Mazda CX-5 Forums
General Category => CX-5 => Topic started by: BigAl on February 25, 2014, 01:12:42 pm
-
I love almost everything about my CX5. The only thing I don't is the fuel consumption. I've had a bit of an ongoing battle with Mazda about this since I took delivery on 1st August 2012. Initial concerns about this were brushed aside on the basis that it was still being run-in. So, after about 6k miles, I started keeping detailed records. I've now done 32k miles and the average consumption over that period is just under 41MPG. Pretty poor for a vehicle that claims 54MPG. I know the official figures are not real-world and should only be used as a benchmark, but the CX5 (and the Mazda 6), both seem to be a long way out from actual figures according to Honest John's data - far more so that other manufacturers. They have tried to blame it on my driving style, which is complete nonsense (IMHO) as I've been able to match or exceed the official figures of all the cars I've had over the last 15 years. My last car was a Subaru Forester 2.0D, which did 45mpg and went back to the lease company with 76k miles on it - and was still on the original tyres.
Mazda UK told me that, if I were still having problems at the first service (they said that was when they considered it to be run-in), they would inspect the vehicle themselves. They promptly reneged on that when the time came. Also, they have told me that the published MPG/CO2 figures are for the 2.2D 150, but they use the same figures for the 2.2D 175! The regulations apparently only require one variant to be tested, which I find hard to believe.
What sort of consumption do others achieve?
Alan
-
I feel for you I recently had a mazda 6 2.0 ltr diesel 08 plate, and was only getting 44mpg, don't like the dpf risk and knew that I wasn't going to do a lot of miles so went for petrol we have done 10.5k now and computer avg is 34. That's 85% urban driving but we always use 6th gear when cruising.
I know that the figures they put out are done is a sort of lab.
wow 75 k on original tyres that's fantastic I once managed 50 k on Michelin mxv, also managed 28k on mazda 3 toyos and would have hit 30 if not for winter.
As for cx5 I will be surprised if we get 20k.
-
Hi BigAl. 2 good topics Tyre Life and Fuel Consumption. My previous car was a Nissan Xtrail TD Sport 2003, I drove it for 99,500 miles over many road conditions but mostly Motorway/ A Roads. Overall Fuel consumption was 35 mpg, not bad for older diesel technology and not the best aero dynamics! Original 4 Dunlop Grantrek tyres achieved 60,000 miles with 2 changes front to rear. It also had a full size spare. It is no longer possible to move tyres front to back say every 20,000 miles now because of tyre pressure monitoring systems.
My CX-5 2.2 SE-l AWD is at 38 mpg after 4,600 miles. Not what I had hoped for with all the 'trick' technology. However, I am satisfied overall with the car, and think that it is good value for money compared to the competition. The nearest competition is the Honda CRV which is more expensive like for like and can only improve on the the CX-5 consumption in 1.6L Diesel 2WD form.
-
Interesting. I also had an X-Trail from 2003-6 - the earliest variant with the Renault diesel engine. I was averaging 41-2 MPG and the front tyres did 45000 before being changed. Never did change the rears - it went back to the lease company at 80000. At 32000 on the CX5, the N/S/F is approaching the wear indicator, but the others aren't too bad.
Not happy with the fuel consumption of the CX5, though. Their real world figures have a much larger variation to the official ones than most other marques. And I still find it hard to believe that they are allowed to test the 150HP version and publish those figures for the 175HP as well...
Alan
-
An odd one. Did a 360 mile round trip to Kent on Tuesday. Managed an indicated 51.8 mpg for the trip (had filled up and reset average MPG before setting out). Probably thanks to variable speed limits on M1 being set at 60 MPH from MK to the M25, then 50 MPH average speed cameras to the M11... It's now dropped 48, so will be interesting to see what it calculates at when refilled.
Alan
Update - on refilling, the trip computer was still indicating 48MPG. The calculated figure (more accurate) was 45.4.
-
Hows this 47.4 mpg for a 380 mile drive in a 1.6 petrol, speed all the way between 50 and 60, well impressed but took 8 hours.
I reset computer before hand, reason?
mazda 3 in for new tyre and alloy wheel, I normally get between 31 and 33.
next time I do I 100mile+ journey will do the same in the cx-5 and see if it has improved over previous Edinburgh run.
-
straight out of the mazda website.
6. Why does my fuel consumption vary from the figures published by Mazda?
The current mpg tests are designed to provide you with a simple way of comparing the performance between new models. In order to do this accurately, the tests have to be carried out in exactly the same way, regardless of manufacturer, model or even the country in which the test was conducted. The only way the European Commission can ensure that manufacturers are all testing in the same way, is to stipulate the use of a rolling road test carried out in laboratory conditions. This keeps everything constant; ambient temperature, driving style and vehicle loading conditions to name a few.
With the tests conducted in this way, you will see some differences between the laboratory test and the real world performance of your vehicle. These differences could be better or worse than the published laboratory results depending on a number of factors. For more information on how the standard fuel consumption test is calculated, visit Fuel testing scheme.
If you feel that your Mazda is not performing as it should and that there could be a technical issue which is affecting fuel economy, please contact your Mazda dealer; or for advice on how to make improvements to your fuel economy, please visit Green driving tips.
-
Things I have found so far.
1) Don't trust the trip computer as more than a rough guide. I zero the average MPG every time I fill up and record it at next fill. I also record the actual mileage on the fuel receipt, and calculate the true MPG figure. generally, the true figure is generally about 3-5 MPG lower than the trip computer. I've been doing this for the last 27K miles, true measured average now stands at 40.9MPG
2) Don't trust the handbook. The guff about testing is just a get-out clause. If it were true, then you would expect all cars to be out from the official figures by similar amounts. They aren't - look at Honest John's real MPG results. Average across all marques is 86% Average across all Mazda's is 87%. The Mazda CX5 at 77% is only exceeded in the range by the Mazda 6 at 74%. But the MX5 achieves 95%. Generally, the older the model, the nearer the official and real world figures are, which suggests to me that newer results are being forced and exaggerated.
3) Have a read of the bad press that the manufacturers get regarding the tricks they use for the tests. Taping over body panel gaps. Removing anything not bolted down. Pressing in the brake cylinders to reduce pad drag. Over-inflating tyres. they all do it.
4) Manufacturers are allowed - apparently - to test one engine variant and publish those results for all the engines, even if the power output is different and affects the MPG.
Unfortunately, I bought mine in August 2012 (having ordered it in the March), before any real world figures were available. I let myself be seduced by the marketing which has all turned out to be false, as far as the fuel consumption his concerned. That won't happen again.
-
totally agree with your points, what ive done a couple of times prior to a very long run is filled the tank to brim then refilled after. Bit of a pain as tank designed to cut off @ 95%.
putting aside still happy with going with petrol to get over 30mpg in a 2.0ltr on a vehicle that size.
-
Like you I always fill to full and record the mileage.
Just completed 700 mile round trip from West Midlands to Devon/Cornwall. Trip Computer recorded 39.8mpg overall. 3 fuel top-up calculations varied from 36.7 to 41.2.
Certainly long stretches of 50 mph road works section on the M5 improve the mpg as you would expect.
Things I have found so far.
1) Don't trust the trip computer as more than a rough guide. I zero the average MPG every time I fill up and record it at next fill. I also record the actual mileage on the fuel receipt, and calculate the true MPG figure. generally, the true figure is generally about 3-5 MPG lower than the trip computer. I've been doing this for the last 27K miles, true measured average now stands at 40.9MPG
2) Don't trust the handbook. The guff about testing is just a get-out clause. If it were true, then you would expect all cars to be out from the official figures by similar amounts. They aren't - look at Honest John's real MPG results. Average across all marques is 86% Average across all Mazda's is 87%. The Mazda CX5 at 77% is only exceeded in the range by the Mazda 6 at 74%. But the MX5 achieves 95%. Generally, the older the model, the nearer the official and real world figures are, which suggests to me that newer results are being forced and exaggerated.
