2015 Mazda CX-5 Touring Long-Term Verdict Review (Motor Trend)

[Unobtanium]

Here's 21 2015 Subaru Foresters getting an average getting a combined Avg MPG of 22.25. EPA combined rating for the Turbo is 25 MPG.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/subaru/forester/2015?engineconfig_id=&bodystyleconfig_id=&submodel_id=

Here's 2016 Mazda CX-5 2.5 AWD. Fully shows it a combined 25.4 mpg - closer to the EPA rating (26 mpg) than the Subaru is to its rating.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/cx-5/2016?engineconfig_id=53&bodystyleconfig_id=3&submodel_id=

My conclusion is that you either got a dog or your combination of driving conditions and habits causes you to get poorer mileage than average. I suspect the latter, as I'm in much the same boat. I'm getting a combined 23.8 because I live in hilly country with heavy traffic congestion. I drive more like a hyper-miler than a hot rodder. I got 22.8 mpg combined on my 2010 Mazda 3 GT 2.5 Auto. That compares to 17.68 combined on my 1995 Volvo Turbo auto. I'm a happy camper to have better mileage on a CX-5 than a Mazda 3, and it's light years better than my Volvo Turbo.

I do have a hilly commute. Maybe the smaller motor is just very sensitive to that. I have a road-trip to New Orleans coming up soon, and I will see how it does in that stretch, as I've driven that area before in many different vehicles.

That said, I am pleased with the mileage the CX-5 gets. Just not pleased about it not meeting spec. However, maybe the hills are killing the tiny motor, even though it doesn't feel like it's working that hard.

 

[MikeM.]

I do have a hilly commute. Maybe the smaller motor is just very sensitive to that.

Maybe the 2.5L engine is sensitive to hills because my 2013 CX-5 with AWD get's it's best mileage when I'm driving mountain passes here in the North Cascades. Of course if you need to ride your brakes down the steep grades and/or into the corners, your MPG is going to suffer. But I just let her fly if traffic and road conditions allow. And the balanced handling allows the vehicle to rail the corners on the steeper downgrades without braking although sometimes I put her into 5th gear to check maximum speed.

That said, I am pleased with the mileage the CX-5 gets. Just not pleased about it not meeting spec.

Oh, I understand, you're happy..... but you're not (freak)

However, maybe the hills are killing the tiny motor, even though it doesn't feel like it's working that hard.

It must not be the size of the motor that's the problem because the even smaller 2L returns great figures in the mountains.

 

[Rarebit]

I do have a hilly commute. Maybe the smaller motor is just very sensitive to that. I have a road-trip to New Orleans coming up soon, and I will see how it does in that stretch, as I've driven that area before in many different vehicles.

That said, I am pleased with the mileage the CX-5 gets. Just not pleased about it not meeting spec. However, maybe the hills are killing the tiny motor, even though it doesn't feel like it's working that hard.

It isn't a "tiny motor" issue. It's a "work" issue.

The energy needed to move a car must overcome four general forces - wind resistance (with increases exponentially with speed); rolling resistance; inertia (when changing speed) and gravity. On the flat at a constant speed, you have just two of those. On hills, you're raising 3500 lb 1 foot for every foot gain in elevation. And if you accelerate, you're using even more. (There's some gain going downhill because gravity helps you overcome rolling and wind resistance.)

It wouldn't matter if the CX-5 had 400 bhp - it would still use more gas going up hills. Accelerating up hills would use more still.

 

[yrwei52]

At least it has a couple of more selections for interior color and trim instead of "sea of black" CX-5 interior. Not to mention memory seat and rear AC vents.

The parchment white interior does break the "sea of black" interior.

Parchment/sand interior is not available for every exterior color. Even if you chose Parchment/sand interior by giving up exterior color you'd prefer, the front dash, center console, most door panel, carpet, seat belts, etc., are still "sea of black"! Look at other competitors, they'll have a different shade of color on above mentioned areas matching the interior color you chose, not just "black covers it all" mentality.

 

[MikeM.]

It wouldn't matter if the CX-5 had 400 bhp - it would still use more gas going up hills. Accelerating up hills would use more still.

What you are missing is this:

If you start and end your trip at the same elevation, there is no net loss of energy due to going up/down hills. As I've pointed out previously, the loss only happens if you need to brake going down the hills.

In fact, my all-time high mpg occurred on a trip over the North Cascades which are not small mountains. 38.24 MPG and 517 miles/tank.

