Mazda CX-5 2017 and 2016.5 US/NA Spec Comparison

Anyone notice the distinct decrease in MPG for the FWD version?

EPA-estimated MPG
2017 2016.5
27 / 24 / 31 - FWD 29 / 26 / 33 - FWD
 
Somewhere, I read you can get both option packages on the 2017 Touring. Just not sure where I saw it. So there could be a few booboos out there. But if that option pricing is wrong, they should fix that asap.
Here is 2017 CX-5 Line-up Dealer info provided by Ride92 used by Mazda dealers. It does say Touring "PACKAGES (CANNOT BE COMBINED)":

attachment.php

I know the sales manager very well and he shouldn't give me wrong info on MSRP because he knows I'm going to bring potential customers in. He had placed many 2017 CX-5 orders and should get them by April 15th.
 
Anyone notice the distinct decrease in MPG for the FWD version?

EPA-estimated MPG
2017 2016.5
27 / 24 / 31 - FWD 29 / 26 / 33 - FWD
Yes we've noticed it and was wondering why. Both FWD and AWD gain some weight, and the gear ratios are the same. But the EPA ratings downgraded more on FWD than AWD. Even with new EPA fuel economy calculation which made 2016.5 AWD dropped from 30 to 29 mpg on highway, it didn't affect the ratings on 2016.5 FWD.

Official 2017 2nd-Gen CX-5 EPA Fuel Economy Ratings Are Out
 
There was a change in the testing procedures by the government for 2017 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES.

Here is the link to the testing changes. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings.shtml

Another reason why the CX-9 was a 2016 MY, and the CX-5 update was downgraded to 2016.5 MY ?
(wedge)
The 2017's Have a newer piston design, a different piston shape, and they are faster revving also.
(rockon)
 
Last edited:
Here is 2017 CX-5 Line-up Dealer info provided by Ride92 used by Mazda dealers. It does say Touring "PACKAGES (CANNOT BE COMBINED)":


I know the sales manager very well and he shouldn't give me wrong info on MSRP because he knows I'm going to bring potential customers in. He had placed many 2017 CX-5 orders and should get them by April 15th.

One of the auto mags had an update on an article about the 2017s stating they could be combined. I'll try to dig it up

Edit- maybe I've got it backwards, and originally it was stated they could be combined. If they can't, that's odd. But maybe it's to steer you into a Grand Touring...?
 
Last edited:
There was a change in the testing procedures by the government for 2017 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES.

Here is the link to the testing changes. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings.shtml


Another reason why the CX-9 was a 2016 MY, and the CX-5 update was downgraded to 2016.5 MY ?
(wedge)
The 2017's Have a newer piston design, a different piston shape, and they are faster revving also.
(rockon)
EPA fuel economy ratings showed at fueleconomy.gov have been adjusted for older model-years to match the revised 2017 calculation. The results for 2016 CX-5's are the highway estimate for AWD downgraded from 30 to 29 mpg. The rest of estimates including FWD didn't change.

fueleconomy.gov said:
EPA is updating its method for calculating the fuel economy shown on new-car window stickers starting with the 2017 model year.

EPA periodically updates its methodology to account for changes in vehicle technologies, driver behavior, and/or driving conditions. The 2008 changes (see below) were broad revisions to the entire methodology that affected every vehicle.

The 2017 change updates some of the calculations used to estimate fuel economy. The new calculations are based on test data from model year 20112016 vehicles. So, they better reflect today's vehicle fleet of more fuel-efficient vehicles and advanced technologies such as hybrids and turbocharged engines.

Most vehicles are not affected by the new calculations. Some fuel economy estimates will decrease by 1 mpg, and a small number may be 2 mpg lower.

View old/new MPG ratings for a specific vehicle.

Visit EPA's website for more detailed information.

Comparing New Vehicles to Older Ones

During the next year, you may see 2016 vehicles with the old fuel economy estimates on the window sticker along side 2017 vehicles with estimates based on the new calculations. To help you compare vehicles with new and older ratings more easily, the estimates in Find and Compare Cars have been adjusted:

The original estimates for model year 20112016 vehicles have been adjusted to match the revised 2017 calculations.
The ratings for most vehicles will be unchanged.
Ratings changes will be small for affected vehicles. Some will go down by 1 to 2 mpg.
Ratings for 20082010 model year vehicles are still based on the 2008 methodology.
Estimates for model years 19842007 have been adjusted to be consistent with the 2008 methodology.
 
+1

But... the specs don't tell half the story here.
They don't tell you how much quieter the 2017 is.. and fuel economy for most will be the same.

I bet the AWD makes like 184lb-ft@ 3250 vs 185@ 3250 and they both make 185lb-ft at 4000.
I also bet they both still make 184HP@5700RPM.. but instead of falling off after that they continue making more power untill the new peak of 187@6000.

Doesn't the AWD use a different exhaust pipe than the FWD to get around the AWD system? maybe that's why there is a marginal loss in low end torque?

This is really weird.
I don't remember seeing any other car with same engine but with different torque numbers. Unless the curve is flat, 3250 vs 4000 could be significant.
Also, why did the FWD lose fuel-economy on the highway, but not the AWD?
It seems Mazda tweaked the engine for drivability and not for economy, retained the final drive ratio difference between FWD and AWD.