3) Have a read of the bad press that the manufacturers get regarding the tricks they use for the tests. Taping over body panel gaps. Removing anything not bolted down. Pressing in the brake cylinders to reduce pad drag. Over-inflating tyres. they all do it.
4) Manufacturers are allowed - apparently - to test one engine variant and publish those results for all the engines, even if the power output is different and affects the MPG.
Unfortunately, I bought mine in August 2012 (having ordered it in the March), before any real world figures were available. I let myself be seduced by the marketing which has all turned out to be false, as far as the fuel consumption his concerned. That won't happen again.
Things I have found so far.
1) Don't trust the trip computer as more than a rough guide. I zero the average MPG every time I fill up and record it at next fill. I also record the actual mileage on the fuel receipt, and calculate the true MPG figure. generally, the true figure is generally about 3-5 MPG lower than the trip computer. I've been doing this for the last 27K miles, true measured average now stands at 40.9MPG
2) Don't trust the handbook. The guff about testing is just a get-out clause. If it were true, then you would expect all cars to be out from the official figures by similar amounts. They aren't - look at Honest John's real MPG results. Average across all marques is 86% Average across all Mazda's is 87%. The Mazda CX5 at 77% is only exceeded in the range by the Mazda 6 at 74%. But the MX5 achieves 95%. Generally, the older the model, the nearer the official and real world figures are, which suggests to me that newer results are being forced and exaggerated.
3) Have a read of the bad press that the manufacturers get regarding the tricks they use for the tests. Taping over body panel gaps. Removing anything not bolted down. Pressing in the brake cylinders to reduce pad drag. Over-inflating tyres. they all do it.
4) Manufacturers are allowed - apparently - to test one engine variant and publish those results for all the engines, even if the power output is different and affects the MPG.
Unfortunately, I bought mine in August 2012 (having ordered it in the March), before any real world figures were available. I let myself be seduced by the marketing which has all turned out to be false, as far as the fuel consumption his concerned. That won't happen again.
Things I have found so far.
1) Don't trust the trip computer as more than a rough guide. I zero the average MPG every time I fill up and record it at next fill. I also record the actual mileage on the fuel receipt, and calculate the true MPG figure. generally, the true figure is generally about 3-5 MPG lower than the trip computer. I've been doing this for the last 27K miles, true measured average now stands at 40.9MPG
2) Don't trust the handbook. The guff about testing is just a get-out clause. If it were true, then you would expect all cars to be out from the official figures by similar amounts. They aren't - look at Honest John's real MPG results. Average across all marques is 86% Average across all Mazda's is 87%. The Mazda CX5 at 77% is only exceeded in the range by the Mazda 6 at 74%. But the MX5 achieves 95%. Generally, the older the model, the nearer the official and real world figures are, which suggests to me that newer results are being forced and exaggerated.
3) Have a read of the bad press that the manufacturers get regarding the tricks they use for the tests. Taping over body panel gaps. Removing anything not bolted down. Pressing in the brake cylinders to reduce pad drag. Over-inflating tyres. they all do it.
4) Manufacturers are allowed - apparently - to test one engine variant and publish those results for all the engines, even if the power output is different and affects the MPG.
Unfortunately, I bought mine in August 2012 (having ordered it in the March), before any real world figures were available. I let myself be seduced by the marketing which has all turned out to be false, as far as the fuel consumption his concerned. That won't happen again.
-
Howard,
It appears you are getting less than me, so I guess you aren't yet fully run in (Mazda seem to define this as first service or 12.5k miles). At 33k miles it would like to thing I'm fully run-in and, to be fair, it has gradually improved. In similar circumstances as previously mentioned, on that trip the true figure was 45.5MPG.
Perhaps worth me explaining why I'm so focussed on this issue. Mine is a company car. Normally, we wouldn't go above 2 litre for a diesel, but I do have pretty much a free choice what I drive. The company pays the fuel so I repay private mileage at an "approved" rate/mile. That rate, set by HMRC is determined by engine size, not MPG. So on anything above 2 litres the personal payback is more per mile - you could pay the same for a CX5 diesel as you would for a VW Touareg V10 diesel or a V8 Q7, which is crazy. However, as the approved rates are recommendations, you can pay the lower rate if the vehicle is more efficient - I used this to justify the choice, especially with both the 150 and 175 BHP versions having the same figures. Keeping the detailed records proves it in case the taxman does an audit.
My real issue is not what it does - frankly, 41MPG overall average for a 2.2L, 175BHP 4WD (sorry AWD, Mazda don't class this as a 4WD...) is quite good. My issue is that Mazda make such outlandish claims in the first place. The problem is that the universal testing system for official MPG/CO2 figures is set up in such a way as to encourage the manufacturers to make these claims without any possibility of comeback from the buyers.
Still considering buying a plug-in chipset, though...
-
Yet again you have hit the nail on the head. As an ex Company Car Driver I can appreciate the Benefit in Kind implications, so you are right to work the system if you can. Also having driven diesel Company Cars of older generations for 20 years the mpg did improve after 10,000 miles.
Not sure about a chip set though. A close friend is an experienced motor vehicle engineer and I remember his Sierra Cosworth which was chipped to the max. However, even he had to defer to a specialist 50 miles away to get it right and make regular trips to him to keep it 'on song'. I think that the electronics of that era were more forgiving than they are today and Mazda UK would give little sympathy to any hick-ups. Does anyone else think that 'Sky Active' technology is a silly name? Reminds me of Saabs and aero technology. Did like the Mazda UK answer to the question about the water wading depth question. They are not the Mazda Technical Service Team that I worked with in the 1990's based in Tonbridge Wells.
-
Does anyone else think that 'Sky Active' technology is a silly name?
Yes, along with "Zoom-zoom" and "Kodo"... Beginning to think their marketing department are working off a strategy inspired by the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, or possibly that they have access to some seriously good weed...
-
Yet again you have hit the nail on the head. As an ex Company Car Driver I can appreciate the Benefit in Kind implications, so you are right to work the system if you can. Also having driven diesel Company Cars of older generations for 20 years the mpg did improve after 10,000 miles.
Not sure about a chip set though. A close friend is an experienced motor vehicle engineer and I remember his Sierra Cosworth which was chipped to the max. However, even he had to defer to a specialist 50 miles away to get it right and make regular trips to him to keep it 'on song'. I think that the electronics of that era were more forgiving than they are today and Mazda UK would give little sympathy to any hick-ups. Does anyone else think that 'Sky Active' technology is a silly name? Reminds me of Saabs and aero technology. Did like the Mazda UK answer to the question about the water wading depth question. They are not the Mazda Technical Service Team that I worked with in the 1990's based in Tonbridge Wells.
Has anybody tried one of these chip sets. I found at least two available, which quote amazing increases in power, which probably means better fuel consumption if you don't use all the extra power.
Can anybody tell me how many miles they have done to get 41 mpg from a 2.2 L AWD? My use of the car is low so is probably well under 10,000 a year. so far my computer has made almost 38 mpg, but my calculated figure is more like 35 mpg.
-
Since I realised that the fuel consumption wasn't going to match the official figures (and Mazda stuck two fingers up at the problem) I've been keeping full details of fuel in vs miles covered. That's 31,749 miles of records so far. Average for all of that is currently 40.95MPG. The most I've ever managed on a long journey is 48 on the trip computer, 45 actual. The trip computer is consistently 3-4 MPG above the real figure.
