Multiple reviews on various websites do state 2.0 feels under-powered. I, for one do not usually believe such things. So, I took not 1 but 3 test drives in 3 different dealerships. This is because each of them have their own test route. I can confirm it did indeed feel under-powered when I attempted to accelerate quickly. Something I need due to heavy traffic I usually encounter and when closing gaps. Furthermore, in 1 test route had a steep curve and it did feel engine is pulling. So, I went with 2.5 and did not witness any of the above problems.
Slight Concern about MPG
- Thread starter Mr_eyes20
- Start date
- :
- 2015 Mazda CX-5 Touring FWD
I had a 2013 Touring with the 2.0, and now a 2015 Touring with the 2.5. I did not find the 2.0 under powered, though I do find the added power more entertaining. The reason that I did not find the 2.0 under powered is that I have had VW diesels of 52, 68, and 90 hp. My average mpg's with the 2.0 over 34,000 miles was 29.0, with the 2.5 over 22,000 miles it is at 28.4. The 2015 has seen more highway miles though. I really feel that, driven carefully the difference between the two is negligible. Both have been FWD.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
It's very strange that some people are blaming those with low gas mileage on CX-5 only with their bad driving habit, but totally ignoring their ability of getting better than EPA fuel ecenomy estimates on their other vehicles. This proves that it's nothing to do with their driving habit as they drive the same way among all vehicles. In my case, I was even more careful trying to get better gas mileage during our recent trip!
Recent 300-mile trip with four adults from Dallas to Houston and Austin, tire pressure checked at 39 psi and ambient temperature was around 65F, filled up with Shell gas and had fresh Mazda moly oil, drove on the I-45 and I-35 with speed limit at 75 mostly, the average MPG was 26.5 with average speed at 60mph. This is far off the EPA estimated 30 MPG! But like Unobtanium's experience, when we had the same trip with our older vehicles with all the same criteria, we could always beat EPA highway estimates easily!
When we drove our 1998 Honda CR-V AWD with (adjusted) EPA 19/23/20 city/highway/combined MPG, we could easily get 25+ MPG!
When we drove our 2000 BMW 528i with (adjusted) EPA 16/24/19 city/highway/combined MPG, we could easily get 28+ MPG!
So don't tell us that the EPA fuel economy highway estimate is for lower speed and don't expect to get the same gas mileage at 75 mph! From Unobtanium and my experience, our older and less-efficient vehicles constantly beat EPA highway estimates, only CX-5 failed to do so, and way off too!
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
I've said: "when we had the same trip with our older vehicles with all the same criteria, we could always beat EPA highway estimates easily". Its our routine family trip in the same time of the year to the same place. I don't compare apples to oranges.
As the matter of fact, like Unobtanium and other friends of mine, our experiences have always been beating the EPA highway estimates in old days is the norm, although the speed limit was lower. But I did the same trip with our other vehicles on higher speed limit and the results were the same - still beating the EPA highway estimates with ease.
I can't stand when people mention about their 15-20 year old vehicle getting close to modern day vehicles mpg, and how they always exceeded their original mpg estimates. Do you guys not realize how much more technology and safety features are employed into vehicles now a days? Cars are more heavier now, with more complex drivetrains, more complex awd systems, and offer more power. Like there is going to be a limitation at some point with adding these safety and complex features. Yet they still are pretty damn efficient.
And I tried a quick search but came up empty, but does anyone know at what speed the EPA does hwy tests at? I know it's probably not 75mpg though. So if you think you should be achieving epa mpg at those speeds, you're crazy.
And I tried a quick search but came up empty, but does anyone know at what speed the EPA does hwy tests at? I know it's probably not 75mpg though. So if you think you should be achieving epa mpg at those speeds, you're crazy.
I did read that part. But I wasnt sure to what extent "same criteria” involved. I would have guessed the "same criteria" meant all where “AWD” category only and not the same exact weight added, roads/conditions driven, same head/tail or side winds etc...
I have to ask this, but you are running 87 octane correct? I’m not saying other octanes will improve/reduce MPG’s but I’m curious to know.
Maybe it is the car? Have you checked your spark plug gap to ensure they are gapped correctly from factory? Not all motors are broken in the same from factory, maybe yours is one of the ones that makes slightly less power / cylinder compression?
On a 50/50 highway/city I’ve driven a couple times, I got 27 MPG’s (warmer climate). That is the most highway I’ve done so far. I only have 2,080 miles on my car as of today. But I do have factory 17” wheels and I’m assuming you have the 19”s ? I dont know the weight difference between them, but I would assume the smaller 17’s would weight less. And the less rotational mass there is, the less energy needed to accelerate them. Less unsprung weight (I got it right this time Mike M). Maybe the EPA tests were done on the 17’s and that result is used for all the rest of the packages ?
