2012 Mazda CX-5 | MPG Numbers are in | $20,695 US

  • Thread starter CodeRedR51
  • 139 comments
  • 16,554 views
It's not a Corolla bro. It's a bigass crossover - the highway gearing is designed for highway mileage, straight up. The second you pull off and into the parking lot across the street it goes down because you can only ask so much from a 4000 pound truck. You have to take these claims with a grain of salt - the manufacturer did that partly for marketing purposes.

What averages were you getting?
 
Thx, bro. 180hp for a 3700lb trucks was a joke and I knew the rating was ludicrous, but because we could have the thing for 30 days, I wanted them to prove me wrong. Unfortunately for me, taking numbers with a grain of salt isn't an option as my cars do ~30k miles a year and that money adds up quick.
I was able to average 25.x mpg in a brick with wheels they called the Element(4wd) on the same route.
So why could the cars I've had from honda, toyota, subaru, mazda, ford, nissan exceed their epa numbers while the hyundais and chevy's couldn't get close on identical cycles?
If I stayed under 55mph it was almost spot on, but as soon as I went higher, the numbers plummeted. I'm almost certain the cars were geared solely for the purpose of "acing" epa highway tests.
The equinox averaged 24.2 over ~1800 miles.
 
Any time you average over 65, you're not going to hit EPA. EPA numbers (if I recall right) are taken at 50-60 mph. Not only are modern cars geared accordingly, but modern engine electronics run the car much leaner in cruise at the typical rpms the car is doing at those speeds. If the car is short-geared (if I recall right, again, the Tucson six-speeder has a very short sixth), then at 65 and over, you're out of open-loop tuning and up in the powerband, where the car runs richer for overtaking power.

Older engines, such as the K-series in the Element, don't resort to such drastic measures, and give similar economy up and down the powerband. And if it shares the same five speed as the CR-V we've got, it does lower rpms in 5th than the Hyundai does in 6th.

I've gotten decent numbers out of Hyundais that I've test driven, but I generally drive at a "price-of-gas-conscious" 50-60 mph.

Can't wait to test-drive the new CX5. If it drives anywhere near as good as other new Mazdas, it might be our next car.
 
At 70, the tucson was at 2600rpm, the equinox was at something like ~2000, the element was at ~2200, and the fit is at ~2400. The 2001 santa fe 4wd auto that is still in my family, has always averaged ~16mpg mixed and sometimes hit 20mpg during trips to michigan or wisconsin.
From what I remember, the average speed during the epa highway cycle is 47 or 48mph. Something along those lines.
 
niky
Any time you average over 65, you're not going to hit EPA. EPA numbers (if I recall right) are taken at 50-60 mph. Not only are modern cars geared accordingly, but modern engine electronics run the car much leaner in cruise at the typical rpms the car is doing at those speeds.
Click to expand...

We got a solid 25 mpg out of many rural highway miles of our quite-loaded '12 Mazda 5 (speeds between 65-75mph; lower on the 2-lanes), with 28 highway-mpg promised on the sticker. But even when unladen with just the kids at city driving, we get about 22, which is actually better than the 21 promised by the EPA.

So we better the city driving in real-life (oddly, it was a lousy 17-18mpg for the for first 4000 miles or so). Then again, we've gotten roughly the same highway figures without an extra 300 pounds of travel junk, albeit over a shorter distance. So I think it will likely never hit it's promised highway figures of 29 mpg, except under ideal conditions that aren't ideal for people who load the vehicle up like a minivan was intended (passengers and cargo), nor at real-life traffic speeds.

I'm kind of skeptical on the CX-5 getting 35mpg, though. You'd probably have to drive entirely on rural highways at 55 mph with no A/C nor lowered windows to get that, since it's still going to be a 3000-pound car with so-so aerodynamics.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to show you all one of the most annoying and frustrating videos I've watched lately.

 
:lol: I don't get it...are they trying to intentionally get it stuck? Anyone speak Russian? I like the CX-5, and I'm going to test-drive one as soon as they are available...if it is as fun to drive as Mazda claims, it might be my next grocery-getter. I want AWD though, and you can't have a MTX with that :(
 
Saw one driving around a few minutes ago. It is a nice looking car, looks pretty manly/bulky, as far as small CUV things go. The front is rather flat so I'm still a bit hesitant to believe the EPA numbers. I'll be test driving one this week, saturday at the latest and if anyone cares, I'll post my thoughts on it.

Kylehnat
:lol: I don't get it...are they trying to intentionally get it stuck? Anyone speak Russian? I like the CX-5, and I'm going to test-drive one as soon as they are available...if it is as fun to drive as Mazda claims, it might be my next grocery-getter. I want AWD though, and you can't have a MTX with that :(
Click to expand...

Title of the vid is "parking in the snow". I'm seriously lost as to what they are trying to do or why he hits the brakes every 2 feet.
 
I was about to scream halfway through the video when I realized it was nothing more than him stopping and going. I didn't even watch til the end - did anything interesting happen?
 
I guess so.

Never mind that, at least according to the EPA, it chugs less fuel than any midsize sedan that isn't a hybrid.
 
Compared to cars that weigh about the same, it's not really any better. Camry, accord, sonata, malibu are in the same ballpark. Only comparable sedan it's really better than is the mazda6.
 
eSZee
Compared to cars that weigh about the same, it's not really any better. Camry, accord, sonata, malibu are in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...
Cool, it gets better gas mileage than all these cars that aren't AWD and also have better aerodyamics.
 