I'm still considering a plug in box, but it's a company car, which makes things difficult. There's another post on the forum from someone who has done this on a 2.2D 150 with good results. http://mazdacx5forums.co.uk/index.php?topic=10.msg18#msg18 (http://mazdacx5forums.co.uk/index.php?topic=10.msg18#msg18)
-
Hi Alan, I share your frustrations as I too feel I have been misled by Mazda. I have the CX-5 2.2 diesel 150 manual and for 'extra-urban' driving, which is what I do most of the time, Mazda claim that I will get 60+ mpg. I have done just over 7000 mile s and currently I am getting around 48 mpg.
I done 2 long trips recently, each about 300 miles and predominantly motorway driving. I did not exceed the national speed limit and had cruise control on for most of the way. My consumption improved to 49 mpg !!! WOW
I feel quite angry about these claims that car manufacturers claim and wish there was some organisation that could take this element up and challenge them on legal grounds on making false claims that cannot be substantiated just to promote and sell a vehicle.
-
I've already had several "discussions" with Mazda about this, they just hide behind small print and the fact that they don't set the test conditions. They made promises to me to investigate after the car was run-in that they later reneged on. Despite much googling, I've not been able to find out who sets the official test criteria or who (if anyone) is responsible for controlling or monitoring them. I don't have a problem with the official tests as it is necessary to have a benchmark test across marques that is uniform and enables comparisons to be made. What I do have a problem with is the fact that the same benchmark test can give such widely varying results to the real world MPG. I ordered my CX-5 in March 2012 and took delivery in August 2012 - at that time there were no real world figures available to work from. On the basis that I had managed to match or even exceed the official figures on my previous 5 cars, I naively assumed that this would be no different. Lesson learned. >:(
I would encourage everyone to list their real world figures on Honest John at http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/mazda/cx-5-2012 (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/mazda/cx-5-2012) as they have the most detailed list available (What Car do similar, but don't list all the variants). Ironically, the best performing engine in the range is currently the 2.0 petrol at 88% of official MPG. Mine is listed at 75%, which is about what I am getting. It's not even a near miss, though, and if you compare Mazda's whole range with other marques they come out quite low - 87% compared with Toyota at 88%, VW at 90%, Honda at 91%, Subaru at 97%, Maserati at 124% ??? (Don't think I'll get one of those past the boss next time...)
The only other way I can see to try and make them take notice is to make a fuss about it on social media (such as Facebook or Twitter). This does seem to get a response and I've had some success (especially regarding the tyre problem) this way.
Alan.
-
The problem you are all having is not driving like the test cycle. The extra urban test cycle has hardly any motorway driving in it so by driving at a steady 70mph you are going too fast and using too much fuel. I suspect if you drove like the test cycle you would get very close to Mazda's figures. What is really needed is an extra test cycle for motorway cruising which would then show up the difference between cars for that type of driving. Mazda have obviously fine tuned the CX-5 to achieve the test figures rather than performance at 70mph. If there was an official test for motorway driving they would try harder to get good figures. The test cycle for the EU and several other countries can be found at http://www.unep.org/transport/gfei/autotool/approaches/information/test_cycles.asp#European
-
I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make. My issue isn't that the car doesn't achieve the official figures in real world driving. Nobody would reasonably expect that these days (although I would openly admit to being slow to absorb this fact). It's that the variation between real world figures and official figures is a lot bigger with the CX5 (and Mazda's in general) than it is with some other other marques.
I think it's reasonable to assume that, if the tests required to set the official figures were uniformly applied (and enforced) across all marques and models, then the variance between official and real world figures would also be similar across all marques?. However, because those tests aren't monitored or enforced (AFAIK), they are open to manipulation by the manufacturers, who will "modify" the car to produce artificially low fuel consumption figures.
Being able to get 41MPG overall from a 175HP 2.2L diesel with permanent 4WD is, in my view, quite good (although my Forester was better). It's just that the official figures lure you into expecting more - leaving a sour taste when they don't match up.
Alan
-
I understand you point. If you drove your car in a way that met the test conditions you would achieve official figures. That doesn't include sitting on the motorway at 70 MPH for any length of time. The problem is the tests don't represent the driving people are doing not that they aren't being enforced. Until I read this forum I had never looked at what an extra Urban test meant. It means driving at the speed limits on country roads not driving on a motorway. I think the problem is with the motor manufacturers getting cleverer. Mazda for instance didn't put the iStop on the US cars for a while as the US tests didn't have anything that would show a benefit in their official figures unlike Europe. Mazda have clearly done a better job of honing the CX-5s MPG to meet the test conditions than other manufacturers. The CX-5 engine is very load sensitive. Watch the MPG change as it goes up hill in cruise control on the motorway. It can very rapidly go from 66 to 22 MPG. What I am not sure of is do you get better driveability from the CX-5 compared with other similar cars. Personally I would prefer a driveable car than a brick. I have moved from a Mazda 3 MPS and prior to that a Mazda 3 Sport and am impressed that the CX-5 has similar acceleration figures to the Mazda 3 sport. Given the MPS did about 28 MPG then anything is better. The one other benefit is the tax you pay. I am only paying £30 road tax when the MPS cost £480. If Mazda hadn't done such a good job in getting good figures out of the test conditions I would have to have paid more tax.
-
Took my 2.2d 2wd with 500 miles on the clock to the south of France. 2500 round trip mainly doing 75-80 mph on French motorways averaging over 45 mpg - not what's claimed but a good return.
-
Believe it or not I actually achieved 61.4mpg in my CX-5 2.2 SEL-D !!! and here is how to do it...
I too like many others on this forum have complained about fuel consumption but after lengthy discussions with my dealer I have tried they're recommendation. They said that my mpg could be improved by changing from supermarket fuels to a branded fuel. I ran my existing tank down as low as I dared and then filled up with Shell V-Power diesel. I drove for about 80+ miles at between 50-60mph and the onboard computer reported 61.4mpg.
Back home on the normal runs to town and back it has decreased to 54 mpg but even that is still a lot better than the 48 I was getting.
The downside to all this is price. I paid £1.449 per litre for the V-power as opposed to the £1.369 for the standard Shell diesel. I'll let you all decide if you think it's worth it.
Give it a try and see if you get the same.
-
Took my 2.2d 2wd with 500 miles on the clock to the south of France. 2500 round trip mainly doing 75-80 mph on French motorways averaging over 45 mpg - not what's claimed but a good return.
As I have mentioned in another post I have just completed a trip to France covering 2200 miles in my 2wd 2.0L petrol. The car had done 600miles at the start and achieved 42mpg at similar speeds to you. This just confirms to me how impressive the petrol engine is with regard to economy in that it is not too far away from your 45mpg. Just a shame that petrol is so much more expensive than diesel in France! :(
-
Believe it or not I actually achieved 61.4mpg in my CX-5 2.2 SEL-D !!! and here is how to do it...
I too like many others on this forum have complained about fuel consumption but after lengthy discussions with my dealer I have tried they're recommendation. They said that my mpg could be improved by changing from supermarket fuels to a branded fuel. I ran my existing tank down as low as I dared and then filled up with Shell V-Power diesel. I drove for about 80+ miles at between 50-60mph and the onboard computer reported 61.4mpg.
Back home on the normal runs to town and back it has decreased to 54 mpg but even that is still a lot better than the 48 I was getting.
The downside to all this is price. I paid £1.449 per litre for the V-power as opposed to the £1.369 for the standard Shell diesel. I'll let you all decide if you think it's worth it.
Give it a try and see if you get the same.
A very interesting comment by Candyman, as I always fill up at Tesco, I will definitely give it a go soon and see if it makes any difference...?
Cat.
-
After 12 months and 9,500 miles my indicated consumption has just achieved 40 mpg. My own calculations per fill-up are typically 38/39 mpg.
I would say 70% Motorway.
-
As promised, an update on fuel consumption based on using V Power fuel.
