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

[dougal]

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.

For the 2014-2016 2.5L AWD the mileage was 24/30 with 26 combined. The only cars getting 33-35 MPG were the 2.0 cars. You have a 2016 GT which was never reported to have 33-34 highway MPG. From the sounds of it, if you go 28.8 (which is 29) you are basically where you should be.

[finch204]

For the 2014-2016 2.5L AWD the mileage was 24/30 with 26 combined. The only cars getting 33-35 MPG were the 2.0 cars. You have a 2016 GT which was never reported to have 33-34 highway MPG. From the sounds of it, if you go 28.8 (which is 29) you are basically where you should be.

If I remember correctly, before the EPA revised the fuel economy estimates, the 2016 CX-5 GT in FWD was rated at 26 city, 33 highway and 29 combined MPG. I'm getting 24-26 MPG on my daily drives with at least 50-60% city driving. The only time I got 28 MPG was on a road trip from Dallas to Austin and vice versa. I'm not exactly complaining about the fuel mileage I am getting, but I was disappointed that I couldn't do better with the highway MPGs (because I was fixated on the 33 MPG EPA estimate). That said, barring an expensive upgrade to a BMW X3 (which records even lower fuel economy in Fuelly), I can't find another car that can replace our 2016 CX-5 GT, except maybe a newer CX-5 with the diesel engine.

[Unobtanium]

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.

I personally would not buy the new CR-V this year.

1) I am done buying new cars.
2) I would like to know if that new engine is any good long term or not. At least let a few get out there with 50K miles on 'em.

[Unobtanium]

If I remember correctly, before the EPA revised the fuel economy estimates, the 2016 CX-5 GT in FWD was rated at 26 city, 33 highway and 29 combined MPG. I'm getting 24-26 MPG on my daily drives with at least 50-60% city driving. The only time I got 28 MPG was on a road trip from Dallas to Austin and vice versa. I'm not exactly complaining about the fuel mileage I am getting, but I was disappointed that I couldn't do better with the highway MPGs (because I was fixated on the 33 MPG EPA estimate). That said, barring an expensive upgrade to a BMW X3 (which records even lower fuel economy in Fuelly), I can't find another car that can replace our 2016 CX-5 GT, except maybe a newer CX-5 with the diesel engine.

This is my exact situation, except the Diesel CX-5 would mean taking a huge hit on trade in (these cars drop value faster than some, slower than others, but they do drop pretty quick) to achieve better mileage than the 2.5L I have...similar to the 2.0L I could have had...with similar performance as the 2.0L, from what I understand.

[TinyTires]

I see lots of talk about the CR-V and how it compares to the CX-5. It doesn't... but in the vaguest way: They're both automobiles but the comparison is like apples to oranges.
-
IMO.

[dougal]

If I remember correctly, before the EPA revised the fuel economy estimates, the 2016 CX-5 GT in FWD was rated at 26 city, 33 highway and 29 combined MPG. I'm getting 24-26 MPG on my daily drives with at least 50-60% city driving. The only time I got 28 MPG was on a road trip from Dallas to Austin and vice versa. I'm not exactly complaining about the fuel mileage I am getting, but I was disappointed that I couldn't do better with the highway MPGs (because I was fixated on the 33 MPG EPA estimate). That said, barring an expensive upgrade to a BMW X3 (which records even lower fuel economy in Fuelly), I can't find another car that can replace our 2016 CX-5 GT, except maybe a newer CX-5 with the diesel engine.

Yeah, you are right. 33 MPG highway - on the current Mazda site. For some reason, when I bought my AWD (2014) I thought it gave up just a MPG over the FWD (24/30 instead of 25/31).

[Jedi54]

just wait till the 2.2D comes out. :

[m8te]

What is the MPG figures for the 2.4 litre engine of the CR-V?

The 1.5 turbo should be compared to the CX-5 twin turbo.

Small capacity turbo and CVT does well for fuel consumption but the market is moving away from small capacity turbo as real-world emissions test come into effect in 2019.

[jhu8]

What is the MPG figures for the 2.4 litre engine of the CR-V?

The 1.5 turbo should be compared to the CX-5 twin turbo.

Small capacity turbo and CVT does well for fuel consumption but the market is moving away from small capacity turbo as real-world emissions test come into effect in 2019.

25/31 and 27 Combined. So really right in line with the CX5.

[Unobtanium]

I see lots of talk about the CR-V and how it compares to the CX-5. It doesn't... but in the vaguest way: They're both automobiles but the comparison is like apples to oranges.
-
IMO.

They are both compact SUV's within a few thousand dollars of each other. Just because you think that the CX-5 "feels sportier" (even though the numbers and tests show the CR-V to be the more agile), does not mean it's "apples to oranges". These two are DIRECTLY going head to head for sales.

[cx-500]

15,000 miles a year, 30 mpg, $4/gallon gas = $2,000
15,000 miles a year, 34 mpg, $4/gallon gas = $1,765

Joy of driving a CX-5? PRICELESS!

[Kaps]

They are both compact SUV's within a few thousand dollars of each other. Just because you think that the CX-5 "feels sportier" (even though the numbers and tests show the CR-V to be the more agile), does not mean it's "apples to oranges". These two are DIRECTLY going head to head for sales.

Same price segment but they are very different. Something tells me that you did zero research before buying cx5. Ford Kuga would have been a better fit for you.

[jhu8]

Same price segment but they are very different. Something tells me that you did zero research before buying cx5. Ford Kuga would have been a better fit for you.

And you would be 100% correct. Uno has stated several times that he showed up to a dealer that had a cx5 on a lot and he bought it with having done very little research.

[redturboeclipse]

I personally would not buy the new CR-V this year.

1) I am done buying new cars.
2) I would like to know if that new engine is any good long term or not. At least let a few get out there with 50K miles on 'em.

the 1.5T has been in the highly rated civic for the pass 2 years? Great engine, and has great potential as seen here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VILK...ature=youtu.be

once some of those flashes and mods make it to the crv, its going to be a fun car

[redturboeclipse]

I see lots of talk about the CR-V and how it compares to the CX-5. It doesn't... but in the vaguest way: They're both automobiles but the comparison is like apples to oranges.
-
IMO.

Wht are you CX5 owners thinking that they don't compare? same class, same price range. If the CX5 doesnt compete with the CRV, you best not think it competes with the RAV4 or Ford Escape. Are you guys that pretentious, you feel the almighty CX5 can only compare to the likes of the ACURA RDX or BMW 1 SERIES lol. come on now.

Same price segment but they are very different. Something tells me that you did zero research before buying cx5. Ford Kuga would have been a better fit for you.

how are they "VERY DIFFERENT"? its the same class. I'm going to have to repeat Unobtanium . These go head to head. Mazda rushed this new cx5 and did not realize honda was bringing so much to the table. Read the reviews. The new CRV is actually more sportier and handles better, and brakes better than the cx5. and looks like it already beat the cx5 in mpg. on top of the loads of great features.

im sure Unobtanium did research. when you research cx5 or crv. the 2 will always cross paths ALONG with the ford escape, and the rav4.

mazda just dropped the ball and only focused on the exterior.