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?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.
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.
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.
Comments from Jalopnik CRV review:
What actual mileage were you getting? That’s allot for a 1.5 to push around, turbo or not.
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 01:14 PM.
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.
"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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.