What kind of real world mpg are owners getting?

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.

Highway ratings aren't for 80MPH and at those speeds, wind resistance is going to be the dominant factor. Having a bike or roof rack or other non-base options are going to hurt economy significantly BTW.

If I set the cruise control to 60 or so on my 2018 AWD I get 32 or 33 for the duration. I get 30+ around 70.
 
Highway ratings aren't for 80MPH and at those speeds, wind resistance is going to be the dominant factor. Having a bike or roof rack or other non-base options are going to hurt economy significantly BTW.

If I set the cruise control to 60 or so on my 2018 AWD I get 32 or 33 for the duration. I get 30+ around 70.

A person is complaining about getting 1 MPG less than the EPA estimate? This is kinda comical.
 
Just did a dry and cool 45 minute, 33.5 mpg drive, limited top speed to 65 mph. The best I have seen for our CX-5 2.5 AWD.
 
Regarding the 'recommended' octane: My story relates to a 2005 Subaru Outback with the 6 cyl engine. It had a 'recommended' octane of 93, which made it very expensive to operate and it got terrible gas mileage, unless on the freeway, where it got about 31. In town, where I did most of my driving, was dismal. I bought the car new and was using 87 octane with an occasional fill up of 91. I wound up having lots of trouble with the emission system. The O2 sensors failed, the cats failed and were replaced, early on under warranty. The check engine light went on several times and the code shown was the dreaded P0420 code. This code does not say specifically WHAT is wrong with the cat system, just that it is 'not running within specs'. The dealer had to spend considerable time trying to figure out what the cause was. They never asked me what kind of fuel I was using. The car always ran well and passed smog over the years I had it. To make a long and expensive story shorter, the dealer suggested to me that I was using cheap gas and causing the problems. The cat (on 1 side) and sensors that were bad were about $1200. That was the 3rd cat in the car. This car, being a 6 cyl engine, had TWO cats, and FOUR O2 sensors. If anybody can guarantee that using lower octane is ok, put it in writing that the emission control system won't be damaged. I might be leaning away from the turbo model CX5 because of this. I still have to drive both the turbo and non-turbo. The signature model does have some convenience features that I want however and they are not available on the GT (non reserve) model.
 
Last edited:
2.5NA 2018, 91 fuel
around 26mpg. Mostly city driving and short distances. like 90% of the time.

Tested few times to drive only on highway, roughly 33 mpg for 70-80 miles trips.
 
25-30 MPG depending on time of year. I live in the bay area, and have a 26 mile commute. During the summer, the traffic really lightens up because all the colleges are off. During that time of year I can get 30+ MPG. Otherwise, when school is in session, I get about 25 MPG due to the heavier traffic.
 
pretty much same as with mine.
I am coming from 16mpg suv before. Only of the fuel tank was a bit bigger on the mazda :)
 
30+ mpg is easily achievable with the NA 2.5 motor. You have to keep your highway speeds at or below 65. This goes for any vehicle. Above 65 mph the mpg quickly falls off because of drag and RPMs The sweet spot for me was about 61 to 63mph.
 
Regarding the 'recommended' octane: My story relates to a 2005 Subaru Outback with the 6 cyl engine. It had a 'recommended' octane of 93, which made it very expensive to operate and it got terrible gas mileage, unless on the freeway, where it got about 31. In town, where I did most of my driving, was dismal. I bought the car new and was using 87 octane with an occasional fill up of 91. I wound up having lots of trouble with the emission system. The O2 sensors failed, the cats failed and were replaced, early on under warranty. The check engine light went on several times and the code shown was the dreaded P0420 code. This code does not say specifically WHAT is wrong with the cat system, just that it is 'not running within specs'. The dealer had to spend considerable time trying to figure out what the cause was. They never asked me what kind of fuel I was using. The car always ran well and passed smog over the years I had it. To make a long and expensive story shorter, the dealer suggested to me that I was using cheap gas and causing the problems. The cat (on 1 side) and sensors that were bad were about $1200. That was the 3rd cat in the car. This car, being a 6 cyl engine, had TWO cats, and FOUR O2 sensors. If anybody can guarantee that using lower octane is ok, put it in writing that the emission control system won't be damaged. I might be leaning away from the turbo model CX5 because of this. I still have to drive both the turbo and non-turbo. The signature model does have some convenience features that I want however and they are not available on the GT (non reserve) model.

