I just spend two weeks vacationing in the Appalachians with my 2.0 auto CX-5 and never averaged worst than 28 mpg's in the mountains with the car in manual mode and me keeping the rpm's around 3 to 4K because that it where the Skyactiv engine produces max torque. My best tank was on the 8hr ride up where I averaged 33 mpg's drinking a steady 60 to 70 mph the whole way up. The worst tank of gas was on the way back where we took the interstate and I averaged 28 mpg going between 80 to 90 mph for the entire trip back. The 2.0 is underrated in my opinion and has adequate torque if your willing to row your own gears in manual mode and does seem to deliver moderately better mpg's than the 2.5.
2.0 gas mileage
- Thread starter cburrell
- Start date
GJ-Molestor
Banned
- :
- 2011 BMW 528i, 2015 Mazda 6, 1995 Nissan Maxima Manual
the automatic in the new mazdas has been proven to be more efficient or at least match the manual.
in the real world, expect identical or even slightly better MPG's with the 2.5L because of it's far better torque delivery. you dont need to rev the car as hard to make torque. for the CX-5, the 2L is simply not enough.
in the real world, expect identical or even slightly better MPG's with the 2.5L because of it's far better torque delivery. you dont need to rev the car as hard to make torque. for the CX-5, the 2L is simply not enough.
- :
- 23 CX-5 Premium
Check fuelly.com for comparison mpg between 2013 and later model years with larger engine. You're wrong, my friend!
When our Mazda 5 was retired after 170K and we decided to go with CX-5, I test drove several CX-5's with the 2.5, but in the end I got such a good deal on a CX-5 with a 2.0 that I couldn't turn it down, and I honestly couldn't feel that much of a difference between the 2.0 and the 2.5 once the vehicle got moving. Acceleration from stop was slightly quicker in the 2.5, but nothing overwhelming quicker. In my wife's 6, the 2.5 acceleration is very respectable, but in a Cx-5 which weighs around 300 pounds more neither the 2.0 nor the 2.5 is fast in the acceleration department. Oh and my wife's 6 is delivering around 34 to 36 mpg on 75% highway/25% city, so I know the 2.5 in the CX-5 is doing very well if it consistently give its owners 30 or higher mpg's. Oh, and yes the automatic did row the gears ok in the mountains, but I felt I did a better job rowing them myself driving in the mountains.
Last edited:
- :
- 23 CX-5 Premium
Had my 2013 in for a minor recall item this morning and took the opportunity to drive a 2017 CX-5 and Mazda 3, both with the 2.5. First time I've tried the larger engine and I agree, it seemed a bit stronger off the line, but that was about it. Don't get me wrong, if the 2.5 had been available in 2012 when I bought mine, I would not have hesitated to get it. But I've never felt at a loss for power with the 2.0 except maybe once or twice pulling a long grade in altitude.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Real world 2.5L never added up to what Mazda claimed, so they downgraded it year after year on the EPA ratings, offered transmission tunes/tq converter revamps, etc. trying to make it pan out. No dice.
Comparing both the 2.0 and the 2.5 skyactiv engines the 2.0 only feels underpowered if you're traffic light drag racing or climbing steep hills. The 2.0 likes revving. That combined with a flat torque curve gives it pretty decent pull for that little engine and that size vehicle. MPG wise the 2.0 engine is very efficient. The lighter weight up front gives it a bit livelier handling dynamic too. The 2.0 with manual tranny and nearly 7k redline would be a joy to drive.
