I hope Mazda did some real good stuff for 2017...

I'll wait and see real-life input from drivers during 2017, when Honda introduces the 1.5 turbo and 1.0 turbo in Europe, to see how good mpg is.

So far it looks like it is VERY good on the highway doing normal touring speeds (32mpg at 75mph cruise), while in the city it suffers a bit under its EPA rating due to the aforementioned turbo/spooling events. Of course, my Mazda is the same way except it also suffers on the highway, as well. The only way it gets good (EPA rating or better) mileage is a slow and steady speed with no acceleration events, keeping it 60 or under.
 
Asked a friend with a 2017 wrx. He skipped the details, but told me no, no real need to idle it unless you ha e truly beat the hell out of it just a second ago.

I had seen a dull red glow under mine several times, from a still-red-hot turbo, and I *always* drove super-gently the last 15 minutes home. A 10 pound hunk of iron doesn't cool down very fast, and the *housing* isn't water/oil cooled, only the area around the bearings.

Hunk of red-hot metal melting thru lake ice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOEBwBERPv4
 
I had seen a dull red glow under mine several times, from a still-red-hot turbo, and I *always* drove super-gently the last 15 minutes home. A 10 pound hunk of iron doesn't cool down very fast, and the *housing* isn't water/oil cooled, only the area around the bearings.

Hunk of red-hot metal melting thru lake ice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOEBwBERPv4

I've never had an FI car, just reporting what I was told. That said, I dunno if I ever will. I kind of need to buy an estate and then decide on a fun vehicle, based on the road conditions where I finally end up.
 
my local mazda dealer of southern california just informed me that they are about to order the car and they should be expecting them early May. I can't wait that long...
 
I'll wait and see real-life input from drivers during 2017, when Honda introduces the 1.5 turbo and 1.0 turbo in Europe, to see how good mpg is.
+1

You shouldn't draw much conclusions based on a single test, which probably only used the instant MPG meter. Even if not, a single test is not necessarily reliable.
I do believe the CR-V will get very good numbers, because it has a CVT and brand-new efficient engine, but let's wait an see.
 
+1

You shouldn't draw much conclusions based on a single test, which probably only used the instant MPG meter. Even if not, a single test is not necessarily reliable.
I do believe the CR-V will get very good numbers, because it has a CVT and brand-new efficient engine, but let's wait an see.

I like using fuelly.com to see more real world MPG numbers. Several 2017 CRVs with the 1.5T showing up already:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/cr-v/2017?engineconfig_id=&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=75778
 
I like fuelly too and these early CR-V numbers pretty much confirm my experience with a small displacement T4s- they are capable of getting good fuel economy if you drive very conservatively and/or in favorable conditions- flat-ish terrain steady state cruising. However they are also capable of pretty bad economy if the opposite is your general use case. My RWD X1 can crack 30 on a long drive (rated at like 33 hwy) but I usually end up doing a bit worse than the AWD CX-5 (@25-26)..why? If the power is there I'll likely use it- ecopro be dammed..although I do use that on hwy sometimes.
 
I like fuelly too and these early CR-V numbers pretty much confirm my experience with a small displacement T4s- they are capable of getting good fuel economy if you drive very conservatively and/or in favorable conditions- flat-ish terrain steady state cruising. However they are also capable of pretty bad economy if the opposite is your general use case. My RWD X1 can crack 30 on a long drive (rated at like 33 hwy) but I usually end up doing a bit worse than the AWD CX-5 (@25-26)..why? If the power is there I'll likely use it- ecopro be dammed..although I do use that on hwy sometimes.


Those fuelly numbers look pretty good to me. Combined 27 MPG is pretty good for a bigger CUV.
 
Now the question...will this board claim Fuelly sucks, or bow its head and accept it when Fuelly tells them something they DON'T like...

The third option is given the cost of the extra fuel to run the CX-5 and what a great car it is to drive I don't care.
 
Now the question...will this board claim Fuelly sucks, or bow its head and accept it when Fuelly tells them something they DON'T like...