So in summary, a car made 15 years ago, when run at a lower octane than the manufacturer recommended, had a bunch of problems.

As anecdotes go that's unfortunate, but it doesn't seem to have any bearing at all on a car made today, for which the manufacturer specifically recommends 87 octane but advises that more power is available if you choose to use 91.
 
Regarding the 'recommended' octane: My story relates to a 2005 Subaru Outback with the 6 cyl engine. It had a 'recommended' octane of 93, which made it very expensive to operate and it got terrible gas mileage, unless on the freeway, where it got about 31. In town, where I did most of my driving, was dismal. I bought the car new and was using 87 octane with an occasional fill up of 91. I wound up having lots of trouble with the emission system. The O2 sensors failed, the cats failed and were replaced, early on under warranty. The check engine light went on several times and the code shown was the dreaded P0420 code. This code does not say specifically WHAT is wrong with the cat system, just that it is 'not running within specs'. The dealer had to spend considerable time trying to figure out what the cause was. They never asked me what kind of fuel I was using. The car always ran well and passed smog over the years I had it. To make a long and expensive story shorter, the dealer suggested to me that I was using cheap gas and causing the problems. The cat (on 1 side) and sensors that were bad were about $1200. That was the 3rd cat in the car. This car, being a 6 cyl engine, had TWO cats, and FOUR O2 sensors. If anybody can guarantee that using lower octane is ok, put it in writing that the emission control system won't be damaged. I might be leaning away from the turbo model CX5 because of this. I still have to drive both the turbo and non-turbo. The signature model does have some convenience features that I want however and they are not available on the GT (non reserve) model.
Unfortunate but have to agree with the above poster. The 2.5L and 2.5L turbo are both designed to run on 87 with the turbo having the option of additional power with higher octane use. Completely different from you deciding to run lower octane on an engine designed for higher octane to save a buck. Sounds like your issue was user error. You chose to run the incorrect octane fuel and unsurprisingly it caused issues. Not at all is that story applicable to the Mazda 2.5L engines which are designed to run on 87, with the turbo benefiting from additional power if you decide to use higher octane, but is otherwise not required.
 
Last edited:
2019 CX5 getting 29 combined. Car has only 670 miles on it so not sure if it needs more mileage until it breaks in
 
I get 30-31 mpg consistently on the highway. I live about 5 miles from town. Only 10000 people in my town. Drive about 200 miles weekly to another small town about 90 miles away. Went to Florida a few weeks ago. Traveled 1800 miles. Averaged 31.5 mpg driving 80 miles an hour. 2015 GT CX-5, FWD. I never get bad mileage even in town.
 
780 mile round trip in the Midwest this past weekend. Almost all highway, minimal traffic and cruise set between 68-78 depending on the road. 26.4 mpg. Our Jeep Grand Cherokee with the hemi gets about 21 mpg on the same route under the same conditions. Not a doubt in my mind that an 8 speed transmission would net another 2 mpg for this little turbo motor. Were still regularly getting 20-21 mpg in 100% local driving this winter and many short trips. Good by me.
 
You will not regret the 2.5T engine. I can't believe how smooth it is and how well it performs. My commute is ~40mi each way, mostly highway. I set the CC to 75, but only about 1/3 of the trip is at that speed. The Radar CC does an amazing job in traffic and makes the trip so much less stressful.

Nice! That's what I get in my 2015 AWD 2.5 during normal operation. If I drive like a grandma, I get around 26.5. Seems like a near zero-loss if I went with the GTR.
 
You will not regret the 2.5T engine. I can't believe how smooth it is and how well it performs. My commute is ~40mi each way, mostly highway. I set the CC to 75, but only about 1/3 of the trip is at that speed. The Radar CC does an amazing job in traffic and makes the trip so much less stressful.

Your drive is literally identical to mine.

No, I don't think I would regret it. The CX5 GTR literally fixes every complaint I've had about the CX5. That said, I get bored with stuff, and I know I get bored with stuff, so I am very hesitant. I kindof want to just pay this off, keep it, and not have a car note for a few years. I'm so far holding fast to that plan, but the CX5 GTR checks all my boxes, except I wished it were faster and handled better, but if it were and did, I know I'd just want it to be faster and handle better, rofl!
 
Back