I started recording actual fuel usage back on 28/10/12; I'd done just under 7,000 miles at that point. Since then it has worked out as follows:-
• From 28/10/12 to 10/07/14
34920 miles, 3804.21 litres, averages 40.86MPG and a fuel cost of 15p/mile
• After 10/07/14, I switched exclusively to Shell V Power fuel
3544 miles, 380.78 litres, averages 45.77MPG and a fuel cost of 16p/mile (over 9 fill-ups)
• From 28/10/12 to today
38464 miles, 4185 litres, averages 41.31MPG and a fuel cost of 15p/mile
As mentioned previously, these figures are based on recorded fuel into tank VS actual mileage. I do reset the trip computer each refill (on the average consumption setting) to compare and it is consistently showing about 2MPG higher than the actual consumption, irrespective of the fuel used.
Conclusion - the car definitely gets better MPG on Shell V power - between 4-5MPG or about 10-12% better, which is quite impressive. However, the higher cost of this fuel (I've seen variances of 10-17p per litre over standard diesel) unfortunately wipes out any saving and is therefore slightly more expensive per mile to use. The advantage is that it does extend the range of the tank by about 50-60 miles - that is useful to me, I find. I can't say as I've noticed any major differences in driveability, power, torque, etc, though. The price of V power does seem to vary a lot so if you can find a reasonably priced supply (i.e. less than 10% higher cost than standard diesel) it is worth a try.
Alan.
-
Still no sign of improvement, but I have noted the rapid increase in consumption at speeds over about 60 mph. Hate to think what happens if I go anywhere near maximum. The aerodynamics are not great. I still have my 20 year old Probe with the Mazda 2.5 litre V6. Terrible on short journeys, but over 30 mpg at motorway speeds.
Anyone interested in a spread sheet for monitoring fuel consumption?
I have used one for years which keeps complete track of tank and average consumptions, and the frightening total cost to date. Just send me a message including which version of Excel you are using.
-
Recent question to 'Honest John', ''Jaguar strongly recommends the use of premium fuel'' (user with XF2.2 D).
ANSWER, '' The reason for the recommendation is that cars are optimised for the ECDC consumption and emissions tests on the best fuel
available, in order to get the best results. Your car will run on ordinary fuel, but won't be as smooth or economical.''
Well fancy that, perhaps all manufacturers use results based on Premium Fuel!
The CX-5 Handbook simply says 'Fuel Specification must meet EN 590 or equivalent'.
A little more research reveals that, longer term, Premium Fuel may keep injectors cleaner and aid lubrication of moving parts.
It seems Premium Fuel contains a percentage of liquefied gas.
-
As promised, an update on fuel consumption based on using V Power fuel.
I started recording actual fuel usage back on 28/10/12; I'd done just under 7,000 miles at that point. Since then it has worked out as follows:-
• From 28/10/12 to 10/07/14
34920 miles, 3804.21 litres, averages 40.86MPG and a fuel cost of 15p/mile
• After 10/07/14, I switched exclusively to Shell V Power fuel
3544 miles, 380.78 litres, averages 45.77MPG and a fuel cost of 16p/mile (over 9 fill-ups)
• From 28/10/12 to today
38464 miles, 4185 litres, averages 41.31MPG and a fuel cost of 15p/mile
As mentioned previously, these figures are based on recorded fuel into tank VS actual mileage. I do reset the trip computer each refill (on the average consumption setting) to compare and it is consistently showing about 2MPG higher than the actual consumption, irrespective of the fuel used.
Conclusion - the car definitely gets better MPG on Shell V power - between 4-5MPG or about 10-12% better, which is quite impressive. However, the higher cost of this fuel (I've seen variances of 10-17p per litre over standard diesel) unfortunately wipes out any saving and is therefore slightly more expensive per mile to use. The advantage is that it does extend the range of the tank by about 50-60 miles - that is useful to me, I find. I can't say as I've noticed any major differences in driveability, power, torque, etc, though. The price of V power does seem to vary a lot so if you can find a reasonably priced supply (i.e. less than 10% higher cost than standard diesel) it is worth a try.
Alan.
Just read this post fully and realise the significance.
I am an ex-Shell employee and have been using V-Power since I got my CX5.
Last tank I missed the V-Power pumps and filled with normal diesel.
Since then I have noted my consumption has been consistently higher than it was before.
Must get back to the V-Power. Typically I pay about 10p more per litre, which is well under 10% more.
-
Mike TB, can I take you up on your kind offer, to send me a copy of your spread sheet to monitor fuel consumption. I use Microsoft Office 2007. My Email address is listed in the members list. Many thanks.
-
My suspicion is that the figures are done at relatively low speeds. My indicated consumption at motorway speeds drops very rapidly. Hate to think what you get at the (claimed) 129 mph top speed.
It would be interesting if anyone can report their indicated consumption at- say -70 mph and 80 mph (let's be realistic).
Meanwhile the only good thing about the current CO2 figures is the saving on Road Tax. One day the DVLA will realise how artificial the figures are.
-
I spend quite a bit of time on motorways and I generally set the cruise control to 72 which gives a true 70 on the sat nav. Sometimes I'll set it at 70, giving a true 68. At those speeds, over long distances, I've achieved 46-48 MPG on several occasions. However, push it even slightly above that and the fuel consumption sky-rockets. It's almost as if it's programmed to use excessive fuel to penalise you for breaking the speed limit? I know aerodynamics accounts for a lot of this, but the change is too abrupt for that to be the whole cause.
Alan
-
I know this probably won't have the slightest effect, but at least I've tried...
Have set up a petition on the government website regarding making changes to the way that official MPG figures are generated.
Please sign if you agree that the current system is flawed and needs changing.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/70952 (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/70952)
Alan
-
just to agree with previous posts I did the v power experiment in a mazda 6 diesel nearly 3 years ago and mpg improved by 5 MPG no change in driving styles.
-
I know this probably won't have the slightest effect, but at least I've tried...
Have set up a petition on the government website regarding making changes to the way that official MPG figures are generated.
Please sign if you agree that the current system is flawed and needs changing.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/70952 (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/70952)
Alan
have signed and share on FB Alan
-
Thanks!
-
Just topped up after first 500 miles in my new CX5D 150 2wd. Av 52mpg (measured by fuel use not what car told me, but quite accurate) which I thought was very good for new car! This included Motorway, A and B roads with 5 up for part of it. Driving to speed limits where possible. Showing av of 55mpg until I got on M'way. Former driving instructor so quite good at eco driving (when it is your biggest expense!) and take manufacturers claims as a challenge.
-
Had my CX5 since June 2014 and have got some good MPG of mid 50's to even 62MPG!! Not on mainly urban drive of course, but even then am getting around 48MPG. Got the 2.2D 150 Diesel
-
Just an update on fuel consumption, since I've now been using Shell V Power diesel (almost) exclusively for the last 10,000 miles.
From that point, the average fuel consumption has been 43.62MPG, with a cost/mile of ?0.15.
Prior to that (previous 35k miles), it was 40.86MPG, also with a cost/mile of ?0.15 (due to a lower basic fuel price).
Alan
-
BigAL, looks like I may go down the V-Power route also. My last two tanks brim-to-brim gave just under 32MPG....Jeez my Honda Stepwagon 2.0 petrol auto did better than that! :-\
-
Getting really fed up with fuel consumption. My mileage is low (just 5000 after a year) but consumption is not improving at all.
I record every fill up, and just managed to get below 32 mpg on one (partial) tank.
Overall my computer says 37.4 but calculated figure is about 1 mpg less.
Motorways are worse. Any climb at all brings consumption into 20s and low 10s on steep hills. Mostly only me in the car.
I have the spare wheel which must be at least 20 Kg so doesn't help.
Mostly I use V-power, but sometimes it is not possible as few pumps have it.
