astriuminc
Member
- :
- CX-9 2013 AWD
Exactly, my coworker got 26 mpg on his '16 cx9 from Poughkeepsie to Buffalo. Going average 65 mph. No traffic. Typical highway terrain mostly flat but some long uphills .
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Just Bought a 2017 GT AWD - Love it but why such bad gas mileage?
- Thread starter MLC LS1
- Start date
Exactly, my coworker got 26 mpg on his '16 cx9 from Poughkeepsie to Buffalo. Going average 65 mph. No traffic. Typical highway terrain mostly flat but some long uphills .
Exactly, my coworker got 26 mpg on his '16 cx9 from Poughkeepsie to Buffalo. Going average 65 mph. No traffic. Typical highway terrain mostly flat but some long uphills .
On a trip from Monterey to Sacramento, CA I got 25mpg calculated from gallons/miles driven. Hit some traffic congestion a few times and slowed to a crawl. I was mostly averaging speeds between 70-80 with A/C on. Not broken in yet since it's only got 800 miles.
I'm positive without the traffic and speeds at 65 I could easily meet the EPA rating of 26mpg.
Nothing is wrong with the car (this is our 4th CX-9), no way you're getting that mileage unless its completely flat going less than 50 mph. Our 13' CX-9 got just a bit better than yours in suburban driving. Never got past 22 mpg on highway.
I get 25 highway with my AWD CX-9 in the hills of the Northeast. I average 20mpg.
0 - 60 in 5.7 sec is at least 2.5 sec. faster than CX-9.
Come on, CX9 0-60 is 7.2 seconds... not 8.2.
http://www.caranddriver.com/mazda/cx-9
But yes I agree with your point that the Q7 is very impressive on power and mpg!
It weighs 2.2 tons, plus everything you put into it (including you). Takes gas to get that up to speed.I take it that this car does not like stop and go for gas mileage
Right, I was gonna write that in my last post too, the CX-9 you can get in a base for high twenties. That cost difference is huge.
But really the whole TSI/TFSI line of motors is just good. If you want an example that is more cost equal look at Passat vs. Mazda6. They are neck and neck on fuel use.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/6?engineconfig_id=53&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=
http://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen/passat?engineconfig_id=36&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=
Weight, cost, and 0-60 are also about the same between the two, so its a fair comparison.
But really the whole TSI/TFSI line of motors is just good. If you want an example that is more cost equal look at Passat vs. Mazda6. They are neck and neck on fuel use.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/6?engineconfig_id=53&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=
http://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen/passat?engineconfig_id=36&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=
Weight, cost, and 0-60 are also about the same between the two, so its a fair comparison.
That is impressive to get that MPG on a 300+HP V6.. but comparing a Q7 to a CX9 is comparing Apples to Oranges.. The Q7 starts at 50K base... comp equipped is at least mid 50's or more... the proper comp is Pilot/Highlander/Sorrento/Arcadia...
Yes, but the base Q has all the features of the Signature CX-9. Even the 4 cyl. Q7 performs better than the CX-9. But my point was the Q7 weighs 500 lbs more than the CX-9 but gets just about the same mileage without having to resort to Sky active stuff. Don't get me wrong, we own both cars and I can't help but compare and we've also owned 3 previous generation CX-9 and have been disappointed in them leaving basic stuff out that were standard on the previous model and expecting it on the new model.
I have a 2016 AWD CX-9 GT. I believe it's virtually identical to the 2017. The first ~800 miles were awful in terms of mpg. I probably averaged 15 mpg during that period. Maybe a little more. But once I hit 1000 miles the mpg improved greatly. Today I average 25 mpg. I do not have a heavy foot and I utilize the adaptive cruise control constantly.
I guess the conclusion is it all depends on how you break the car in and how you drive from that point forward. For the first 1000 miles make sure you are revving that engine. Don't floor it. Just give it gas and ease off. Then give it more gas and ease off. Drive it that way on the streets and on the freeway. Both of my Mazdas ended up with excellent gas mileage and I don't see why yours wouldn't either.
Good luck!
Stu
I guess the conclusion is it all depends on how you break the car in and how you drive from that point forward. For the first 1000 miles make sure you are revving that engine. Don't floor it. Just give it gas and ease off. Then give it more gas and ease off. Drive it that way on the streets and on the freeway. Both of my Mazdas ended up with excellent gas mileage and I don't see why yours wouldn't either.
Good luck!
Stu
Yes, but the base Q has all the features of the Signature CX-9. Even the 4 cyl. Q7 performs better than the CX-9. But my point was the Q7 weighs 500 lbs more than the CX-9 but gets just about the same mileage without having to resort to Sky active stuff. Don't get me wrong, we own both cars and I can't help but compare and we've also owned 3 previous generation CX-9 and have been disappointed in them leaving basic stuff out that were standard on the previous model and expecting it on the new model.
No, the base Q7 does not have all the same features of the Signature CX-9. No advanced safety (radar cruise, lane departure, collision avoidance, etc) no navigation, no 20" wheels, no Nappa leather. You can add a few of these to the base Premium, but still no advanced safety tech available.
To get comparable features in a Q7, you need to spend over $58,000 by going to the Premium Plus and adding extras.
https://www.audiusa.com/models/audi...-51478_A_2018/4MB5H10WPS_2018|A1A1|FZ|F06|PCU
Yes, but the base Q has all the features of the Signature CX-9. Even the 4 cyl. Q7 performs better than the CX-9. But my point was the Q7 weighs 500 lbs more than the CX-9 but gets just about the same mileage without having to resort to Sky active stuff. Don't get me wrong, we own both cars and I can't help but compare and we've also owned 3 previous generation CX-9 and have been disappointed in them leaving basic stuff out that were standard on the previous model and expecting it on the new model.
Does the base Q7 have the heads up display? I don't recallthe Q7 actually having the HUD even in the top spec. I do know it only has the virtual cockpit display but even that too is an option for few thousands...
Does the base Q7 have the heads up display? I don't recallthe Q7 actually having the HUD even in the top spec. I do know it only has the virtual cockpit display but even that too is an option for few thousands...
That's an option on the Premium Plus. I happen to really like the virtual cockpit. I think Audi did a great job with it. I have read mixed reviews from others tho.
Not to take away from the Q7, I think Audi did a really, really nice job with it. However, it's a true luxury SUV. The CX-9 is not, therefore the cost will be substantially higher for a Q7. Just the fact that some people are comparing the two speaks volumes about the CX-9.
Roof top carriers takes a significant hit out of gas mileage by killing aerodynamics.
Yep and even more than I expected. Almost 6 mpg.
- :
- 2012 CX-9 Touring
I've got one of the semi hard Thule Ranger 90's. That sits on the cross bars though.The back is for sure the place you want to pack extra gear, not the top. Anybody try one of the strap on soft carriers? AKA backpack? I want one, but am scared of scratching the finish up
Yep and even more than I expected. Almost 6 mpg.
That seems way high. On our departed 2008 CX9 and departed 2013 BMW X5 (and our current 2016 Honda PIlot) I tended to lose maybe 1-2 highway mpg with a Yakima 18 cargo box.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 50
- Views
- 7K
