Your Best Source for Genuine Mazda Parts!
Your Best Source for Genuine Mazda Parts!
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 229

Thread: Official 2017 2nd-Gen CX-5 EPA Fuel Economy Ratings Are Out

  1. #16
    Registered Member yrwei52's Avatar
    Donated: $8

    2016 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Plano, Texas, USA
    Posts
    5,271

    Arrow Official 2017 2nd-Gen CX-5 EPA Fuel Economy Ratings Are Out

    Quote Originally Posted by dougal View Post
    I know, it is never ending.

    The only thing I will add is that if you go to Fuelly you will find the 2017 CR-V is this :

    169 fuel-ups and 45,537 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 26.36 with a 0.67 MPG margin of error.


    and the 2016 CX-5 is this:

    Based on data from 325 vehicles, 9,756 fuel-ups and 2,853,135 miles of driving, the 2016 Mazda CX-5 gets a combined Avg MPG of 26.06 with a 0.08 MPG margin of error.

    This forum has turned into a bunch of babies.
    And if you choose 1.5L Turbo for 2017 Honda CR-V, your trustworthy Fuelly data suddenly shows:

    Based on data from 6 vehicles, 27 fuel-ups and 6,682 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 27.97 with a 1.08 MPG margin of error.
    So don't just pick and choose the data you like. We want facts. When did people who presenting facts turn into a bunch of babies?

  2. #17
    Registered Member

    CX5 2.5L AWD

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    South-Central US
    Posts
    4,503
    Quote Originally Posted by yrwei52 View Post
    And if you choose 1.5L Turbo for 2017 Honda CR-V, your trustworthy Fuelly data suddenly shows:



    So don't just pick and choose the data you like. We want facts. When did people who presenting facts turn into a bunch of babies?
    This forum has always been like that. It's the most emotional car-forum I've been on, honestly. Other than the "NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THEM! THEY HAVE CHARACTER! WORKING ON THEM IS JOY!" mentality of the Jeep forum, lol!

  3. #18
    Registered Member Kaps's Avatar

    CX-5 Touring 2016.5

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Lewisville North Dallas Suburb
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Unobtanium View Post
    Better 0-60, better 1/4 mile performance, and it gets better real-world economy and better EPA rated economy. What math are you looking a t?
    Quote Originally Posted by Unobtanium View Post
    This forum has always been like that. It's the most emotional car-forum I've been on, honestly. Other than the "NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THEM! THEY HAVE CHARACTER! WORKING ON THEM IS JOY!" mentality of the Jeep forum, lol!
    I think to an extent both sides are propping up with selective facts. There is no big reward for Honda to outperform a 4 year old platform. Yes it does do those things better than a CX5 but its a FULL REFRESH! Its a totally brand new drivetrain, not sure about platform.
    If you leave out the fun to drive factor - the 17 CRV goes toe to toe with CX5 in terms of feature and price points with CX5 being more driver friendly and CRV having more for each of the other seats but less for driver, factor in the traditional fun to drive the CRV still will not appeal to owners of Mazda because it has a CVT. Also because its core styling has something awfully wrong. For example, you do not put recycled toothbrush holders from Target as wood trim on the dash. The chrome, the wheels - awful.

    I dont know when the next CX5 full refresh is, but if its not upto the notch - the sales will reflect that. If you and yrwei want to put money on the CRV thats fine - I know i would not buy the 17 if i was looking now. I also know quite a few other Mazda owners would not either. Just dont try and sell this point that CRV >>>>>> CX-5 - I think its not.

  4. #19
    Registered Member

    2016.5 Touring w/Tech

    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by mangoconchile View Post
    How is it possible that it gets worse gas mileage? As Donald Trump would say, 'Sad!'
    I doubt the 17 CX-5 gets worse gas mileage than before - it's just that the EPA is measuring things differently now. But don't worry, you can rest easy, your Honda still beats us in the mpg race.

  5. #20
    Registered Member

    was 175ps sport manual, now 175ps Mazda CX-5 Auto AWD Sport Nav

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    worksop Great Britain
    Posts
    1,853
    Is the 2017 car heavier?

    Since launch the cx-5 has got progressively heavier, mainly to satisfy customer and testers complaints about wind and road noise. You can't really complain at around 1mpg if the car is a quieter car to be in.

  6. #21
    Registered Member Kaps's Avatar

    CX-5 Touring 2016.5

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Lewisville North Dallas Suburb
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by xtrailman View Post
    Is the 2017 car heavier?

