Home > Apps > there's diverging about historical gas usage. Haven't dig much into it, but if there's anything, it would be there.No. Not that I can find.
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Home > Apps > there's diverging about historical gas usage. Haven't dig much into it, but if there's anything, it would be there.No. Not that I can find.
Sitting behind the CX-9s handsome mug is a turbocharged 2.5-liter good for 310 lb-ft of torque and 227 hp when using regular octane gas. Horsepower jumps to 250 with premium octane, though torque stays the same. Thanks to the combination of a fancy exhaust setup and a small, quick-spooling turbo, peak torque arrives at just 2,000 rpm, providing the low- and midrange grunt that Mazda says is better suited for typical crossover drivers who normally dont race their engines to redline.
Another trick Mazda employed is a cooled exhaust-gas recirculation (EGR) setup aimed at bringing down the engines combustion temperature, something that would otherwise necessitate a richer air/fuel ratio. (See our in-depth look at the CX-9s engine tech HERE.) This results in improved fuel economy, and Mazda has claimed the CX-9s real-world figures should actually surpass the ones from the EPA. Its a bold yet sensible claim and one we have put to the test with our Real MPG crew.
With that in mind, our CX-9 all-wheel-drive test car is EPA-rated at 21/27/23 mpg city/highway/combined. The Real MPG figures, however, were lower across the boardthe CX-9 scored 18.7 mpg in the city (approximately 11 percent lower than the EPAs number), and Real MPG highway/combined figures came in at 25.8/21.3 mpg, about 4.4 and 7.4 percent below EPA results, respectively. As they say, your results may vary, but in our testing of 25 other light trucks and crossovers running extreme downsized turbocharged engines, the degree to which CX-9 underperforms its EPA ratings ranks it in the bottom third of this class. And the V-6 CX-9s Real MPG performance was closer to the EPA figures (15.5/24.1/18.5 mpg versus the EPAs 16/22/18), so you should probably expect your mileage to improve by about half the EPA-predicted amount.
There's no replacement for displacement...Well I won't be upgrading my V6 anytime soon then. Unless I'm towing my camper or hauling bikes off the back I will get 20-22 mixed. Not worth trading in for at best a 1-2 mpg improvement.
According to Motor Trend, the real world MPG on 2016 CX-9 is not good either.
To be honest, I routinely get only 12-13 mpg on short hops (e.g. 5-10 min suburban drive from home to supermarket with AC on). I can get up to 20 mpg on longer suburban drives with a few stop lights and speeds of 40 mph between lights. Hardly 'city' driving.
I have talked to several people at the EPA and have requested Mazda's raw test data. I have learned a lot about the convoluted process of determining the MPG that appears on the label. I will post again once I hear back from the EPA.
Yes, just looking at the MPG posted on the trip computer for each ignition-start. I drive modestly, no jack-rabbit starts. Getting up to 30 mph eats up the gas. The EPA 'US06 City' test is meant to reflect aggressive city driving. The 2016 CX9 dynamometer 'US06 City' test gave 16.4 mpg which would have to be downgraded for non-dynamometer factors. I'm, determined to figure out how the window-label MPG values were calculated.Are you going by the trip computer? .
That's why Mazda needs to give us the i-stop for NA market!... What I did noticed though is never to idle the engine even for a minute or so. It does drop the average mpg significantly.
That's why Mazda needs to give us the i-stop for NA market!
Penny wise and pound foolish!Article from 2011 about the i stop technology.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/09/mazda-says-i-stop-coming-to-u-s-vehicle-lineup-by-2016/
Stalled for the North American market.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...da-i-stop-stalled-in-u-s-because-of-epa-tests
Some more data.. Got 21 mpg this morning in light suburban traffic, but only 10.1 mpg this afternoon on a 13 min drive through residential neighborhood (stops signs every block) followed by sitting in stand still traffic for several minutes with AC on (104F outside). I have annotated the fuel economy pict below. The MPG is shown for ever minute of the last 10 mins of the trip. I wish there was a way of exporting the fuel usage along with the driving cycle (speed vs time). That info could be then be uploaded to the EPA for some real-world grass-roots feedback.
Penny wise and pound foolish!
Mazda refuses to bring its unique i-stop stop/start system into US market is because the cost can't be justified as the existing EPA test cycle doesn't show the benefits of stop/start systems. But had we have i-stop here, we'd experience better gas mileage, especially in city driving, in the real world environment! I thought Mazda has claimed the CX-9’s real-world figures should actually surpass the ones from the EPA. Then why they would decide to cut i-stop which actually can help new CX-9 in the real world fuel economy? Besides, Honda Pilot has started to offer similar "Idle Stop" feature, and the excuse of not offering i-stop by Mazda in NA market seems just lame! And Mazda missed the opportunity to be the first SUV in the US offering a gas-saving idle stop/start system!
You can also see the previous 5 fillups.
Is your overall average for the lifetime of the car 17.4 mpg? How many miles is that based upon?
177.7 mile round trip. 4.5hrs of driving at 95% freeway. 3hrs there, 1.5hrs back. Fuel Economy Monitor is set to monitor Trip A. The 32.4 is the way back, 24.8 is on the way there, and 28.6 is the average for the trip.
There were 6 (!!!) accidents on the way there while the return trip was merely "busy".
You can also see the previous 5 fillups.
...and I was trying to maximize efficiency on this trip.