Also, those that are getting super well MPG’s above the EPA, are you all running the factory rims or are your high MPG’s achieved with lighter aftermarket rims?
Last edited:
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
I do agree with this from another similar thread:
So we shouldn't expect to meet or exceed EPA highway estimates like we used to be. And my conclusions are your (gas) mileage may vary a lot on SkyActiv-G engines, and the CX-5 AWD system is not as fuel efficient as others.
Some people said they could get 31+ MPG from their 2.5L AWD CX-5 on the highway, but I had hard time to keep up at 30 MPG based on instant MPG readout even driving at constant 55 mph! I can only say my particular 2.5L SA-G engine is not well made (proven by burning ⅓ quarts of oil at first 5K miles for oil change) and hence not as efficient as others as I fully understand each engine is different even though they all come out from the same assembly line.
CX-5 AWD system is not as fuel efficient as others which can be shown simply by EPA estimates. CX-5 AWD lost 2~3 MPG from FWD while other competitors has only 1 MPG penalty. Mazda knows it and claimed they did some "enhancements" on AWD system for 2016 CX-5 to improve the real-world fuel efficiency.
I don't use that instant readout as I think it just messes with you driving habits, and at least for me, has me eyeballing it way too much. What comes out on your average mpg under the applications section? At 55mpg, I think at least 30mpg is easily achievable. Now, it is more difficulty in colder weather but I've been doing it. Also, what is the temperature where you are? I think that has a huge affect. I drove 40 miles the other day and got 27mpg in 29 degree weather. On the way back, same trip, no traffic again, I got 32mpg in 46 degree weather. Both doing between 65-70mph each way.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml describes all of the tests. The highway test averages 48.3 mph because its a mix of rural and city freeway style driving in traffic. These results are then modified with the other tests like the high speed test. The high speed cycle gets up to 80 mph, but it mostly tests fast acceleration from a stop several times which isn't anything like driving for hours at 80mph.
Also if you're comparing an older car's stated EPA figures to a current car's, keep in mind that starting in 2008 the tests were modified to enhance accuracy.
Weather makes a tremendous difference. In the winter we routinely have 10-20 mph winds and depending on the day, they're coming from either the north or south. If you're going into a headwind on an extended trip it will lower mpg considerably. Well, I guess if you consider 2-3 mpg considerable.
mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
Do not forget air density at colder temps also...
The air density at 32 degrees F is nearly 10% higher than at 77 degrees F.
CX-5 AWD: After extensive almost 95% highway driving I avg 28.5 mpg, which is at least 1.5 mpg less than EPA estimates Mazda publishes for this car. My driving habits are good with no hard braking or acceleration. Furthermore I maintain the speed for 60 mph in 55, 70 in 65 mph zones with exhaustive use of Radar Cruise Control.
In comparison:
2014 Honda CR-V which I drove last week (and it was equally cold) with the same COSTCO gas beat the published EPA by 1 mpg. Furthermore, Honda when in AVG display mode was usually hitting the EPA 80% of the time when driving. CX-5: Not once.
2015 Toyota Rav4 which went with me in this trip ALSO BEAT the EPA estimates by 1 mpg.
EPA calculations done by manufacturers are same, ie. the methodology. However, Mazda's EPA sticker values I did NOT see ever being met whereas for Toyota and Honda it was met and exceeded EASILY.
One of the MAIN reasons why I selected CX-5 was its supposedly stellar fuel economy. After clocking 3000 miles in this car I fear it's NOT stellar.
In comparison:
2014 Honda CR-V which I drove last week (and it was equally cold) with the same COSTCO gas beat the published EPA by 1 mpg. Furthermore, Honda when in AVG display mode was usually hitting the EPA 80% of the time when driving. CX-5: Not once.
2015 Toyota Rav4 which went with me in this trip ALSO BEAT the EPA estimates by 1 mpg.
EPA calculations done by manufacturers are same, ie. the methodology. However, Mazda's EPA sticker values I did NOT see ever being met whereas for Toyota and Honda it was met and exceeded EASILY.
One of the MAIN reasons why I selected CX-5 was its supposedly stellar fuel economy. After clocking 3000 miles in this car I fear it's NOT stellar.
Maybe there is something we can do to improve fuel efficiency at speeds?
The front bottom of the cx-5 has engine splash shield and also there is underbody cover in the mid sides which helps the aero dynamics. The exhaust pipe/driveshaft section and rear pumper area is exposed. The rear section from just eye balling the area and the bumper, it seems that at speeds it could act as a parachute effect.
-How about making a splash shield/flat underbody cover for the rear bumper to direct the flow air out the rear, instead of what looks to now just go up to behind the bumper?