My 1994 Probe with Mazda V6 petrol did 30 MPG+ on motorway journeys, usually at higher speeds than I do in the CX5. Best was over 34 mpg.
Seems crazy that this super-economy vehicle needs to be driven so gently to keep fuel consumption reasonably low.
-
Hey BigAl,
Totally agree with you - I too love almost everything about my CX5 excepting its fuel consumption and trip computer.
I picked up my CX5 in Feb 2014 and have since done 16k +- miles and am only getting around 44 mpg (from pump calculation).
I no longer trust what the trip computer tells me as it fluctuates so frequently across such a great range.
Dealership just told me that it should fluctuate!!! They seemed to think that 44 mpg was good.
Ian
-
I am now up to 14,000 miles. Through out Dec my trip computer average has been 40. Actual full tank to full tank 38/39 mostly local but one 400 mile round trip 75% Motorway. During Recent trip Midlands to Devon/Cornwall computer dropped to 39 and actual full to full around 37/39.
I still love the car but not impressed with mpg against claims. My wife's 10 month old MAZDA 2 petrol achieves 40+ mostly round town with few long runs.
-
Just to prove that it can be done (well almost).
(http://i1152.photobucket.com/albums/p486/alan85/Mazda%20CX-5/IMAG0398_zpsfjl8u7hh.jpg)
Took this yesterday on the M6, just over 50 miles after a fill up (V-Power) in Blackburn on my way back from Glasgow. Cruise control set at 70, 50.4 average MPG indicating. It actually reached 51.7 MPG shortly after, but then I hit Stoke On Trent... Trouble is that it lulls you into a false sense of achievement - the average for the whole trip was just under 43MPG (calculated, not from the trip meter).
Alan.
-
It's getting better
(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j124/willpower128/Forum%20Photo%20fixing/b97407c9-2e3a-41b6-9a79-ecf1eab95fc9_zpsu3qhxtzg.jpg)
-
It's getting better
(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j124/willpower128/Forum%20Photo%20fixing/b97407c9-2e3a-41b6-9a79-ecf1eab95fc9_zpsu3qhxtzg.jpg)
Which menu's do you need to go through to see this screen DHZ7945?
-
Applications icon. Then fuel economy monitor. Then you need to click on the next screen icons and you'll see the above
-
Had my new facelifted CX5 petrol model now for a month and done 1200 miles mixed driving at national speed limits. True calculated mpg is 40.1. Considering my last Mazda (6 2.2 diesel) averaged out to 49 mpg I'm happy with this. Hopefully it will improve as the engine loosens up.
-
:( My mileage now 16,200, indicated average 38.5. Actual Full Tank to Full Tank 37. Compares to 2003 Nissan X-Trail 2.2TD overall for 99,500 miles of similar driving conditions achieved 35mpg. Had hoped for 40 plus, otherwise very happy with car.
-
Applications icon. Then fuel economy monitor. Then you need to click on the next screen icons and you'll see the above
Thanks for that :) :) :)
-
Is there anyone who is in a position to provide some accurate real world figures for a 2.2D Sport 175 automatic? Honest John are listing this version at only 36MPG average compared to 51.4 for the official figures - just 70% (compared to 76% for the manual version).
Alan
-
Is there anyone who is in a position to provide some accurate real world figures for a 2.2D Sport 175 automatic? Honest John are listing this version at only 36MPG average compared to 51.4 for the official figures - just 70% (compared to 76% for the manual version).
Have just completed 3500 miles in two months with that motor and achieved 11.4 litres/100 miles which is fractionally under 40mpg. Mainly holiday motoring and local runarounds with very little city driving. I am impressed with consumption on local shopping trips for example but horrified at the motorway figures.
-
There's only 1 real way to track MPG; firstly forget all the marketing blurb - test conditions cannot be replicated in the real world = seats removed etc..
I've got a CX5 on order and plan to monitor MPG using a tried and tested spreadsheet; I just enter the mileage from the oddometer, fill the tank (does not have to be empty, as long as you fill to max each time), then enter litres and convert to gallons.
I've been using this on several vehicles and is MUCH more reliable than any of the on-board trip computers!
-
(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j124/willpower128/Emos/whathesaid.gif)(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j124/willpower128/Emos/5bb8f5f9.gif)
-
My two-penneth worth...
Had my CX-5 (150 PS diesel manual) three weeks tomorrow and have about 940 miles on the clock. I've been averaging an indicated 44mpg. I haven't had a chance to calculate manually from fill ups and mileage etc but plan to do this now like others suggest.
I could get 45mpg (indicated) on a run with careful driving in my old Golf 1.6 petrol so i'm thinking this average isn't remarkable so far (but obviously the engine needs to loosen up yet). I travelled from SE London/Kent border to Plymouth and back in the CX-5 and still got an indicated 44mpg average but the journey involved delays both ways (typical for travelling to the West Country in August!)
So, wanting to reassure myself that better mpg figures are actually possible, I reset the fuel economy meter on leaving Fleet services on the return journey. From there to the M25 are roadworks with an average 50mph speed limit. With cruise control set to 50, some 18 miles later. At the junction with the M25, I had an indicated mpg figure of 87.5! (I got a picture as evidence!). On getting home, having travelled a further 55 miles or so round the M25, again using cruise and going no faster than 65, I had an indicated mpg figure of 63.6 (I took a picture of that too!)
OK, so this is in no way scientific or particularly realistic but it's a least given me hope that mpg figures of 50+ should be possible in future, on a run in the right conditions!
-
If anyone thinks that the mileage on a CX-5 is poor, I've just got 54.7MPG on a 500 mile run over 2 days with mainly motorway driving and 5 large adults in the car and a full boot. I have a Jan 2015 150BHP manual model.
The MPG was from the trip computer but mines generally very close (checked tank to tank)
REALLY impressed with my CX-5 that has just done 10K miles
-
We've just got our petrol version and have only done 800 miles. Mainly urban driving at 39mpg and a long trip to Inverness gave 46 mpg. Well pleased so far.... my wife's last car (1.4 Hyundai ix20) only ever averaged 37 when it was meant to do 55!!
-
Hi iv'e just bought a second hand CX-5 and love the drive but really disappointed with MPG as on a 350 mile round trip I only got about 38 compared to my 08 plate Passat with 163000 on the clock which always gets around 42 also not really sure what's happening with the I-stop as it seemed at first intermittent and now appears to have stopped working altogether
-
Hi Brian,
38 mpg does sound low, I get that on long motorway journeys but I have the petrol version. On average I get an indicated 45 mpg which is probably a real world 42-43. Not bad, but not as good as Mazda claim.
There have been a lot of complaints about people not getting near Mazda's claimed mpg on various forums and car mag websites. I think what has happened is Mazda have designed the car to perform well in the lab tests and not really bothered about the real world so if your driving style is some way off the lab style, the figures drop drastically. I must admit when I first got my car the fuel economy was a lot lower and I've altered my driving style considerably to push it up to the figures I get now.
-
I-stop only works when the engine meets certain criteria and generally only works after the car has been running for a few minutes in my experience and on occasion doesn't operate even after a reasonable journey and will also turn back on the engine after a period of time - I suspect it has something to do with the engine not having enough pressure to restart automatically. However, the one thing you do need to do is make sure the car is out of gear and the clutch is not depressed in order for it to work. For the first week or so it didn't work for me at all but that was because I had a tendency to sit at traffic lights with the car still in gear and the clutch in so I have had to alter my driving style to suit.
-
Hi dg70
I'm still getting used to the sixth gear so some of it is probably down to me but I calculated the figures on a full to full tank and it actual came out at 37.6 so now I've reset the trip and doing another 200 mile round trip this weekend we'll see how it goes
-
I tend to just use 5 gears anyway, usually switch from 4th straight to 6th. I very rarely use 5th gear unless I'm overtaking or going up a steep hill. 4th gear will get the car up to a reasonable speed where 6th can take over without any issues.
