distance traveled. This is true whether I have the OEM Geolanders or my winter rubber mounted. Most vehicles I've owned OVER REPORT the distance traveled when using the OEM tire size so any comparisons between the CX-5 and most other vehicles are distorted twice (both times in a direction that is unfavorable to the CX5). And these distortions are compounded by the speedometer distortion mentioned above. The cumulative impact can be quite significant. Of course none of these unfavorable distortions are present during the EPA test cycle because speed and distance is measured by the dynamometer.

Also, you might consider controlling your speed the old fashioned way rather than relying on your cruise control. I've had cruise control on my previous 5 cars and I could always get higher MPG's without using the cruise control. I know CC is often cited as a good tool to get better MPG, but this only works if you set it to a slower speed than you would end up at without using CC. Some people decide to cruise at 65 mph but find they are constantly creeping up to 75 mph subconsciously. But, if you are one of those drivers who can naturally maintain a speed within a couple of mph of your intended speed with manual throttle control, you will find you get higher mpg's than with the CC on.

Click to expand...

I have not noticed the true accuracy of the CX-5 in speed and distance. I am just going off what the car says, and how many gallons of fuel I put in. And as for using the CC, I didn't purchase a modern car to have to drive it like my 89' Accord two a 2-barrel carburetor to achieve the best results.

IRRC, Google says it is 22 miles from my house to work one way, and I believe my trip meter says the same. I will actually reset my trip B before I head home today and see how accurate it is.

yugrus said:

Russiankid, the numbers never scale down from bigger vehicles to smaller. 2014 4WD Tahoe is 1.57 times heavier, has 2.12 times larger displacement, 1.74 times more powerful engine, (1.81 times torque). It weighs 1.56 times more, yielding 22.19 lbs/HP. CX-5 is worse at 24.66 lbs/HP. And 2.5L AWD CX-5 is only 1.5 times more fuel efficient. Mind you, the LMG engine in Tahoe is port-injected low-compression push-rod, nothing fancy, compared to SkyActiv design.
That's how it is, I bet smaller cars compare even worse.

Click to expand...

True. But at this rate I may as well drive a big ole' truck to work just because haha

I ran a couple of tankful's of pure gas which is sold at a few stations in the Charlotte area. I did not see enough of a change to warrant the additional expense of the pure stuff.

bmninada said:

Mike - is there anything you won't find in order to explain that CX5 mileage is better or great.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are things I won't find in order to explain that CX-5 mpg compares well to the competition - specifically, those things that are not real or relevant to mpg comparisons.

While I can't speak to the odometer and speedo calibration of every CX-5 ever made, I can speak to the calibration of mine, both with the OEM tires and with the same sized winter tires (because I've measured it numerous times, carefully, over long enough distances to come to accurate figures). And these calibrations actually significantly and negatively affect the mpg comparisons to other vehicles that over-report mileage and/or speed. In other words, whether I calculate mpg using the manual method or simply use the trip computer for mpg readings, my actual mpg is better than my calculations would indicate because my CX-5 reports a shorter distance than actually traveled. Here in Washington we have 5 mile odometer check stations that can be used to accurately determine odometer error. It is common for other vehicles to over report the distance traveled so they will not be getting the mpg that you calculate. This over-reporting is also bad because it makes your warranty expire sooner, makes service intervals approach sooner, and adds unnecessary miles to your odometer when it comes time to sell your vehicle. We are fortunate the CX-5 under reports distances for those reasons. Of course these calibrations can be modified with a simple software flash so I can't speak to CX-5's with different model years or trim levels and different tires can change the calibrations as well. You need to check your own if you want to insure the accuracy of your mpg numbers.

If you have ever had a car that said you were going 70 mph when you were actually going 67 mph, you might tell your friend you can get 25 mpg at 70 mph while, in actuality, if you stepped it up to a true 70 mph (perhaps 73-74 mph on your Speedo), you might find your mpg has dropped to 24 mpg. It makes a big difference!

Every reputed place I have seen says cruise control gives better MPG but I am sure you'll now pull up few websites which states otherwise.

Click to expand...

I don't need a website to tell me whether I'll get better mpg using cruise control or not, I can try it both ways numerous times with numerous cars and see the real world results.(thumb) You can rely on "reputed places" if you like.

Can you dig inside your magic box maybe some more and find out even more reasons as to why CX5 mileage values are truly great?

Click to expand...

I don't have a "magic box", I have a thing called "critical thinking skills" which I use to employ the scientific method. You should try it some time... (yes)

Mike, if I'm not mistaken you have oem rims and aftermarket lighter rims ? Do you notice any mpg advantage with the lighter rims ? If so , how much lighter is it and what mpg improvement did you notice ?

My CX-5 under-reports speed by 1~2 MPH, so if the needle is on 70, I am actually doing ~72MPH.
The MPG computer was up to +-2MPG off my calculated value, but is typically within +-1MPG. I try to use the same physical pump in the same station and fill it in the same style. However, it is still possible I am not filling it to the same top line every time and thus introduce errors to the calculated method.
When I checked my odometer, years ago, the error was less than 1% compared with my GPS, so I decided to ignore it.

I too can get better MPG by not using the cruise control. I let the speed slide when going up-hill, where cruise control will insist on the engine working hard to climb at the set speed. Going down hill I avoid using the brakes as much as possible and prevent the engine from going to a lower gear, except when safety dictates it.

If the instant MPG meter is not lying, it seems that a good WOT operation followed by normal cruising causes better instant MPG readings at normal cruising. This could be explained by better thermal efficiency that is gained after properly heating the engine. If this is true, it may be that babying the throttle too much can actually hurt your MPG
However, getting the best instant reading always involve feather & consistent throttle application, when the engine switches to the Atkinson cycle.

4G63T said:

Mike, if I'm not mistaken you have oem rims and aftermarket lighter rims ? Do you notice any mpg advantage with the lighter rims ? If so , how much lighter is it and what mpg improvement did you notice ?

Click to expand...

My aftermarket rims/tires are about 4 lbs. lighter apiece for a savings of 32 lbs. rotating mass. I have my winter tires mounted on them because the lower rotational momentum helps them hook up faster on ice if I over-brake or add too much throttle. They make the anti-lock brakes work better for the same reason. I can feel that the car is a little perkier accelerating off the line so I know it improves my city mpg's but it's difficult to say how much because I always mount them up right before winter weather hits. This is the same time the winter fuel is being phased in and also when I start driving more in the mountains. Typically my mpg's go down, just not as much as if it would with heavier rims. Lighter rims will not improve freeway cruising mpg's at all.