-Also, cover the middle section as well where the exhaust is. But maybe leave a couple holes or slits to allow exhaust piping heat to escape/cool?
Out of the two above, I would say the rear section is “more important” but if you can do both even better! This will not only potentially improve MPG’s at highway speeds, but may also improve handling slightly as well at those speeds.
Yes I know, you shouldnt have to do this as your car should be meeting the EPA. But since its not, so why not try to improve what you already have?
The front bottom of the cx-5 has engine splash shield and also there is underbody cover in the mid sides which helps the aero dynamics. The exhaust pipe/driveshaft section and rear pumper area is exposed. The rear section from just eye balling the area and the bumper, it seems that at speeds it could act as a parachute effect.
-How about making a splash shield/flat underbody cover for the rear bumper to direct the flow air out the rear, instead of what looks to now just go up to behind the bumper?
-Also, cover the middle section as well where the exhaust is. But maybe leave a couple holes or slits to allow exhaust piping heat to escape/cool?
Out of the two above, I would say the rear section is “more important” but if you can do both even better! This will not only potentially improve MPG’s at highway speeds, but may also improve handling slightly as well at those speeds.
Yes I know, you shouldnt have to do this as your car should be meeting the EPA. But since its not, so why not try to improve what you already have?
mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
I would love to see a picture comparing the underside of the AWD vs the FWD.
All of those complaining about lower than EPA rated, or expected MPG seem to fall into the 2.5L AWD category. With a bias towards the GT AWD models (higher weight and 19" wheels).
All of those complaining about lower than EPA rated, or expected MPG seem to fall into the 2.5L AWD category. With a bias towards the GT AWD models (higher weight and 19" wheels).
With gas at 1.60 per gallon who cares about a mile or two per gallon. I'm driving exclusively in Sport Mode now and it feels good.
That is a very good point.
The 2.0L engine (even in AWD trim) frequently beats EPA estimates (and the 2.0L estimates are higher to begin with). Why people would care that it takes slightly longer to reach 60 mph is a mystery to me. It's not like you're going to be bragging to your friends and co-workers about the 0-60 times of either model variation.
True, with gasoline so incredibly cheap right now, the difference is almost nothing. Gas is so cheap right now, nobody cares. However, never under-estimate the ability for things to change suddenly. Complacency leads to unhappy endings and I don't expect cheap gas to last for long. All it takes is one major Middle East war (which is likely if the conservatives sweep the House and Senate) or one major U.S. refinery to be destructed by an earthquake and you could be staring at $6/gal or even higher. I live within 30 miles of 4 major West Coast refineries, all of them are ancient and all of them are subject to cataclysmic earthquakes exceeding 9.0. Nothing survives such a quake. When the big one hits, all 4 of these refineries will be off-line for YEARS! They will not all be rebuilt and the era of cheap gas will be over for good. An earthquake may be the least likely cause of the end of cheap gas in America but it would certainly be the most sudden and most dramatic. War is more likely and Americans have a nasty habit of electing politicians who represent the interests of the oil/gas industry. But the oil/gas industry doesn't want plentiful oil/gas because their profits are higher when they control a resource that is scarce. The oil/gas industry LOVES war. Warplanes burn TREMENDOUS amounts of petroleum products and instability in the Middle East makes the resource more scarce which increases profits.
I lived through the gas rationing of the 1970's, it wasn't pretty. When gas prices spike, fuel efficient vehicles APPRECIATE in value and the value of gas guzzlers plummet.
Don't let years of gradually declining fuel prices make you complacent. It won't last.
Newsflash -- Conservatives already own the house and senate. No war. Didn't realize they had 4 major refineries in Northwest Washington. I would of thought CA, TX and LA as well as DE.
Good point, but I didn't intend to start a political discussion, I was merely pointing out that political events can drastically alter the price of gasoline. To clarify my comment, it is the Commander in Chief who requests approval for declaration of war. Implicit in my statement was that there was a strong majority in Congress AND a President in favor of war. Currently, we have a lot of conservatives in Congress in favor of war but not a majority. And the POTUS has not asked for a declaration of war and would veto any attempted by Republican leadership. Currently war is a non-starter unless there is a major attack on us. An election can alter that dynamic very quickly.
Yes, two at Cherry Point (BP and Phillips) and two at March's Point (Shell and Tesoro). All major refineries. When the big one hits it will be a massive environmental disaster. With four major refineries completely out of production for years into the future, it doesn't take a Nobel Prize in Economics to figure out how much people will be willing to pay for every gallon of gasoline they can get their hands on. And the shortage will be continent wide. Yes, gasoline will be shipped in from other regions but the price shock will be much greater than that imposed by additional transportation/storage costs.