-
19000miles on clock now, avg 37.6 mpg on trip computer, using v power, but when we had our heat exchanger changed out last year it was dropped off with a average of 25 or 27 mpg reading, I left it for a good few months and there wasn't any real change. then decided to reset and it started reading 35 avg. so all I'm saying is don't trust it ( computers ), the tank brim method is the way I do it if I really want to know more precisely. After chatting with Caldean I have tried to drive more economically with good results mainly by being in the correct gear for the road condition and speed.
-
I think I've solved the fuel consumption enigma I've just achieved 50.4 mpg on a 100 mile trip all I had to do was travel up the M3 between Basingstoke and the M25
-
Great. Limits your holiday destinations though :)
-
I think I've solved the fuel consumption enigma I've just achieved 50.4 mpg on a 100 mile trip all I had to do was travel up the M3 between Basingstoke and the M25
Isn't that section mostly roadworks with average speed cameras at 50 mph? It does wonders for mpg...
Alan
-
Just done second trip to Inverness. Average speed cameras and traffic kept the speed down to between 50 and 60mph, other than a five mile stretch at 40. Managed 49mpg until I got to the motorway, when all my good work was undone, finishing the 125 mile trip on 46.6 mpg. It seems consumption plummets if you go over 67mph, but under that and it's very impressive for a petrol. Sure don't need a diesel....
-
Ist proper trip (only done 390 miles total) round trip from Milton Keynes to Lincs visiting family. Journey mostly A1M and dual carriageway, with some local "B" roads at either end and a short local trip thrown in for good measure. Did a steady 70 on main part of journey - but needed to put my foot down getting past slow traffic in Lincs.
Even so managed 50.4mpg, so more or less living up to expectations!
Got another / longer trip planned for next weekend = going up to Northumberland, so will get a better feel from that journey.
-
I'm on 42mpg average at the moment, all A,B roads with some town driving.
I have had 55mpg on three occasions but only on A and B roads.
Motorway driving its poor dropping below 40mpg unless there are road works with 50mph limits.
IMO the Mazda needs another gear, which is only practical in an auto.
-
IMO the Mazda needs another gear, which is only practical in an auto.
I tend to just use 5 gears anyway, usually switch from 4th straight to 6th. I very rarely use 5th gear unless I'm overtaking or going up a steep hill. 4th gear will get the car up to a reasonable speed where 6th can take over without any issues.
You don't have 6 ? ?
-
As BigAl has previously said, don't be fooled by the on-board display to work out your MPG.
I reckon mine is about 10% out, i.e. computer says 40mpg, actual MPG calculated by using a mileage / fuel consumption spreadsheet only 36mpg.
Do the maths for yourself.
Let's hope they haven't porked their emission figures as well..?? :'( :'( :'( :'(
Cat.
-
I'll probably do a brim to brim a couple of times with the new car when It arrives.
I always use to use that method but gave it up when I tested an Audi A4 I had back in 2000, that was only around 1mpg high consistently with the average read out, near enough for me.
I've since read the CX-5 is around the same, but I haven't bothered to check.
My fuel returns are about the same as Honest John and Whatcar say with there real and true mpg figures, and I only use supermarket fuel.
-
I tend to just use 5 gears anyway, usually switch from 4th straight to 6th. I very rarely use 5th gear unless I'm overtaking or going up a steep hill. 4th gear will get the car up to a reasonable speed where 6th can take over without any issues.
You don't have 6 ? ?
Yes but I tend to skip 5th gear altogether. Very rare that I use it
-
I tend to just use 5 gears anyway, usually switch from 4th straight to 6th. I very rarely use 5th gear unless I'm overtaking or going up a steep hill. 4th gear will get the car up to a reasonable speed where 6th can take over without any issues.
You don't have 6 ? ?
Yes but I tend to skip 5th gear altogether. Very rare that I use it
The question was directed at xtrailman :) I used your statement as a reinforcement that there is a sixth gear.
IMO the Mazda needs another gear, which is only practical in an auto.
-
Yes but top gear is low for motorway driving IMO.
Putting 7 gears into a manual box could be more trouble than its worth, but could easily be done with an auto transmission, CRV now has 9 gears, the new X1 8 gears again.
-
My consumption seem good so far as I have only 5500 miles on the clock
(http://badges.fuelly.com/images/sig-uk/385049.png) (http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/cx-5/2015/i10boy/385049)
-
I spend quite a bit of time on motorways and I generally set the cruise control to 72 which gives a true 70 on the sat nav. Sometimes I'll set it at 70, giving a true 68. At those speeds, over long distances, I've achieved 46-48 MPG on several occasions. However, push it even slightly above that and the fuel consumption sky-rockets. It's almost as if it's programmed to use excessive fuel to penalise you for breaking the speed limit? I know aerodynamics accounts for a lot of this, but the change is too abrupt for that to be the whole cause.
Alan
I am beginning to think there are differences between individual vehicles. On a motorway at about 70 mph I have rarely seen 40 mpg on a level road. Even a slight incline could cause consumption to drop below 30.
Now I am in the Isle of Man with lots of hills and no general speed limit I just logged 31 mpg on my last tank full. Last summer on the same roads I got my only tankful at over 40 mpg.
Due for a service so maybe that will change things.
-
A member on the CT forum weight his car at 1720kg on a weigh bridge, same model as mine, with a witter towbar same as mine (21kg), but I believe without a spare.
Brochure weight for that year is 1663kg which includes driver at 75kg, so that a lot of weight to be dragged up hill, high speed and hills kill fuel returns, as does having a DPF fitted.
With my typical journey, I believe the DPF is killing my average MPG, according to what I've read on the whirlpool Mazda CX-5 forum the CX-5 does a timed regen around every 250 miles.
IMO if you don't tow the petrol version might make more sense, I have towed with a petrol turbo with no problem, but the mazda on offer doesn't have enough torque for me, not even the 2.5 if it was offered in the UK.
If BMW offered the high powered petrol turbo that Europe gets in the new X1, then I probably would have bought that car.
-
A member on the CT forum weight his car at 1720kg on a weigh bridge, same model as mine, with a witter towbar same as mine (21kg), but I believe without a spare........
.........according to what I've read on the whirlpool Mazda CX-5 forum the CX-5 does a timed regen around every 250 miles.
I took my CX-5 along to a public weighbridge on the same day that I collected it carrying onboard only the stuff that I would generally carry from day to day i.e. warning triangle, first aid kit, Garmin Satnav and a few other bits and bobs, but with the addition of the Mazda OEM towbar/ball. The car weighed in at 1760kg with, according to the towbar handbook, the towbar/ball comprising 22kg of that total. No spare wheel carried.
I'm still running her in with 940km on the clock but have only had one very smelly regen during that time which happened at approx the 500km mark.
-
Yes the car has got progressively heavier, with each upgrade from the original release.
Interesting that you have seen a regen at 500, they was a mention of Mazda updating the map to longer timed regens, hopefully they have done that.
But I expect to see under 40mpg with the auto with my usage.
Brochure weight for my model is 1703kg.
-
I am still seeing better fuel consumption since my 2 year service and software upgrade. My last tank averaged 47.0 in mixed motoring some fairly gentle due to speed restrictions and some heavy traffic around Coventry when i attended the NEC classic car show. I have also noticed that there aren't so many regens being done. I have had no regen in the last 360 miles, whereas they used to be every 200-250 miles. Before the last upgrade i would have found it very difficult to get to 47mpg over a reasonable length of time.