    Since launch the cx-5 has got progressively heavier, mainly to satisfy customer and testers complaints about wind and road noise. You can't really complain at around 1mpg if the car is a quieter car to be in.
    I agree with xtrailman - also those drooling over CRV mileage :

    Comments from Jalopnik CRV review:

    Not Relevant
    William Clavey
    1/04/17 4:10pm
    What actual mileage were you getting? That’s allot for a 1.5 to push around, turbo or not.

    Reply

    William Clavey
    Not Relevant
    1/04/17 4:12pm
    Surprisingly I was averaging 23-24 MPGs.


    William was the Jalopnik reviewer - from the photos he was not in a city but open backroads.

    And i think this another poster mirrors my opinion:
    This is why I think something needs to change in regards to the small displacement turbocharged fad. You can get stellar mileage if you drive just so. But nobody drives like that, so you get all the power and all the economy of a V6 but with none of the long term reliability.

    This may also explain high margin of error for CRV on Fuelly. So for the average driver the mpg could mirror a +1 mpg over CX5 with similar driving habits. But grandma's and family of four TM will be doing 30 mpg.
    Last edited by Kaps; 03-07-2017 at 02:14 PM.

  7. #22
    Registered Member

    2013 VRM Mazdaspeed3, 2016 Soul Red CX-5 GT

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    770
    Quote Originally Posted by yrwei52 View Post
    So the official 2017 2nd-Gen CX-5 EPA fuel economy ratings are out at FuelEconomy.gov website:
    You know what? This totally makes sense to me. This explains why I can't get 30 MPG even when doing a lot of highway miles. The best tank I recorded with Fuelly was 28.8 MPG for our CX-5. I used to wonder how Mazda came up with the 33-34 highway MPG numbers. The new fuel economy ratings using the revised method by the EPA is more in line with the fuel economy that I am getting.

    It is impressive that the new CR-V with the 1.5 turbo engine scored so high. It still is CVT though, so meh. Mazda needs to play catch up for now, but the diesel will get here in the 2nd half of this year though.

  8. #23
    Registered Member CX-5um's Avatar

    13' CX-5 and 16' Mazda6 both Touring w/Tech/Bose

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Glendale, AZ
    Posts
    2,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaps View Post
    I agree with xtrailman - also those drooling over CRV mileage :

    Comments from Jalopnik CRV review:

    Not Relevant
    William Clavey
    1/04/17 4:10pm
    What actual mileage were you getting? That’s allot for a 1.5 to push around, turbo or not.

    Reply

    William Clavey
    Not Relevant
    1/04/17 4:12pm
    Surprisingly I was averaging 23-24 MPGs.


    William was the Jalopnik reviewer - from the photos he was not in a city but open backroads.

    And i think this another poster mirrors my opinion:
    This is why I think something needs to change in regards to the small displacement turbocharged fad. You can get stellar mileage if you drive just so. But nobody drives like that, so you get all the power and all the economy of a V6 but with none of the long term reliability.

    This may also explain high margin of error for CRV on Fuelly. So for the average driver the mpg could mirror a +1 mpg over CX5 with similar driving habits. But grandma's and family of four TM will be doing 30 mpg.
    Did someone already post this link?

    http://www.motortrend.com/news/2017-...ighway-rating/

    "Running a 2017 Honda CR-V Touring AWD with the 1.5-liter turbo-four through the Motor-Trend-exclusive Real MPG tests yielded 21.9 mpg in the city, 34.2 mpg on the highway, and 26.1 mpg combined."

    Okay for those doggin' the CX-5 for its MPGs ..and you know who you are LOL!!! GO out show your CX-5 some love. Go wash it or buy an air freshener or something man!!!

  9. #24
    Registered Member Kaps's Avatar

    CX-5 Touring 2016.5

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Lewisville North Dallas Suburb
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by finch204 View Post
    It is impressive that the new CR-V with the 1.5 turbo engine scored so high. It still is CVT though, so meh. Mazda needs to play catch up for now, but the diesel will get here in the 2nd half of this year though.
    Read my comment above you - the EPA DOES NOT TEST ALL CARS - Manufacturers do most, EPA will select few models based on certain criteria. It is very possible that Honda knows how to drive its CRV to hit 30 mpg - but if you are pulling that CUV over hills etc. and not driving like a 75 y.o. chances are you will see a significant drop in mpg. This is similar to what Mazda may have done - limited hwy speeds to 65 or so.
    So over the lifetime you may get a 1 mpg advantage in CRV but its a new drive train with turbo - so you are gambling with reliability. Also i cant even think what Unobtamium will get doing 85 in CRV. Maybe single digits lol.

