Fuel Economy

I only have about 1500 miles on my 2018 GT-R now but the gauge shows an average of 22.8 MPG. That is about 80% city driving. Last week I made a 200 mile round trip up to the SoCal mountains. I had the A/C on most of the time. I averaged a little over 28 MPG. I figured that was pretty good as it probably sucked a lot of gas climbing up to about 6000 ft elevation and saved gas doing a lot of coasting back downhill for about 25-30 miles of the return trip.

WOW.. That doesn't sound too good at all.

Converting that to L/100 km (which we use in Canada), that's about 12.84 l/100km..

My '19 Turbo with 7500km on it is sitting at 10.1 l/100KM, and that's with a turbo..... which is about 28.25 mpg....

Not very good, in my humble opinion!
 
WOW.. That doesn't sound too good at all.

Converting that to L/100 km (which we use in Canada), that's about 12.84 l/100km..

My '19 Turbo with 7500km on it is sitting at 10.1 l/100KM, and that's with a turbo..... which is about 28.25 mpg....

Not very good, in my humble opinion!

He only has 1500 miles on it....way too early.
 
WOW.. That doesn't sound too good at all.

Converting that to L/100 km (which we use in Canada), that's about 12.84 l/100km..

My '19 Turbo with 7500km on it is sitting at 10.1 l/100KM, and that's with a turbo..... which is about 28.25 mpg....

Not very good, in my humble opinion!

The GT-R I referred to is a 2019 Grand Touring Reserve. I have only run 91 octane gas in it so far, the highest rating available in California.
The mileage figure I have experienced may not be "very good" but considering that Mazda quotes 22 city and 27 highway for the turbo engine on their website I would say that the 22.8 average and over 28 MPG on the recent mountain trip are right about what they should be. I will be making another 200 mile round trip soon, this time 100% freeway miles and hopefully without traffic jams that reduce the speed to 10 MPH for 20 miles at a stretch. That should prove to be a good test of highway MPG.
 
My 2017 AWD has recorded 10.8L/100km over the last 3500km. This is ~20% highway driving.

I've got about 25,000km on the car but i'm not sure how to check its overall fuel economy. I'd guess it's pretty close to 10.8 though.
 
Just drove from SW Missouri to San Antonio. That includes mostly 70-85mph speeds. Average was about 28 until I hit the 80-85mph speed zones, and then settled in at 27.3mpg. This vehicle is in line with all the rest of my vehicles EXCEPT my 2015 CX5, in that it handily bests highway EPA rating with me driving.

This is what I posted in 2015 about my 2015. Same exact drive, except I started about 25 miles north of that drive, in SWMO.


The GT-R is legit better. In. Every. Way. To hell with the puny, fuel thirsty 2.5 NA motor.

https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/sho...with-mileage&p=6393833&viewfull=1#post6393833
67455102_10100186894994331_1601565322966466560_n.jpg

Just came back, same way I went. Average mpg was 28.7. I used 93 octane from San Antonio to NE OK, and then switched to 91. All of it was 10% Ethanol. The return trip averaging higher is typical, it seems, as this was the same experience I had in my 2015, albeit it couldn't even come close to MATCHING it's EPA rating, much less surpassing it.

Moreover, I am just plain getting more miles per gallon out of the turbo model. It's more efficient than the NA car.

On the trip down, I beat my NA 2015 by 2.2mpg, and on the way up, I beat it by 1.7mpg.
 
Just came back, same way I went. Average mpg was 28.7. I used 93 octane from San Antonio to NE OK, and then switched to 91. All of it was 10% Ethanol. The return trip averaging higher is typical, it seems, as this was the same experience I had in my 2015, albeit it couldn't even come close to MATCHING it's EPA rating, much less surpassing it.

Moreover, I am just plain getting more miles per gallon out of the turbo model. It's more efficient than the NA car.

On the trip down, I beat my NA 2015 by 2.2mpg, and on the way up, I beat it by 1.7mpg.
Impressive.
 
Just came back, same way I went. Average mpg was 28.7. I used 93 octane from San Antonio to NE OK, and then switched to 91. All of it was 10% Ethanol. The return trip averaging higher is typical, it seems, as this was the same experience I had in my 2015, albeit it couldn't even come close to MATCHING it's EPA rating, much less surpassing it.

Moreover, I am just plain getting more miles per gallon out of the turbo model. It's more efficient than the NA car.

On the trip down, I beat my NA 2015 by 2.2mpg, and on the way up, I beat it by 1.7mpg.

you mean more efficient than your 2015 NA? A 2019 NA will get more mpg than the turbo. Not sure why you are comparing different model years.
 
you mean more efficient than your 2015 NA? A 2019 NA will get more mpg than the turbo. Not sure why you are comparing different model years.

Because those are the only two CX5's I've owned, and yes, my 2019 turbo is more efficient than my 2015 non-turbo CX5, both AWD.
 
WOW.. That doesn't sound too good at all.

Converting that to L/100 km (which we use in Canada), that's about 12.84 l/100km..

My '19 Turbo with 7500km on it is sitting at 10.1 l/100KM, and that's with a turbo..... which is about 28.25 mpg....

Not very good, in my humble opinion!

City driving I have noticed is definitely the downfall of the turbo. I'd say with 80% city that seems pretty decent. I'm averaging 25 mpg at 2500 miles, and though a lot of it is highway, it's mostly stop and go.
 
I have 16K miles on my CX-5 AWD with the 2.5L non-turbo engine. On long trips I get 31 mpg. Around town I get 26 mpg.
 
It's only available on the first gen. The second gen 2017 and up have the actual gauge.

That's not correct. My 17 GT/PP has one, plus the gauge. It's easy to miss in the summer, since it turns off when the coolant reaches 120F. It's located down low, between the main and right pods.
 
That's not correct. My 17 GT/PP has one, plus the gauge. It's easy to miss in the summer, since it turns off when the coolant reaches 120F. It's located down low, between the main and right pods.

Can you post a screenshot of where this might be? I've never seen a blue light anywhere. Now I'm worried that it's not working.
 
Can you post a screenshot of where this might be? I've never seen a blue light anywhere. Now I'm worried that it's not working.

It's not where you would expect it to be! I barely had time to capture a shot before it turned off.

cold%20light.jpg
 
With my 2017 cx5 2litre engine with automatic gearbox and 30000km on the clock I get 7.9 lit per 100km in summer and 8.2 litre per 100 km in winter with mixed driving runs.
 
Back