Question about break-in experience

S

Seabright

:
2016.5 GT AWD
Still on the first tank of gas on the AWD CX 5. 250 miles.

I read in a number of posts here that owners experience vehicle changes during the first few thousand miles. I noticed only that maybe the gas mileage increased over the first 50 miles, but just a suspicion looking at the mileage gauge. Sitting at 25.6 on the gauge now with a 80/20 hwy/city mix. About the same as our 2006 BMW 325 on the same route (not bad considering the BMW is lighter, more streamlined and FWD only). Engine and transmission are smooth. Overall the car feels broken-in. Over the years my new cars took a few thousand miles to feel this smooth.

So I am wondering if others have noticed any material differences in the vehicle after the first few hundred miles.
 
Break-in period should be at least 600 miles according to owner's manual. CX-5 AWD will have worse MPG than FWD for 2~4 miles especially on the highway. Our AWD CX-5 had about 26.8 MPG with all city driving when it was new and now at 9,880 miles the MPG is about 25.6. Our MPG has never been getting better after break-in period like some others experienced.
 
yrwei52 said:
Break-in period should be at least 600 miles according to owner's manual. CX-5 AWD will have worse MPG than FWD for 2~4 miles especially on the highway. Our AWD CX-5 had about 26.8 MPG with all city driving when it was new and now at 9,880 miles the MPG is about 25.6. Our MPG has never been getting better after break-in period like some others experienced.
Click to expand...

Mine has 45k miles and I average around 23mpg, highway mostly. Is what it is. I suspect they are all similar, if driven on the same roads similarly.
 
Averaging 31.7 mpg with the FWD. our mileage actually dropped by 0.75 mpg after switching from the 17 inch Michelin winter tires to the 19 inch toyos. The winter wheel and tire set I have is about 8lbs a tire lighter.
 
inlinev said:
Averaging 31.7 mpg with the FWD. our mileage actually dropped by 0.75 mpg after switching from the 17 inch Michelin winter tires to the 19 inch toyos. The winter wheel and tire set I have is about 8lbs a tire lighter.
Click to expand...
A friend of mine just got a 2016.5 CX-5 FWD GT replacing hail-damaged 2014 CX-5. His MPG is consistently getting 30+ mpg at about 70% highway driving. Like I suspected, AWD system on CX-5 is definitely not efficient than other AWD's. This is also showed by EPA fuel economy estimates as most other compact CUVs suffer only 1 mpg on AWD but our CX-5 suffers 2~3 mpg! (26/24/30 AWD vs. 29/26/33 FWD comb./city/hwy. EPA fuel economy estimates on 2016 CX-5).

"Mazda's renowned AWD system is also updated and real-world fuel economy improved."

This is from Mazda's press release in November 2014 for their new 2016 CX-5. Apparently Mazda knows their AWD system is not efficient and was trying to improve it. But after 14 months of the ownership, I still don't see it.
 
IMO: AWD MPG penalty may just be the price to pay for more reactive system with constant 2% load to the rear
 
yrwei52 said:
Like I suspected, AWD system on CX-5 is definitely not efficient than other AWD's. This is also showed by EPA fuel economy estimates as most other compact CUVs suffer only 1 mpg on AWD but our CX-5 suffers 2~3 mpg! (26/24/30 AWD vs. 29/26/33 FWD comb./city/hwy. EPA fuel economy estimates on 2016 CX-5).
Click to expand...