-
Nice to see some old "faces" from the mazda247 site, which has gone very quiet. :)
I did initially see around 46mpg after last service (2nd), but it soon reverted back to low 40's. :(
-
Hi, I've just joined this forum having been searching the net for some information and this thread came up. I took delivery of my face-lift 2015 model CX-5 in October and have been really struggling with the low fuel economy since getting it. Mine is the 2.2D 150 Sports Nav model. So far I've put just over a 1K on the clock.
Since getting it, have done 3 or 4 long(ish) drives, from MK to London and MK to St Albans and back and the highest reading I got for any of them was 40mpg. Driving around town in MK (school run and work about 15 miles per day roughly) I'd been averaging around 35-37mpg. What really shocked me though was on Monday when I'm guessing due to the cold weather, the mpg just seemed to have tanked! On work run this morning and yesterday, my average was 31mpg! :(
Have to say, I'm really disappointed with the fuel economy - I knew I'd never get anywhere near the 'official' quoted but didn't expect to be be this far out either. I really don't drive like a maniac either, promise! Most I do is 60 on MK's A-roads but we do have a ton of roundabouts. My old car was B-class B150 petrol and whilst very under powered, I used to average about 42mpg around town so I was hoping for better with the CX-5 and my driving style hasn't changed.
It's been mentioned to me that as the car is new, it needs time to loosen up a bit but how long is this likely to take? Frankly, I can't afford the amount of money I'm spending on diesel. A full tank barley lasts me 2 weeks! What am I doing wrong?? Is there something wrong with the car or is this normal?
-
Are you taking your fuel consumption figures directly from the OBC readout or from seeing how much fuel you need to put back in at the pump to fill up. The latter method is far more accurate as the OBC's readout in most cars really is notoriously inaccurate.
I'm just a little over the running-in mileage now and whilst I haven't been driving with foot to the floor knowing that most modern engines are run-in on the bench anyway, I haven't been holding up other traffic either if you get my drift. My average after two fill-ups is 40mpg, the last was 37.8mpg and the best 43.9mpg. Mileage has been accumulated with approx 500 km's on the motorway (max 120kmh) whilst the rest has been on a mixture of 'A' and 'B' roads but with negligible town driving. I should point out that my CX-5 has an auto box so gear changes are in the lap of the gods really. All in all, at this point I'm neither disappointed or pleased to be honest and with diesel being priced well under petrol over here in Germany it's not something that I'm going to lose sleep over although I do sympathise with your views.
-
My 2013 manual car returned about 41mpg after the first service (on the read out), down from the first year which was at around 43mpg.
New auto car with 100 miles is only at 37mpg. I expect it will improve, but it will only be by 1 or 2 mpg once its run in.
Problem is running in can take from 10K to 20K from my own experience.
The OP was probably having a DPF burn to drop the average down to 30mpg.
Last Xtrail I had took 20K miles to run in and the 173ps engine (manual) returned around 39-40mpg, but only had 266 pound feet of torque, nothing like the low down pull the CX-5 has.
-
Hi, I've just joined this forum having been searching the net for some information and this thread came up. I took delivery of my face-lift 2015 model CX-5 in October and have been really struggling with the low fuel economy since getting it. Mine is the 2.2D 150 Sports Nav model. So far I've put just over a 1K on the clock.
Since getting it, have done 3 or 4 long(ish) drives, from MK to London and MK to St Albans and back and the highest reading I got for any of them was 40mpg. Driving around town in MK (school run and work about 15 miles per day roughly) I'd been averaging around 35-37mpg. What really shocked me though was on Monday when I'm guessing due to the cold weather, the mpg just seemed to have tanked! On work run this morning and yesterday, my average was 31mpg! :(
Have to say, I'm really disappointed with the fuel economy - I knew I'd never get anywhere near the 'official' quoted but didn't expect to be be this far out either. I really don't drive like a maniac either, promise! Most I do is 60 on MK's A-roads but we do have a ton of roundabouts. My old car was B-class B150 petrol and whilst very under powered, I used to average about 42mpg around town so I was hoping for better with the CX-5 and my driving style hasn't changed.
It's been mentioned to me that as the car is new, it needs time to loosen up a bit but how long is this likely to take? Frankly, I can't afford the amount of money I'm spending on diesel. A full tank barley lasts me 2 weeks! What am I doing wrong?? Is there something wrong with the car or is this normal?
Agree with Deeps, the trip computer is - in my experience - consistently 2-3MPG optimistic compared with real world. Not sure if you've read this entire thread but MPG has alway been a bone of contention, borne out by the accumulation of real world figures on HJ's website http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/mazda/cx-5-2012 (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/mazda/cx-5-2012) I tackled Mazda UK directly about this discrepancy early on but got nowhere, unfortunately. For what it's worth, my first CX5 (2.2D 175 sport) averaged 41.3MPG over 60k miles, but my new one is currently averaging 44.5MPG over 6K miles (same model), so the new models must have something different in their mapping, IMHO. It appears that adding a bolt-on remapping box improves things as well (see elsewhere on the forum), depending on your attitude to modding the car from standard spec.
You mentioned that your old car was a petrol and felt underpowered? And you now have a diesel, but haven't changed your driving style. That could be contributing to the problem as the diesel has all the torque much lower in the rev range, so there's no need to rev it as much as a petrol. Use the torque, change up ASAP, adapt your technique a bit. See if that helps. My experience has also been that using Shell V+ diesel helps, the increased MPG offsets the extra cost and extends the range per tank considerably.
Alan
-
I'm doing both in terms of fuel consumption reading albeit roughly; never actually sat down and worked it out precisely but have always worked on the assumption that reading the car gives will be a little lower than reality. Which makes the sort of figures I'm getting even more worrying. I'm told on fill up that the car will do 420 miles, I drive it around a couple of days and suddenly it drops to the low 300s. It just doesn't feel right - I was used to getting near enough a full month of driving on my B-class (provided I drove around MK only) so 2 weeks on full tank in the CX-5 is alarming! Having said that, it costs me less to fill tank on my CX-5 than it did with my b-class, despite price of diesel being generally higher than petrol and the B-class supposedly having a smaller tank to the CX-5. it doesn't make any sense to me. :-\
Incidentally, when will the car be considered to have been fully 'run in'? As mentioned in my OP, I've put just over 1K miles on the clock since taking delivery on 8 October. I know I get better fuel economy on longer drives and I'm suspecting one of the contributing factors might be that I'm not doing a long enough run on my morning commute but it seems perverse to have to drive the car more in order to get better fuel economy, no?
-
Mazda originally told me that they didn't consider a CX5 fully run until until it had done 12.5k miles and had its first service.
As soon as you mentioned MK, I can sympathise; my son lives there. Each car he's had get significantly lower MPG around MK than it does anywhere else. He has a Scirocco R at the moment and gets about 23MPG normally, but mid to high 30's elsewhere (and had similar disparity with other petrol and diesel cars). He reckons is down to the combination of roundabouts and fast A roads, particularly having to pull out of side roads straight onto fast dual carriageways.
The remaining mileage figure does vary in how it drops - if you compare it as it falls with the trip meter as it rises, you'll find they don't "match". I'm pretty sure that you'll find it improving with mileage. I've just checked my mileage records and - in the new one - my mileage per tank has ranged between 419 and 497 miles (between fill ups). As mentioned, I do use V power diesel, which generally adds about 8-10% to the range per tank.
Alan
-
Thanks. I'm definitely not overly revving the engine, I try and stick to below 2K rpm unless I'm overtaking or coming out of a junction. One of the things I love about the Cx-5 is the gear shift indicator so that takes away a lot of the guesswork 90% of the time. I feel like I'm becoming overly obsessed with this, partly because it's hard to ignore the mpg indicator on the dash! I've read so much about how to drive to maximise fuel economy and its just galling to be putting in so much effort and not getting anywhere with it. To be honest, it's really ruining my enjoyment of the car.