Keef
Cool, it gets better gas mileage than all these cars that aren't AWD and also have better aerodyamics.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the FWD, manual version of the CX5. The AWD model isn't as good as those cars.
The EPA numbers on the cx5 are great, I'm not playing that down, though I'm skeptical, I was just refuting what rotary said.

edit:

The CX-5 also has a drag coefficient of .33 which I'm guessing is better or on par with the sedans.
 
Last edited:
Drag coefficients don't take size into account. The CX-5 probably has more frontal area than nearly every sedan, that with the fact that it's forced to have a less aerodynamic shape to fit cargo and such makes it all the more impressive.

The point is that if you're a normal person in the market for a car like the CX-5, the ad is meant to show that it's the most "eco friendly" of the choices.
 
The frontal area is definitely larger, yes.
As for cargo, doubt it has more room than a small hatchback.
 
Took a testdrive in the 2.0L gasoline today (the Mrs. is looking to trade in the Mugen CR-V). They're available since a week or two over here. Base model costs 26k euro over here, the one we drove was the FWD TS+ model and costs nearly 30k euro. Sounds like a lot of cash, but with the insane car prices over here it's actually great value for money. :)

Only drove it for half an hour or so, but I was really impressed with its handling. I had my doubts about the atmospheric 2.0, but it's quite sufficient for the car (much more so than the 2.0 in the CR-V). Furthermore it has about all the options one could wish, and it's not even the top model either. Very impressed so far. 👍 Of course, the Mrs. has to drive in it, so she has the final vote on it. ;) We also checked out the new Mercedes-Benz B-class, but the Mrs. wants a car with high entrance.

As for cargo space: it definitely has way more (effective) room than a small hatchback.

On another note: I also sat in the latest model MX-5, looks like a very nice car too...
 
eSZee
As for cargo, doubt it has more room than a small hatchback.
Click to expand...
It has tons of space in the boot, even with the rear seats upright. I loved how much space the Mazda3 hatch had, and the CX-5 is even better. With the seats down, you could probably fit a small house in there. Dimensionally, the CX-5 is only a couple hairs smaller than a CX-7.
NLxAROSA
The Mrs. just ordered one. Expected date of delivery: early July.
Click to expand...
Cool! Sucks that you have to wait so long though :).
 
Come on... that one's so... 2011.

Interesting. Jack Baruth on TTAC and LeftLane just drove one... this is a guy who owns a few Porsches and once owned a neon green S4... and who's driven the Switzer P1000 GT-R... and he... loved it.

At a press day at Laguna SECA, he did sixty laps in the little thing. I'm not surprised... it's a Mazda. :lol:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...ich-our-author-falls-in-love-with-a-cute-ute/

http://www.leftlanenews.com/mazda-cx-5-first-drive-review.html

Although no CR-V or RAV4 was available for comparison around the famous central California course, it wasn’t really necessary to drive the competition to understand just how much more dynamic, and enjoyable, the CX-5 is to drive. Handling is neutral through the famously difficult Turn Nine. It’s possible to adjust the little trucklet’s attitude with the throttle alone, just like it is in a sports car. Virtually all of the hype seems justified in the cold light of an open trackday. If you want the most driver-focused CUV out there, this is it.
Click to expand...

Might be a good alternative to the toy, actually, when it's in the shop. :D
 
niky
Might be a good alternative to the toy, actually, when it's in the shop. :D
Click to expand...
Despite being French, it's not in the shop that often. :lol: Still looking forward to when the CX-5 is finally here though. I was really surprised by how tight and stiff it felt compared to the CR-V, which is not floaty at all either.

Hmmmz, I just looked at the weight numbers and the CX-5 weighs approximately 200 kilograms less than the CR-V. As a matter of fact, the CX-5 weighs less than my hot-hatch! :crazy:
 
niky
Interesting. Jack Baruth on TTAC and LeftLane just drove one... this is a guy who owns a few Porsches and once owned a neon green S4... and who's driven the Switzer P1000 GT-R... and he... loved it.
Click to expand...
Like I said in my purchase thread, the CX-5 is more nimble and more fun to drive than most "regular" cars currently on the market. Today I raced a traffic-light at the end of a freeway off-ramp. Trail-braking into the turn at about 35-mph, it didn't even flinch. On the few twisty roads I've tried so far, it really feels inch-perfect through the bends...very easy to place where you want it.
 
Interesting.

I'm not sure what has SkyActiv anymore, but a SkyActiv V6 would make this thing about as perfect as a useless-off-road SUV can be. If not here, then surely in the larger models.
 

Similar threads

Famine
GTPlanet First Drives: Mazda CX-60 eSkyActiv-D
Replies
0
Views
4K
Famine
Famine
Famine
Famine's Fleet: Mazda CX-7 2.3
Replies
12
Views
4K
XJ40
XJ40
GranTurismo916
  • Poll
GTP Cool Wall: 2012+ Mazda Mazda6
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
Conza
Conza
BJahalt88
Mazda MX-5 (NC) Jota Sport GT4 2012
Replies
3
Views
2K
karelpipa
karelpipa
YSSMAN
Cheap Cars Rule: 2012 Accent, Rio, Versa, 3 SkyActiv
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
43K
niky
niky

Latest Posts

Back