Why compare the difference in EPA MPG between FWD and AWD for various cars? Instead, compare the AWD MPG.
For the class, there is a very short list of vehicles that, on paper, get better fuel economy than the CX-5 AWD:

Subaru Outback 33/25/28 fuelly: 24.5/25
Nissan Rogue AWD 32/25/28 fuelly: 24.8/24.9
Honda CR-V AWD 31/25/27 fuelly: 2016:25.3 2015:27
Hyundai Tucson Eco AWD 31/25/27 (But only if you get the Eco, not other trims!)
Subaru Forester 32/24/27 fuelly: 23.8/24.9
Mazda CX-5 AWD 30/24/26 fuelly: 26/26.4

Important comment about fuelly:
Alas, they don't properly categorize which engine/transmission/drivetrain owners actually use. For the Outback/Forester this means different engines and transmissions (but all AWD). However, most of the Outbacks and Foresters sold use the base engine with CVT.
For the Tucson Eco, there is no point looking at fuelly, because all other trims will be mixed in.
However, for all other vehicles, AWD and FWD will be mixed, BUT because all FWD get better MPG, it can only improve the fuelly figure and thus puts a cap on how good the AWD can be. For example, the Nissan Rogue's ~25 MPG can, on average, only be up to, but probably a bit lower, for the AWD version.

Important comment about the CR-V:
AWD MPG was revised down between 2015 and 2016. This is probably because of the vibration at idle issue, which was addressed in 2016. You can see fuelly numbers significantly dropped.

So, what we learn from this table:
1. The CX-5 has only very few competitors with better on-paper MPG. By mostly 1/2 and 3 for the Outback Highway numbers, 1/0 for city numbers and 1/2 for mixed.
2. The real-world consumption for these competitors are below that of the CX-5.
3. All others, except the Tucson Eco, get their lofty EPA numbers using a CVT transmission.
4. The CX-5's mixed driving EPA value is what, on average, real-world drivers get.

Interestingly, the 2014 CX-5 fuelly number is 27.2. I wonder what is the reason for the difference. In contrast, 2015 to 2016 may not have any MPG benefit, or perhaps just a minor one.
 
Last edited:
ALafya said:
yrwei52 said:
Like I suspected, AWD system on CX-5 is definitely not efficient than other AWD's. This is also showed by EPA fuel economy estimates as most other compact CUVs suffer only 1 mpg on AWD but our CX-5 suffers 2~3 mpg! (26/24/30 AWD vs. 29/26/33 FWD comb./city/hwy. EPA fuel economy estimates on 2016 CX-5).
Click to expand...
Why compare the difference in EPA MPG between FWD and AWD for various cars? Instead, compare the AWD MPG.
Click to expand...
Because I was saying the AWD system on CX-5 is not efficient, not the FWD CX-5 with class leading fuel economy. I saw others with AWD have only 1 or less EPA mpg penalty but CX-5 needs 2~3 times more. From my own experience, I can never get 30 mpg on the highway even if I drive at 55 mph according to instant MPG readout. I could only get 25~26 mpg on the highway during our 700-mile trip to Houston and Austin. I'd be very disappointed if our AWD CX-5 could only get 23 mpg like Unobtanium's. But for not being able to reach EPA's 30 mpg on the highway under any circumstances is definitely a disappointment to me.
 
Last edited:
Look at the info above. The CX-5 AWD is the most real-world fuel efficient compact crossover you can get.
The CX-5 average is based on ~300 vehicles, ~8000 fill-ups and > 2M miles (Not including 2014s).
Outliers exist for every vehicle. I can easily do 30 MPG on the highway.
 
Last edited:
Kedis82ZE8 said:
IMO: AWD MPG penalty may just be the price to pay for more reactive system with constant 2% load to the rear
Click to expand...

That's crazy, though. My Grand Jeep Cherokee had a MUCH HEAVIER AWD system, and drove the rear wheels 52%. It still got window sticker mpg, which was 1mpg less on the highway than RWD. It had two drive-shafts for crying out loud! I stick to my guns on this one, Mazda did something terribly wrong in the efficiency dept.
 
ALafya said:
Look at the info above. The CX-5 AWD is the most real-world fuel efficient compact crossover you can get.
The CX-5 average is based on ~300 vehicles, ~8000 fill-ups and > 2M miles (Not including 2014s).
Outliers exist for every vehicle. I can easily do 30 MPG on the highway.
Click to expand...