 

[Unobtanium]

Maybe the 2.5L engine is sensitive to hills because my 2013 CX-5 with AWD get's it's best mileage when I'm driving mountain passes here in the North Cascades. Of course if you need to ride your brakes down the steep grades and/or into the corners, your MPG is going to suffer. But I just let her fly if traffic and road conditions allow. And the balanced handling allows the vehicle to rail the corners on the steeper downgrades without braking although sometimes I put her into 5th gear to check maximum speed.



Oh, I understand, you're happy..... but you're not (freak)



It must not be the size of the motor that's the problem because the even smaller 2L returns great figures in the mountains.

You misunderstood. The "hills" in my area tend to be loooonnng grades. My real-time mileage may read out 19mpg for a mile or so. Then 35mpg for the next mile. I figured if I took the same road, both ways, it would equal out, but that may well be faulty logic on my part.

Also, yes, I am satisfied with the CX-5. It is doing very well. That doesn't mean I am happy about it not hitting EPA numbers, at this point, though.

 

[Unobtanium]

What you are missing is this:

If you start and end your trip at the same elevation, there is no net loss of energy due to going up/down hills. As I've pointed out previously, the loss only happens if you need to brake going down the hills.

In fact, my all-time high mpg occurred on a trip over the North Cascades which are not small mountains. 38.24 MPG and 517 miles/tank.

Elevation and a leaner fuel mix (less air/less fuel, the magic of a MAF and DI...) may have led to your better mileage.

Also, here is the question...if you FLOOR the vehicle up to 120mph, and then let it slowly come to a stop, covering, say, 2 miles total, and then turn around, and gently accelerate to 120mph, and then SLAM on the brakes, stopping fully at the 2 mile mark...

Which will have burned more fuel?

Thus I wonder...is it REALLY a no-net-loss situation when you travel on roads with grades to them, even if you make a round-trip, covering the same ground twice? I don't have the answers, but it does beg the question.

 

[Rarebit]

What you are missing is this:

If you start and end your trip at the same elevation, there is no net loss of energy due to going up/down hills. As I've pointed out previously, the loss only happens if you need to brake going down the hills.

In fact, my all-time high mpg occurred on a trip over the North Cascades which are not small mountains. 38.24 MPG and 517 miles/tank.

Hahaha! That reminds my of first year Physics exam questions . . . "Ignore friction".

I can't say from driving experience, but from cycling experience I know that riding up a mountain and back down burns off a lot more calories than riding an equivalent distance on flat ground, even when the flat ride is at a much higher average speed.

There aren't many places where you can avoid the brakes while driving in the mountains, and you'd have to maintain a constant speed up the hills rather than accelerating. Hyper milers typically accelerate gently before they come to a hill and allow their speed to drop on the way up. There must be a reason for that.

 

[MikeM.]

I can't say from driving experience, but from cycling experience I know that riding up a mountain and back down burns off a lot more calories than riding an equivalent distance on flat ground, even when the flat ride is at a much higher average speed.

Air resistance increases with the square of the speed. Even if the average speed is higher on the flat ride, the top speeds are higher on a hilly ride. Cars tend to travel at the speed limit regardless of whether going up hill or down.

There aren't many places where you can avoid the brakes while driving in the mountains, and you'd have to maintain a constant speed up the hills rather than accelerating. Hyper milers typically accelerate gently before they come to a hill and allow their speed to drop on the way up. There must be a reason for that.

Hypermiling is a different beast. When the goal is to eek out every last mile from a tank of gas, top speed is limited to somewhere around 40 mph, but this will vary depending upon the vehicle and road. Because it is considered beneficial to stay in a high gear, a little extra speed going into the bottom of the hill can allow them to crest the hill while remaining in high gear.

As far as places where you can avoid using brakes in the mountains, it's called engine braking, when the downgrade is keeping the engine turning, the engine can continue to "run" with no fuel being injected.

 

[Unobtanium]

Air resistance increases with the square of the speed. Even if the average speed is higher on the flat ride, the top speeds are higher on a hilly ride. Cars tend to travel at the speed limit regardless of whether going up hill or down.



Hypermiling is a different beast. When the goal is to eek out every last mile from a tank of gas, top speed is limited to somewhere around 40 mph, but this will vary depending upon the vehicle and road. Because it is considered beneficial to stay in a high gear, a little extra speed going into the bottom of the hill can allow them to crest the hill while remaining in high gear.