  10. #25
    Registered Member

    16 CX-5 GT AWD w/ Tech

    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Posts
    1,097
    If you do a lot of highway driving, the CRV 1.5L seems to be a good choice. However city driving, the CRV is awful. Worse than the CX5. Per MT results.

  11. #26
    Registered Member

    2013 CX-5 6MT

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    776
    Quote Originally Posted by xtrailman View Post
    Is the 2017 car heavier?

    Since launch the cx-5 has got progressively heavier, mainly to satisfy customer and testers complaints about wind and road noise. You can't really complain at around 1mpg if the car is a quieter car to be in.
    I bet it's quite a bit heavier.. just like Unobtanium wanted it to be.
    It's also supposed to be very quiet inside, so that might be a worthwhile trade off.

    I bet the FWD no longer has the taller gear ratios that helped it get 33MPG HWY.
    With the extra weight it probably needs to be geared the same as the AWD for acceptable acceleration.

  12. #27
    Registered Member

    2014 CX-5 GT

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Lansdale, PA
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by yrwei52 View Post
    And if you choose 1.5L Turbo for 2017 Honda CR-V, your trustworthy Fuelly data suddenly shows:



    So don't just pick and choose the data you like. We want facts. When did people who presenting facts turn into a bunch of babies?
    I picked all the data. That is a comparision between all CX-5 (2016) and all CR-V (2017) models. You want more MPG on your CX-5, get the diesel.

    27.97 + or minus 1.08. So that number could be 26.89. Not far from the CX-5. The number of 1.5T cars right now in fuelly is just too low (n=6).

    At the same time, where is your horror that the CR-V is getting 1 maybe even 2 MPG less than advertised! For all your complaining of the CX-5 being 1 MPG off the EPA highway MPG. Please.
    Last edited by dougal; 03-07-2017 at 04:30 PM.

  13. #28
    Registered Member

    2017 SRC CX-5 GT + Premium

    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by CX-5um View Post
    Did someone already post this link?

    http://www.motortrend.com/news/2017-...ighway-rating/

    "Running a 2017 Honda CR-V Touring AWD with the 1.5-liter turbo-four through the Motor-Trend-exclusive Real MPG tests yielded 21.9 mpg in the city, 34.2 mpg on the highway, and 26.1 mpg combined."

    Okay for those doggin' the CX-5 for its MPGs ..and you know who you are LOL!!! GO out show your CX-5 some love. Go wash it or buy an air freshener or something man!!!
    21.9 is pretty rank. I mean... our Tacoma 6-cyl automatic gets that. My 10-year-old hybrid with a jacked up thermostat got better than that.

  14. #29
    Registered Member Kaps's Avatar

    CX-5 Touring 2016.5

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Lewisville North Dallas Suburb
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by shaendra View Post
    21.9 is pretty rank. I mean... our Tacoma 6-cyl automatic gets that. My 10-year-old hybrid with a jacked up thermostat got better than that.
    Exactly - small turbos give you mpg and power of a v6 without the reliability.

  15. #30
    Registered Member

    2014 Mazda CX-5 Touring AWD

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by yrwei52 View Post
    And if you choose 1.5L Turbo for 2017 Honda CR-V, your trustworthy Fuelly data suddenly shows:

    Based on data from 6 vehicles, 27 fuel-ups and 6,682 miles of driving, the 2017 Honda CR-V gets a combined Avg MPG of 27.97 with a 1.08 MPG margin of error.

    So don't just pick and choose the data you like. We want facts. When did people who presenting facts turn into a bunch of babies?
    The problem is that it is only 6 vehicles and 27 fuel-ups, which explains large 1.08 margin of error.
    I'd suggest a bit more patience, to see what is a more accurate average as well as fuel economy distribution of real drivers.

    I also don't think Mazda is any more or any less honest than before. Their EPA numbers are just a result of following the testing procedure as is.
    I'd guess that the FWD final drive is now the same as the AWD, which explains why it dropped. It would be nice if anyone could confirm.

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Official MPG for 2017 CX-9
    By tekbis in forum CX-9 Lounge
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-27-2017, 08:04 PM
  2. 2017 fuel economy
    By piotrek91 in forum CX-5 Lounge
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 12-19-2016, 11:46 AM
  3. New Fuel Economy Ratings
    By Whitesnake in forum CX-9 Lounge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-27-2007, 10:00 PM
  4. EPA to Lower Fuel Economy Ratings for 2008
    By gksspot in forum Mazda Protege
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-13-2006, 07:10 PM
  5. NEWSBREAK: Revised 'official' RX-8 HP ratings!!!
    By ZoomZoomH in forum Rotary Mazdas
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 09-05-2003, 10:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •