What kind of real world mpg are owners getting?

I get 37.2 on my manual 2.0..you should've gotten a 14 MT for better MPG. Anything below 22 I'd rather have a tacoma/sequoia overlander. I wouldn't buy a turbo car.

I mean...I don't really give two s**** about MPG personally. If MPG was higher up on my list, I'd be looking at a different car class.

That said...I was always impressed by the MPG numbers of the manual 2.0L CX-5's.
 
I mean...I don't really give two s**** about MPG personally. If MPG was higher up on my list, I'd be looking at a different car class.

That said...I was always impressed by the MPG numbers of the manual 2.0L CX-5's.

I agree completely...

Averaging about 25MPG here, and that's excellent and way more than enough to satisfy...
 
Agree with Colorado, as usual. If I cared about MPG I'd have gotten something different.
 
Agree with Colorado, as usual. If I cared about MPG I'd have gotten something different.

I care about MPG and range. I would have gotten the GD diesel if Mazda would have offered it as they said they were going to.

I'm ambivalent about the 2.5T. Some days I think I'd prefer it to my 2.5G and other days not. I think I'm more disappointed by the range than I am with the oomph. The only time I much care about the getup is when I'm accelerated from zero, or low speed, like turning into the road in front of somebody. Just some more low end torque would do it for me.

Coming from a 2nd generation Acura 3.2TL that had more engine than I needed and got 19 or 20 MPG in combined driving. Now I'm getting 24 or 25 in my 2018 CX-5 (also now using 87 octane).
 
Agree with Colorado, as usual. If I cared about MPG I'd have gotten something different.

Yup. I only care about MPG in the context of "Does my experience reflect or better the window sticker's claims?" Every car I've had EXCEPT my CX5 has bettered EPA claims with my driving style on road trips. My CX5 failed by 10% to meet them, and I've never been okay with this.
 
My 2.5T is averaging 20.5 mpg in its first 500 miles of mostly city use. First tank was 87 octane and 91 thereafter. I may move back to 87.
 
Thanks for the responses. While I am pondering whether or not to go from my 2013 RAV4 to the 2019 CX-5 the mileage is of consideration because even though I don't do a lot of driving (I am retired) anymore, I still hate going to the gas station. I am pretty sure I would love the turbo in this car but I will have to drive the model without. All the premium brands (Audi, BMW, Volvo...) require premium which is much more expensive today than regular, AND those cars are considerably more expensive. Mazda seems to give the buyer a lot of nice features and design for a more reasonable price. I had a Subaru Outback with the 6cyl engine and the mileage was pretty bad. Good on the highway, about 32; terrible in town. The RAV4 is also terrible in town but about 31 on the highway.
 
... All the premium brands (Audi, BMW, Volvo...) require premium ...

They just "recommend" premium. When I was shopping the Germans, all the dealers were touting that you can run 87 in them without an issue. I never asked, they just came out and said that. You will lose power, like you do in the CX-5 turbo, but it's not clearly spec'd like ours.
 
Confirmed: Volvo told me I SHOULD run 91 in my turbo C70 but it will not hurt it to run 87.
 
Wait after 2nd oil change. Engine really opens up. Seems new Skyactiv factory engines have th emost contrast post break-in period that other cars I recall. Could be the factory oil has high moly content.
Interesting. The long-term, test CX9 only improved its 0-60 by 0.1 seconds after 40K miles vs. when new. People keep talking about "broken in cars are faster", but I rarely recall seeing such in real life, and often, they lose a tenth or two.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a21525002/2016-mazda-cx-9-long-term-test-wrap-up-review/

In reality, I think people just stop playing with it so much because the "new" has worn off.
Agreed. My 2016 CX-5 AWD with 30K+ miles has exactly the same MPG since new, no improvement after several oil changes with Mazda 0W-20 moly oil. With all city driving it gets about 26 MPG.
 
Yup. I only care about MPG in the context of "Does my experience reflect or better the window sticker's claims?" Every car I've had EXCEPT my CX5 has bettered EPA claims with my driving style on road trips. My CX5 failed by 10% to meet them, and I've never been okay with this.
Same here. To me, 30 MPG EPA rating on highway has been an unreachable target unless I drive constantly under 70 mph at 80 mph zone. The best I could get for highway trip on my 2016 CX-5 AWD is 28.5 MPG if I follow the speed limits.

And all other vehicles I've owned can always meet or beat their EPA highway estimate even if I follow the speed limits.
 
I'm running 87 ... the same that I ran for my entire '16 CX-9 ownership tenure.
Once broken-in I may try a couple of tanks of 93 just to see the mpg and feel the performance difference, but it costs 60 cents more per gallon at the Shell station I frequent.
IMO, that's not cost-effective for a minimal mpg difference or performance increase at the higher rpms rarely visited in normal driving.
Don't waste you money paying 60 cents more per gallon for 93-octane gas. You won't feel any thing differently unless you keep driving above 4,000 rpm! The official 2.5T engine power curve tells you everything:

Here's the torque curve:

TC.png


source: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/12/2019-mazda-cx-5-turbo-first-drive-your-italian-alternative/
 
First full tank gone through in 2 days. Yikes! Anyway, I didn't reset the MPG when I got the car. It had 51 miles on it. Most of which was me test driving it before I took delivery. Average MPG with mixed driving for me is 23.9. I reset and will see how I do on this next tank full. Running 93oct right now but looking at that power graph might be a waste really. We'll see. I felt like this car had more power down low with 93 vs 87. Maybe it was my imagination.
 
... I felt like this car had more power down low with 93 vs 87. Maybe it was my imagination.

I feel no difference down low. I don't even notice any change above 4k RPM, but I'm not really racing anyone. :) I have noticed that it seems to shift too quickly from 2nd gear to 3rd, though. That's with both 87 and 93.
 
We drove from Charlotte to Ft Lauderdale recently. Filled up on the road, and suddenly i could not get the mpg I usually get of 30/31 at 70. Let's see, flat road, cool so no a/c. Couldn't get above 27.8 or so. At next fill up, same brand, and same style brand new pumps. Aha, the pump had two 87 nozzles, one for 10% alcohol, and one for 15%. I must have just looked at the octane number, and grabbed the 15% alcohol one. After two more fillings, one with premium, car was back at 30/31. Has anyone heard of 15% alcohol causing any damage. I doubt that one tankful would.
 
Update: its been cold and miserable here in the Midwest over the past two weeks. We are averaging a little over 20 mpg in almost exclusively short trips, local driving. As a comparison, my Jeep Grand Cherokee with the hemi V8 is getting about 18 mpg but thats in mixed highway/city (probably 50/50). Local would be closer to 14 mpg. The Mazdas mileage is excellent in my opinion. We run 87 octane.
 
Back