As far as places where you can avoid using brakes in the mountains, it's called engine braking, when the downgrade is keeping the engine turning, the engine can continue to "run" with no fuel being injected.

What I find nice is that the CX-5 engine-brakes for you automatically. Kindof cool.

 

[Cis4]

Maybe the 2.5L engine is sensitive to hills because my 2013 CX-5 with AWD get's it's best mileage when I'm driving mountain passes here in the North Cascades. Of course if you need to ride your brakes down the steep grades and/or into the corners, your MPG is going to suffer. But I just let her fly if traffic and road conditions allow. And the balanced handling allows the vehicle to rail the corners on the steeper downgrades without braking although sometimes I put her into 5th gear to check maximum speed..

I live on a hill with a 450 climb over a mile on surface streets. I work below a hill, it's a 600 foot climb over 2 miles on a freeway followed by a 600 ft descent over 2 miles with 1 mile of that on the freeway and the other mile on surface roads. My mileage takes a big hit every time I take a short trip from my home to somewhere because of the hill and speeds between 15-30mph. I drive the 2.5L with AWD and I usually average 24mpg with a few short trips from home and driving to work. If I'm only going to and from work, it's around 25-26mpg. If I do a lot of short trips from home, it's around 23mpg.

I've taken a couple of long trips and have gotten around 27-28mpg, but those have been on highway 1 & 101 in Northern California, which are hilly and twisty in many spots, and on I5, which has a speed limit of 75mph, so I'm usually dirving 75-85mph. I didn't expect to get EPA estimates because of the hills where I live, and because of the way I drive. In general, I think if you live anywhere with lots of hills and traffic, you will definitely not get the EPA estimates.

 

[MikeM.]

In general, I think if you live anywhere with lots of hills and traffic, you will definitely not get the EPA estimates.

Traffic will definitely be a negative influence on MPG. The only exception to this rule I've found is when I'm on a 3-4 lane freeway that's at/near it's carrying capacity and traffic is fairly tightly packed and flowing smoothly about 60-65 mph. I can get really good mileage due to the fact that all the cars are creating the equivalent of a tailwind. Stay in one of the middle lanes for the best effect (and hope there aren't any bad drivers around who aren't paying attention and need to hit their brakes, that will ruin any positive influence of the tailwind).

Hills are a mixed bag. Only in a really flowing hilly situation can they have a positive influence on mpg. I experience this on rolling hills that aren't too steep but naturally cause the driver to unconsciously mimic a hyper-miler's technique called "pulse and glide". This is a gentle acceleration followed by a gradual coast-down. However, on rolling hills you are simply maintaining the same speed but the effect on MPG is the same - beneficial.

On a long climb, followed by a long descent it shouldn't necessarily have a negative mpg impact as long as considerable braking is not needed on the descent and the driver uses the engines sweet spots on the ascent. Gear selection is key, even with an automatic. I can be in the proper gear on the ascent without resorting to manual shift mode just by telling the car which gear I want via accelerator pedal action. When I know I want a gear one lower, I just give the accelerator a sharp motion part way down (generally followed by a slight easing off). Kinda like using your heels to tap the sides of a horse when you want them to step it up a notch. Don't just gradually press the accelerator slowly, the car will likely hold the same gear and use it's better than average torque to pull you out of the "hole" but this is not the most efficient way to accelerate. The time to hold a high gear is when you can do it without requiring all the engine has to give at that rpm. Otherwise, for mpg purposes, you are better off accelerating in a lower at partial throttle.

My ski cabin is about 23 miles from the upper parking lot at the end of the highway at the ski area. There is 3300 feet of elevation gain overall (but considerably more cumulative elevation gain due to a few downgrades along the way). Call it 4000 feet total. Often, I'll be at the cabin in the morning with a nearly full tank of fuel, a nearly freshly reset trip computer showing 32.3 mpg (for example) and a cold engine before I start my morning "commute". Arriving at the ski area my TC might read around 26 mpg. After skiing and doing another cold start I make the return 23 mile trip. Upon arriving at the cabin my TC will often read the exact same 32.3 mpg that it read before I left. This is if the road is bar/wet. In the snow/ice I'm probably going to lose .1-.3 mph on the TC which translates to .2-.6 mpg for the trip (since I had about 50 miles on the tank when I began the day).

This proves to me that hills don't need to be a negative influence on MPG.

 

[Maineiac]

Good review, and I agree with the seats. I will have 30k on the odo this week and added Cover Craft seat covers both for a better feel and to protect the seat covers from abrasion.