Me, too. At 60. On a billiard table flat surface. But noone drives like that. We do 75-85. And then you get 24-27.
 
yrwei52 said:
Because I was saying the AWD system on CX-5 is not efficient, not the FWD CX-5 with class leading fuel economy. I saw others with AWD have only 1 or less EPA mpg penalty but CX-5 needs 2~3 times more. From my own experience, I can never get 30 mpg on the highway even if I drive at 55 mph according to instant MPG readout. I could only get 25~26 mpg on the highway during our 700-mile trip to Houston and Austin. I'd be very disappointed if our AWD CX-5 could only get 23 mpg like Unobtanium's. But for not being able to reach EPA's 30 mpg on the highway under any circumstances is definitely a disappointment to me.
Click to expand...

My 23mpg is an average. It includes some city, as well, and noone drives 60 on the freeway where I live unless they want to get in a wreck. That said, while it's disappointing, I'll live. It still takes 87 octane, so it's not so terrible. I was able to hit 31mpg on a 20 mile drive a while back, though, doing 60 and enduring angry looks as people whipped around me, coasting up hills, slowly accelerating down them, etc.

Thing is, EVERY vehicle I have owned other than this one, and my 370Z, has hit EPA highway ratings at 75-85 on road trips. The 370Z ended up being about 1.5mpg shy, or so. However, it was also very very lightly modded (CBE/smooth intake tubes. I know that may not sound like a lot, but that's about 15-20whp on the dyno for that car, so I can see maybe it would affect things?)
 
Unobtanium said:
Me, too. At 60. On a billiard table flat surface. But noone drives like that. We do 75-85. And then you get 24-27.
Click to expand...

I don't think 300 drivers all go on average 60 on the highway. I certainly don't. In one stretch of long flat road, stuck behind some slow pokes doing 52~55 (the speed limit was 55), I got 34 MPG.
 
Last edited:
This topic has been beaten over and over and over. Bottom-line is this - 1st. 800 miles or so, expect bad mileage. Then improves but not much. Many here say, post 1st. oil change MPG improves PROVIDED MAZDA GF-5 OEM engine oil's used and continue to expect 2nd. improvement after 2nd. oil change and then it stabilizes.

Next, there's this whole group of folks who never touched 30 mpg and ALL Of them are AWD. There's this other group (again on AWD) who regularly beat 30 mpg. There's really no answer as to who's right, who's not right. Classic response: YMMV.

Next: 1 thing I have realized - those who're driving for a long time are used to meeting and beating the EPA MPG. I guess sometime in 2012/13 the manufacturers started pushing the envelope and really got the EPA MPG down to a freaking science. Effectively, those same folks who are so used to meeting and breaking the EPA MPG suddenly finding it difficult. Its a general observation about not meeting EPA values I am seeing across other manufacturer forums also!

Finally - CX-5 is a superb vehicle in terms of EPA MPG when it comes to FWD. However, with its advanced stuff thrown in its AWD system, there's a lot of variance. After much review I understood this to be a combination of road inclinations, driving habits, weather (in general), temperature. That AWD system is a pre-emptive system based off large number of sensors. Effectively, there's a lot of variance.
 
Good summary and I appreciate everyone's comments. From what I am reading, the car mileage may be more sensitive to speed than my last car. Makes sense given the profile. And I'll just have to see if there is any change over the next few thousand miles.
 
I always see on here that everyone says the AWD gets "bad gas mileage"...

I honestly cannot agree...

My wife's 2016.5 AWD Touring has been getting consistent average 28.1 mpg since we picked it up in March 2016. It now has close to 2k miles on it and the mpg has been consistent. It's mixed city/hwy miles too.

