Edmunds.com CX-5 Long Term Review

jason330i said:
i'm a little disappointed with their first 1700 mile mpg average, but hopefully it will improve.

:)
Click to expand...

That does seem low... I was wondering what the real "hit" to mileage would be for the 2.5L vs to 2.0L. If that is representative, it's a pretty big hit..
 
I'm averaging over 27 mpg with 50/50 driving. My last tank was just over 25 but it was majority city miles. Also, I have lots of hills where I live.
 
Last edited:
They must be stomping the hell out of the accelerator to generate those numbers. I got 28MPG combined on my first tank - granted I have a FWD. If I were doing a road trip I have no doubt I would hit 32MPG. This current tank is my first one that is mostly city driving, and it is looking like I will hit around 26-27MPG. We'll know better once I re-fill, and I'll post an update.
 
Been getting ~25mpg in sub freezing temps in Chicago.
All local driving.
Some mornings the temps are below 20 deg F.
Not bad considering only 600 miles on the ODO & the cold winter.
 
I find it hard getting an accurate reading on mpg mainly because the avg drops so much when the car sits idle on startup. On the highway I was getting high 20's and sometimes low 30's and low to mid 20's in the city on my awd '14. Right now on half a tank it says 21 which is kind of low on 50/50 city/hwy but I'm pretty sure its suppose to be higher since I let it sit a little in the am.
 
Just hit the 450 mile mark with city driving, one large hill everyday (avg 8mpg going up it and 99mpg going down) and some highway and my android apps says 27 mpg so far for a 2014 GT AWD 2.5L
 
I've been getting 25.1-25.3 MPG with the 2.5L GT FWD. Some commute driving and kid transport to various activities on the weekdays and some highway on the weekends. I guess I need to stop driving 80 mph on the highway.
 
I clear the mpg & average mph when the average goes below 23mpg bc I know it's not accurate.
By calculating miles driven by # of gallons filled up I average around 25 mpg.
 
"I guess I need to stop driving 80 mph on the highway. "


I think the 2mpg loss is well worth the ability to go 80mph :)
 
rcs914 said:
They must be stomping the hell out of the accelerator to generate those numbers.
Click to expand...

I've followed their reviews for quite some time now and they generally get terrible mileage. I think it is a combination of being lead footed and that they are in the LA area and typically spend 40+ minutes going 5 miles for the drive to and from work.

It is the problem when the cars are tested by 'enthusiasts' who are used to also driving Jaguars in their long term fleet. They try to wring every bit of performance out of every car.

The cars tend to get driven like rental cars or the way teenagers drive their parents cars; very little to no regard for the way the car is treated or what it costs to operate. They probably don't have to pay for their own gas either.

It almost always ends up with low mpg on their cars but on newer cars where they really are squeezing out every bit of efficiency they can if you stand on the gas a bit too much it will hit the average hard.

And then you end up with a long list of people posting comments like "My uncle's friend's cousin knew a guy that had a 83 Buick that regularly got 38 mpg with a huge engine in it so it is ridiculous that this thing only got that" or even the "I've got a such and such competitor to that and I get 5 more mpg!" Yeah, like that is a good comparison because you and the testers are driving the same and in the same area...

Trevor
Mazda CX5 Accessories
 
HandA,

Totally agree....I just check their review on the 2012 CRV...

"One way I entertain myself is trying to better the instant average fuel economy. Today I took the 2012 Honda CR-V from 19.5 mpg to 23.5 mpg."
 
It'd be interesting to see what you CX-5 owners think the edmund folks will perceive as Pros and Cons for the '14 CX-5.
 
NinjaNoises said:
32k seems like an awful lot of money for a non-luxury brand CUV.
Click to expand...

It's a bit of the old "do you want fully loaded in this trim level or completely stripped in the next level up?" And there aren't many luxury ones that get good mileage that I know of.
We considered the Buick Verano when we were shopping and a really well equipped one of those with a Turbo goes for the low 30s which seems crazy since the Cady ATS starts in the low 30s. The problem is if you want even a sunroof and backup camera on the ATS it takes you up to the low 40s. Which quickly makes the Verano not seem quite so crazy.
Similar thing here; a BMW X1 starts around 31 (and is smaller) but if you want it with features it will quickly climb another 10 grand.

Just about every non-luxury sedan anymore will go over 30,000 and most non-luxury small cars will do at least 25,000.
The same way the Mazda3 pricing will overlap the Mazda6 pricing depending on features. Mazda, from what I remember, was really the first to offer higher end options on their smaller cars. Now that just about everyone has followed it you end up with the ability to build some pretty expensive smaller vehicles. But it is nice for those that don't want to buy larger to get the features.
 
Last edited:
darekd said:
I'm averaging over 27 mpg with 50/50 driving. My last tank was just over 25 but it was majority city miles. Also, I have lots of hills where I live.
Click to expand...

My wife and I do 50/50 driving too and average between 27.5 and 28 usually with the 2.5 FWD. I've only put 1,000 miles on it so far. First tank of gas was about 26mpg average but 2nd and 3rd tanks did much better as I'm assuming there was a little break in that helped. I'm in central NC with very small hills and my avg. MPH is 30.

I have noticed that MPG drops of really quickly over 65mph. I would have liked to see that steady to 70mph because my average of 70-75mpg gets me only 26mpg or so usually. My wife drives a little more than I do and at closer to 65 and gets much better MPG so we average out to the 28mpg.
 
With TTL, I had to pay $33K out the door for my FWD GT w/tech. It may not be a luxury brand, but many of the features take it into this category for me. I've ridden in a bottom end Caddy SRX and it doesn't even come close to the features that the loaded CX-5 has.

Here's a list of things that are included on a CX-5 GT w/tech that aren't available on the standard model SRX, which starts at $38,225. Actually some of these features aren't even available on the next model up either:

1. Leather seats
2. Sunroof
3. Heated seats
4. Keyless Access
5. Backup Camera
6. Blind spot monitoring
7. Bi-level Xenon headlamps
8. Fog lamps
9. Navigation system
10. Automatic wipers
11. 8-way power driver seat

Granted it is a 6-cyl engine, but to me it is worth far more to have the above features for less money, than to be driving a "luxury" brand.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Edmunds puts a 2018 into their long term test fleet
Replies
3
Views
1K
Xeler8ing
X
G
    • Like
    • Wow
CX-5 Turbo is the best AWD SUV for the money
2 3
Replies
56
Views
7K
jofo67
J
S
2024 Test Drive: CX-5, Outback and Forester
Replies
3
Views
1K
yrwei52
yrwei52

Latest posts

Back