2016 vs. 2017: it's the same engine with 1.6% more horsepower, powering a car with 1.8% more weight (AWD), same gearing, and some different fine tuning of throttle response and shift points. Arguing about which car could beat which car is silly. You called them out for being silly then. Don't be silly now.
Mazda Impressions and Review
- Thread starter GJ-Molestor
- Start date
I doubt I will ever see a 2016 trying to race a 2017 on a road here in OZ....
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I think the tune is the issue. Half a second 0-60 is a pretty big gap in a vehicle that obviously doesn't have traction issues. That's a bigger gap that the WRX vs. WRX STi.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
3 more horsepower on 2017 CX-5 is achieved by raising the maximum rpm by 300. The same maximum torque is achieved at 750 higher rpm in AWD.
| MAZDA CX-5 SkyActiv-G 2.5L | 2017 | 2016 |
| Horsepower SAE (hp) | 187 @ 6,000 rpm | 184 @ 5,700 rpm |
| Torque SAE (lb-ft) | 185 @ 3,250 rpm - FWD 185 @ 4,000 rpm - AWD | 185 @ 3,250 rpm |
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
| MAZDA CX-5 SkyActiv-G 2.5L | 2017 | 2016 |
| EPA-estimated MPG (combined/city/hwy) | 27 / 24 / 31 - FWD 26 / 23 / 29 - AWD | 29 / 26 / 33 - FWD 26 / 24 / 30 - AWD |
Actually according to fueleconomy.gov the EPA ratings based on new calculation for most vehicles are unchanged. For 2016 CX-5 the only change is the highway rating for AWD which is downgraded from 30 to 29. Comparison of EPA ratings between 2016 and 2017 CX-5 are legit. You can compare those EPA fuel economy ratings directly at fueleconomy.gov website among 2011 ~ 2017 MYs as all ratings have been adjusted for direct comparison.
www.fueleconomy.gov said:
www.fueleconomy.gov said:
Yeah, I was going off Mazda USA website, which as of today when you look at specs for the '16 shows 26/33 for the FWD and 24/30 for the AWD.
I'll take actual people's results out in the real world over anything on a window sticker:
Here is what fuelly.com is showing today for all the CX5 model years with a 2.5 engine. You have to take into account most of the '17 engines are not broken in yet. The 2012 and 2013 numbers are with the filter set for the 2.0 engine only to show what they average.
2017 25.8 MPG
2016 26.0 MPG
2015 25.5 MPG
2014 26.5 MPG
2013 28.0 MPG
2012 28.3 MPG
Anyway, I expect the '17 to settle in on fuelly somewhere around 26 to 27 once more of the new ones are through the break in period.
It looks like all model years with a 2.5 will get around 26 MPG combined, although it will be interesting when there are more drivers contributing information with a '17 since it is already running near the '16 and above the '15.
I'll take actual people's results out in the real world over anything on a window sticker:
Here is what fuelly.com is showing today for all the CX5 model years with a 2.5 engine. You have to take into account most of the '17 engines are not broken in yet. The 2012 and 2013 numbers are with the filter set for the 2.0 engine only to show what they average.
2017 25.8 MPG
2016 26.0 MPG
2015 25.5 MPG
2014 26.5 MPG
2013 28.0 MPG
2012 28.3 MPG
Anyway, I expect the '17 to settle in on fuelly somewhere around 26 to 27 once more of the new ones are through the break in period.
It looks like all model years with a 2.5 will get around 26 MPG combined, although it will be interesting when there are more drivers contributing information with a '17 since it is already running near the '16 and above the '15.
The only info I could find on any changes with the '17 AWD that might possibly explain it:
"There is, for the all-wheel drive versions of the compact crossover, the i-ACTIV AWD system that uses sensors to calculatetwo processors are used, operating at more than 200 calculations per second--27 factors that determine where torque should go, with as much as 50 percent of the power (the 2.5-liter engine provides 187 hp, which is an increase of 3 hp from the previous model) to the rear wheels. The system in the 2017 model uses tandem ball bearings in the rear differential that (1) provide greater strength under load, (2) result in 30 percent reduced friction in the rear diff, and (3) allow a 2 percent improvement in real-world fuel economy."
Something is different since the FWD kept the same 0-60 with more weight and the AWD lost 3-5 tenths with more weight.
AWD makes peak torque higher in rev range than FWD.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
FWD is traction limited probably.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
The problem for me on fuelly.com is you can't distinguish FWD and AWD on CX-5 and unfortunately the EPA fuel economy ratings on CX-5 between FWD and AWD can be different as much as 4 mpg while others are mostly 1. The data mixing FWD with much better MPG and AWD are less useful for comparison purposes.
According to EPA, 2015 CX-5 does have poorer ratings on 2.5L (27/25/31 FWD and 26/24/29 AWD）than 2016 CX-5, hence worse showing at fuelly.com is expected.
My 2016 CX-5 GT AWD was getting 26.5 mpg when new, now dropped to 25.8 with all city drivings. Break-in period or not which is only the first 800 miles, shouldn't affect the MPG too much.
In order to improve fuel economy figures, one needs to sustain higher speeds for longer durations.
City driving in most cases is stop/start coupled with shorter duration of trips. Doesn't give the vehicle enough time to lower the L/100km figures (or increase mpg figures in the case of USA owners).
Therefore CX-5 figures regardless of which year/generation in most situations won't be near the claimed figures especially in city driving which like I said is usually not long enough duration wise.
City driving in most cases is stop/start coupled with shorter duration of trips. Doesn't give the vehicle enough time to lower the L/100km figures (or increase mpg figures in the case of USA owners).
Therefore CX-5 figures regardless of which year/generation in most situations won't be near the claimed figures especially in city driving which like I said is usually not long enough duration wise.
Last edited:
But that data mixing between FWD/AWD will be roughly the same over all the year models. So while not 100% accurate, it will still provide a very good, real world example of what MPG's CX5 owners are getting with the 2.5 motor and would be very useful for comparing MPG between model years which I think is what we were discussing. We are talking about millions of miles tracked over each year model, and the outliers are kicked out of the mix.