Is 28mpg REALLY bad to some of you?? Heck, I've owned (2) Ford Broncos and we also owned a 2004 AWD Explorer; if you want to discuss "bad" gas mileage, then I'll agree, those vehicles were not gas misers and far from being economical... :)
 
Cobra jet said:
I always see on here that everyone says the AWD gets "bad gas mileage"...

I honestly cannot agree...

My wife's 2016.5 AWD Touring has been getting consistent average 28.1 mpg since we picked it up in March 2016. It now has close to 2k miles on it and the mpg has been consistent. It's mixed city/hwy miles too.

Is 28mpg REALLY bad to some of you?? Heck, I've owned (2) Ford Broncos and we also owned a 2004 AWD Explorer; if you want to discuss "bad" gas mileage, then I'll agree, those vehicles were not gas misers and far from being economical... :)
Click to expand...
No, but 23 is when 26 is what's advertised.
 
Seabright said:
Good summary and I appreciate everyone's comments. From what I am reading, the car mileage may be more sensitive to speed than my last car. Makes sense given the profile. And I'll just have to see if there is any change over the next few thousand miles.
Click to expand...

EXTREMELY sensitive car.

I typically averaged 18-19mpg on a certain trip, in my HEMI powered Jeep. Then I loaded everything I owned into a U-HAUL trailer (6x10?) and drove the same trip. I got about 14.5mpg. My CX-5? It can vary that much depending, literally, on the road surface and the wind-speed!
 
ALafya said:
Mazda CX-5 AWD 30/24/26 fuelly: 26/26.4
Click to expand...
There's no way to distinguish the FWD and AWD CX-5 in Fuelly.com's data and how could you claim, or at least imply, this Fuelly MPG number 26/26.4 is for CX-5 AWD? Your MPG number listed would be heavily weighted towards FWD CX-5 as there're lots more FWD CX-5's on the road.

Again, I was saying the AWD system on CX-5 is not as efficient as other AWD system based on the much heavier penalty for CX-5 AWD than FWD on EPA fuel economy estimates, and my personally experience. In no way I was trying to say CX-5 is not fuel efficient than other CUVs. Especially on the highway, I can never reach EPA's 30 mpg from instant MPG readout no matter how hard I've tried. Based on this thread only so far, 3 out of 5 members have disappointed MPGs for their AWD CX-5.
 
yrwei52 said:
There's no way to distinguish the FWD and AWD CX-5 in Fuelly.com's data and how could you claim, or at least imply, this Fuelly MPG number 26/26.4 is for CX-5 AWD? Your MPG number listed would be heavily weighted towards FWD CX-5 as there're lots more FWD CX-5's on the road.

Again, I was saying the AWD system on CX-5 is not as efficient as other AWD system based on the much heavier penalty for CX-5 AWD than FWD on EPA fuel economy estimates, and my personally experience. In no way I was trying to say CX-5 is not fuel efficient than other CUVs. Especially on the highway, I can never reach EPA's 30 mpg from instant MPG readout no matter how hard I've tried. Based on this thread only so far, 3 out of 5 members have disappointed MPGs for their AWD CX-5.
Click to expand...

I've got to disagree on your first point. I don't know about TX but in IN it's hard to get a FWD. When I was looking to buy mine, all the dealerships I contacted had far more AWD's than FWD's. The dealership I bought mine from has 40 CX-5's listed right now and only 3 are FWD. That leaves 37 AWD's! The Fuelly average might be skewed a little but not much imho.

As to your second point, I'm wondering if because of the predictive nature of Mazda's AWD system if it spends more time in AWD than the competitors. Thus the greater drop between FWD and AWD. Just thinking out loud.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Just Purchased a 2024 CX-5 Carbon Turbo! Few questions!
2 3
Replies
58
Views
8K
FTagg4
F
A
2021 CX-5 Seat heater question
Replies
12
Views
2K
Conrad 16.5
Conrad 16.5
Cooter Boy
Question about "Miles traveled" etc
Replies
15
Views
2K
cz5gt
cz5gt

Latest posts

Back