- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
The shifts just feel "off". Crap explanation, but if you've experienced it, you understand.
Signature mpg
- Thread starter kone
- Start date
The shifts just feel "off". Crap explanation, but if you've experienced it, you understand.
- :
- Central Virginia
- :
- 2019 CX-5 Reserve
So this "learning" is not an early on one-and-done/you're-stuck-with-it thing?
It sounds like you're saying that it's constant and it applies recent experience and not long-term cumulative data. If that's the case, then I don't need to bother with it.
And given that I go from conservative mode 90% of the time to hitting that stretch of road I love when I'm in manual mode flying uphill and around corners wound out in 3rd gear (damn, the turbo is nice), my car's gonna need therapy trying to figure me out.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
As best i can tell yes. This is my subjective opinion.
Just finished my first road trip, figured I'd share my mileage here...
I now have about 2k miles on my 2019 Signature, after putting on about 500 miles driving up 95 from DC to Boston. On the trip, I averaged just over 27 mpg, hitting some congestion and stop and go, and spending the rest of trip trying to drive about 75 mph. Very happy I could beat the EPA rating without trying hard.
Driving around the Boston suburbs, with fewer traffic lights and longer stretches of ~40 mph road, I can average over 30 mpg
Using the car as I normally do, driving in downtown traffic with significant stop and go, and idling, I'm lucky if I crack 20 mpg. The AC I've noticed will significantly drop my mpg in city traffic.
Overall, I'm very pleased. The turbo engine is getting basically the same mileage as my 2016 CX-5 FWD got with the NA 2.5L. On the same trip up and down the east coast, I've averaged 28-29 mpg in the NA engine, but it doesn't like cruising around 80 nearly as much as the turbo. If you'd feather it around 65 mpg, it could match the 32 mpg EPA rating...on flat surfaces, in mild temperatures. Hitting the EPA estimates (or even coming close) with the NA engine was consistently much harder than it is in the turbo.
I now have about 2k miles on my 2019 Signature, after putting on about 500 miles driving up 95 from DC to Boston. On the trip, I averaged just over 27 mpg, hitting some congestion and stop and go, and spending the rest of trip trying to drive about 75 mph. Very happy I could beat the EPA rating without trying hard.
Driving around the Boston suburbs, with fewer traffic lights and longer stretches of ~40 mph road, I can average over 30 mpg
Using the car as I normally do, driving in downtown traffic with significant stop and go, and idling, I'm lucky if I crack 20 mpg. The AC I've noticed will significantly drop my mpg in city traffic.
Overall, I'm very pleased. The turbo engine is getting basically the same mileage as my 2016 CX-5 FWD got with the NA 2.5L. On the same trip up and down the east coast, I've averaged 28-29 mpg in the NA engine, but it doesn't like cruising around 80 nearly as much as the turbo. If you'd feather it around 65 mpg, it could match the 32 mpg EPA rating...on flat surfaces, in mild temperatures. Hitting the EPA estimates (or even coming close) with the NA engine was consistently much harder than it is in the turbo.
leeharvey418
Member
- :
- 2019 CX-5 Signature; 2014 CX-9 Touring AWD
Minus the bit about testing the effect of AC use (what are we, animals?) this pretty closely matches my experience.