I like that is quieter, more refined, but I was not complaining to begin with and mine is 100lb lighter, so not seeing this as a big improvement, if at all.
 
The new MPG estimates for the FWD CX-5 actually match real world MPG better. I'm also curious as to how there is a different torque peak for the FWD vs the AWD version in the 2017s. I didn't see anything mentioned regarding different headers or intake manifolds for the AWD version, so maybe the difference is just with the tune of the cars?
 
Why would you think that is a wrong price?

Because that seems like an awful lot of stuff for the price- roof alone would be at least $780 I would think- everything else is a throw in? Great if true but seems too good to be.
 
If I was choosing based on these specs, I would go with the 2016.5. Slightly better gas, more ground clearance, more room in 2nd row, hits max hp and torq at lower numbers.
Cargo space makes even more difference: 2016.5 is 34.1/65.4 but 2017 is 30.9/59.6 cu ft with 2nd-row seatback up/down.
 
Agreed..a 10% hit to trunk and overall cargo space is significant and may actually be a deal breaker for some- particularly if this is your 'big' car. I think we'll see consumption as a virtual wash but the PTW is worse and this peak torque happening 750 rpms later now also concerns me.
 
Last edited:
Agreed..a 10% hit to trunk and overall cargo space is significant and may actually be a deal breaker for some- particularly if this is your 'big' car. I think we'll see consumption as a virtual wash but the PTW is worse and this peak torque happening 750 rpms later now also concerns me.

Maybe... but honestly, who fills up the back of their car to the ceiling?? The only time I've not been able to see out the back of my vehicle because of stuff was when it was snowing on a road trip, so we had to put all luggage in the back seat of the Tacoma... along with my 8yo and a new puppy. And when I'm moving small pieces of furniture around (like a night stand). Groceries you can't stack on top of each other, so only need the height of a bag, and luggage is designed to minimize space. Now if you're talking about surfboards or bikes or other sports gear... kinda thinking more folks put that on the roof or a rack than inside the car, no?
 
Maybe... but honestly, who fills up the back of their car to the ceiling?? The only time I've not been able to see out the back of my vehicle because of stuff was when it was snowing on a road trip, so we had to put all luggage in the back seat of the Tacoma... along with my 8yo and a new puppy. And when I'm moving small pieces of furniture around (like a night stand). Groceries you can't stack on top of each other, so only need the height of a bag, and luggage is designed to minimize space. Now if you're talking about surfboards or bikes or other sports gear... kinda thinking more folks put that on the roof or a rack than inside the car, no?

I'll just leave this here.
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 1CAR_FB0003.JPG
    1CAR_FB0003.JPG
    183.3 KB · Views: 603
Maybe... but honestly, who fills up the back of their car to the ceiling?? The only time I've not been able to see out the back of my vehicle because of stuff was when it was snowing on a road trip, so we had to put all luggage in the back seat of the Tacoma... along with my 8yo and a new puppy. And when I'm moving small pieces of furniture around (like a night stand). Groceries you can't stack on top of each other, so only need the height of a bag, and luggage is designed to minimize space. Now if you're talking about surfboards or bikes or other sports gear... kinda thinking more folks put that on the roof or a rack than inside the car, no?

Day to day no, but on road trips/vacations (we tend to avoid flying) the wife's Highlander is usually packed up pretty tight to where my rear vision is at least partially blocked. Now that we're out of strollers, gates, portacribs and crap the Mazda is a viable option again but losing 6 cubes doesn't help its cause imo. Again, not really a factor for me but if its your big car- for some, at times this could def be an issue.
 
Last edited:
Family road trip vacay with wife and two kids could easily fill the back too, but I otherwise agree that the cubic footage of cargo space is hardly ever a concern for me. No matter what I do, no CUV is gonna hold a 4x8 sheet of plywood. ;)
 
Family road trip vacay with wife and two kids could easily fill the back too, but I otherwise agree that the cubic footage of cargo space is hardly ever a concern for me. No matter what I do, no CUV is gonna hold a 4x8 sheet of plywood. ;)

That's what trucks are for :)
 
The new MPG estimates for the FWD CX-5 actually match real world MPG better. I'm also curious as to how there is a different torque peak for the FWD vs the AWD version in the 2017s. I didn't see anything mentioned regarding different headers or intake manifolds for the AWD version, so maybe the difference is just with the tune of the cars?

Looks like the torque ratings in Canada were already like that in 2016.
185@3250 for FWD and 185@4000 for AWD
https://www.mazda.ca/en/vehicles/2016-5-cx-5/specs/

This change in peak torque is likely on paper only.

The 2.0L makes 148lb-ft@3000 RPM... but the peak is 150@4000
20z5z6f.jpg
 
Agreed..a 10% hit to trunk and overall cargo space is significant and may actually be a deal breaker for some- particularly if this is your 'big' car. I think we'll see consumption as a virtual wash but the PTW is worse and this peak torque happening 750 rpms later now also concerns me.

Personally I don't think the reduced cargo space matters, but I'm trying to figure out how the space was lost. The 2017 is slightly longer and didn't add front space, and barely added rear leg space. So where did the cargo space go?
 
Last edited:
Back