Why would anyone claim that fully sucks or why should anyone bow their heads?
I've only stated that I'll wait and see real life input, like from fully and from spritmonitor (which is european and therefor more likely to show what the mpg will be like in Europe) as basically every small displacement turbo engine has a hard time to live up to the claimed mpg, unless You drive it in a very specific way.
Good for Honda if their 1.5 Turbo is better than the competition in that regard, but I'll still stick to my NA Mazda for now (having already been down the small-engine-with-turbo road).
 
I'll stick to my NA Mazda too, speaking of NA Mazdas got some official 17 specs (not printed sitting in front of me) but definitely official from my dealer's computer..however they're from my recollection so I may be off a tick or 2 here or there...notable highlights:
187/185
23/29 AWD 24(I think)/31 FWD
365X..AWD curb
65.3 height w/o rails, 179.1 L
30,655 MSRP before dest for AWD GT (sorry I missed others)
LEDs standard on touring and leatherette with faux swede inserts
GT includes most/all of i-active stuff I believe
same tire/wheel sizes for all 3 trims

Sorry I'm sure this doesn't answer everything but so far I've seen nothing so yeah idk she definitely put on lbs..maybe for good but seems like the 16.5 may have gotten a tad more compelling (on paper obviously) for me...although I like the lower roofline which at 2" is more significant than expected..should fair better in wind. I wanted to look at gearing but a) I wouldn't have remembered and b) I had to run
 
Last edited:
I was surprised by that..not 100% sure that may have been led drls, and not full leds but 99% if they (full) are not standard they're available...said he expects first units to show up sometime in April- I assume late April as everything I've seen points to May.
 
Last edited:
I'll stick to my NA Mazda too, speaking of NA Mazdas got some official 17 specs (not printed sitting in front of me) but definitely official from my dealer's computer..however they're from my recollection so I may be off a tick or 2 here or there...notable highlights:
187/185
23/29 AWD 24(I think)/31 FWD
365X..AWD curb
65.3 height w/o rails, 179.1 L
30,655 MSRP before dest for AWD GT (sorry I missed others)
LEDs standard on touring and leatherette with faux swede inserts
GT includes most/all of i-active stuff I believe
same tire/wheel sizes for all 3 trims

Sorry I'm sure this doesn't answer everything but so far I've seen nothing so yeah idk she definitely put on lbs..maybe for good but seems like the 16.5 may have gotten a tad more compelling (on paper obviously) for me...although I like the lower roofline which at 2" is more significant than expected..should fair better in wind. I wanted to look at gearing but a) I wouldn't have remembered and b) I had to run

Current height w/o roof rails is 65.7
 
I thought 67 (edmunds) seemed off maybe that was with rails...didn't realize she put on weight in refresh- 2014 3532, 2016 3589, 2017 3653 - borderline porky now:(
 
Last edited:
Why would anyone claim that fully sucks or why should anyone bow their heads?
I've only stated that I'll wait and see real life input, like from fully and from spritmonitor (which is european and therefor more likely to show what the mpg will be like in Europe) as basically every small displacement turbo engine has a hard time to live up to the claimed mpg, unless You drive it in a very specific way.
Good for Honda if their 1.5 Turbo is better than the competition in that regard, but I'll still stick to my NA Mazda for now (having already been down the small-engine-with-turbo road).

Because people here are kindof funny. When I said Mazda should add 20-50# of sound deadening, they freaked.

Now Mazda did it, and it's all "Ooohhh!!! AHHH!!!!! YAY!"

Because I said PANO sunroofs are where it's at. Again this forum complained about this or that.

Now Honda did it in some of the CA CRV's, andone forum member already shed his CX-5 for one, and everyone is posting about how awesome it is that it has a Pano.

Because I said that Mazda was full of crap on their EPA ratings, and the forum boo'ed and hissed at me.

Now Mazda has re-vamped their ratings, and lowed the EPA rating on the CX-5.


So I am curious...how will the forum take the fuelly numbers ;)
 
The third option is given the cost of the extra fuel to run the CX-5 and what a great car it is to drive I don't care.

Mainly consider that you've already paid for your ticket and bought your ride. I used to keel over at the stupidity of people trading in a 5 year old Accord that was paid off that had only 50K miles on it for financing a new Prius "so they could save money".
 
Back