There may be some merit in the MK issue, I do notice on return from driving down the A5 or M1 that it drops a bit when I hit MK's billion roundabouts and this was the same in my old car but it was 1-2mpg at most. However, our second car is a 2011 Kuga 2L Diesel. With 54K on the clock, average mpg is 46 around MK and the Kuga is meant to be less economical than the cx-5 if you go with the published literature. I was expecting similar if not better with the cx-5. I'm filling up with supermarket diesel, have never tried a premium fuel before and I would resent to have to resort to using it to get decent fuel consumption. However, I will try this at my next fill up.
I filled up only last week Thursday, I haven't done a long drive except 15-20 miles max around town over 5 days, mostly at a speed of 40-60mph. I'm already more than quarter tank down. :( I really hope it improves with time and mileage otherwise I will have to seriously consider letting it go. Love everything else about the car but I won't be able to afford to run it at that rate if it continues as we have no plans to move from MK.
-
Hi form a newbie. I don't want to provoke an argument (and it's my first post), but let me throw a different perspective into the mix.
A new CX 5 is somewhere mid £20k range to buy. It'll be worth about half that in three years, so it'll lose ten grand give or take (plus interest if applicable).
It'll need serviced a couple of times too, let's say £400.
It might need a couple of tyres too, lets say £100.
Maybe a set of front brakes, say £200.
You say you've done 1000 miles in around a month, so lets assume you'll do 12000 miles per year, and that let's call diesel £6/gallon.
12000 miles @ average 37mpg = 324 gallons, or £1944
12000 miles @ average 46mpg = 261 gallons, or £1566
Over a 3 year ownership the costs are:
Depreciation 10000 or 10000
Servicing 400 400
Maintenance 300 300
Road tax x 3 years 90 90
Insurance x 3 years 750 750
Fuel x 3 years 5832 4698
Total 17372 16238
Break that back down to average per month, it's £482 against £451 (and that's without paying any interest).
Obviously the above sums can vary drastically on how you buy/finance the car, how much you get as a trade in, how long you keep it etc etc, but you get my drift.
IMHO it's not the extra £31 of fuel that makes the difference, it's whether the four hundred and odd quid per month is too much in the first place.
-
Thanks for all those facts and figures :( but I am going to forget them as soon as possible :o I love my car and love to drive so I don't want to be thinking about the cost.
-
If you do more than 15k a year, diesel can make sense but for me, at 8k a year, it wold take me 7 years just to break even on the cost of a diesel. Throw in the repair for a clogged dpf and it's a lot longer. We get average of 37mpg over 2500 miles, with the best being 49mpg at steady 60 from Perth to Inverness. Town driving is around 35mpg. .... OK that's the wife driving but even so, if torque isn't a requirement, petrol has to be the way to go.
-
I filled up only last week Thursday, I haven't done a long drive except 15-20 miles max around town over 5 days, mostly at a speed of 40-60mph. I'm already more than quarter tank down.
I have to agree with.
If you do more than 15k a year, diesel can make sense but for me, at 8k a year, it wold take me 7 years just to break even on the cost of a diesel. Throw in the repair for a clogged dpf and it's a lot longer. We get average of 37mpg over 2500 miles, with the best being 49mpg at steady 60 from Perth to Inverness. Town driving is around 35mpg. .... OK that's the wife driving but even so, if torque isn't a requirement, petrol has to be the way to go.
Perhaps a 2.2 Diesel might not be the best choice doing low mileages in Milton Keynes.
-
Out of interest, what do you guys in the UK pay for a gallon of diesel? Here in Germany at the moment it's €1.15/litre (or €5.22 for 4.54 litres) which equates I guess to £3.67/gallon.
Diesel historically has always been cheaper than petrol which I suppose is one of the reasons that more CX-5 diesels (and other SUV makes also) are sold over and above petrol.
-
It's about £1.09 a litre just now, depending where you go.
-
Hi Everyone,
I monitor my fuel consumption with a free Android app - Fuel Buddy. A really good app based on your mileage and how much fuel you add over a period of time. I have a 2.2D 150 (facelift) and the app says I average 49mpg, whilst the on-board display says 51mpg. Maybe my right foot isn't quite as heavy as others - but I'm retired and I'm never in much of a hurry to get anywhere ;) Since getting the car late March I've covered around 8000 miles.
Skippa.
-
Auto is so far very poor IMO, only showing 36mpg over the first 100 miles. 7 mpg down on my last car.
-
This is my first AT and so have nothing to compare it to but that said, I've been brought up to understand that an automatic will always use more fuel as a result of the full range of any gear being utilised whereas this is seldom the case with a manual box.
-
So, having just got in from a drive this evening down the A421 from MK to Buckingham and back again (22mile round trip) I averaged 47.4mpg doing around 50-60mph on the journey (see pic if the attachment has worked). The main difference was the lack of roundabouts on the A421, just a lovely long stretch of road with hardly any stopping and starting. It would appear from this that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the car, it just doesn't seem to like being driven around MK A roads with its multitude of roundabouts!
My average mileage is normally 10-12k miles a year so I don't think I made a poor choice getting diesel actually. I just need to drive it more which is no big deal really, I like driving the car. I will just have to do more trips to various friends and the parents/in laws every other week perhaps. Who knows, I might get a few free meals chucked in, win-win :D. My faith in the car has been restored.
(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j124/willpower128/Forum%20Photo%20fixing/IMG_3965_zpsbqi0vwex.jpg)
-
This is my first AT and so have nothing to compare it to but that said, I've been brought up to understand that an automatic will always use more fuel as a result of the full range of any gear being utilised whereas this is seldom the case with a manual box.
Yes it defiantly takes the revs higher before changing, unlike the manual, with the manual the gear change indicator often come on well before 2K revs.
IMO this is one reason why the auto uses more fuel, it takes much longer to get into 6 speed.
The 8 speed ZF used in the Bmw will often match the manual car with economy figures and emissions.
But a X1 costs a lot more to kit out to the sport standard.
-
So, having just got in from a drive this evening down the A421 from MK to Buckingham and back again (22mile round trip) I averaged 47.4mpg doing around 50-60mph on the journey (see pic if the attachment has worked). The main difference was the lack of roundabouts on the A421, just a lovely long stretch of road with hardly any stopping and starting. It would appear from this that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the car, it just doesn't seem to like being driven around MK A roads with its multitude of roundabouts!
My average mileage is normally 10-12k miles a year so I don't think I made a poor choice getting diesel actually. I just need to drive it more which is no big deal really, I like driving the car. I will just have to do more trips to various friends and the parents/in laws every other week perhaps. Who knows, I might get a few free meals chucked in, win-win :D. My faith in the car has been restored.
(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j124/willpower128/Forum%20Photo%20fixing/IMG_3965_zpsbqi0vwex.jpg)
No need for photographic evidence, I believe you, having had 55mpg twice with the last car.
Thing is I would reset the average before the trip, and providing there was NO pdf burn, the average could easily reach high figures.
But it's the average over a full tank that reveals the true mpg, which for my 175ps manual was 41-43mpg all on supermarket fuel, and that's the average reading.
I'm doing a brim to brim test with the new car, just out of interest to check its accuracy, I didn't with the old car because a owner did and found it only around 1mpg out, reading too high.
-
IMO this is one reason why the auto uses more fuel, it takes much longer to get into 6 speed.
What drags my consumption figures down is the fact that for 99% of my journey's I have to turn left when leaving the house. There follows a 3km stretch of road that is goes very slightly uphill and is broken every 300m or so by a roundabout. Bit like MK I suppose without the flat stretches. ;) To compound the issue the speed limit is 40km/h enforced by two speed cameras along the stretch. What I'm leading up to say is that with the auto box I find at this speed it tends to hang between gears - too high a speed to shift down and too low a speed to shift up. When I check the consumption at this stage it's alarming - well into double figures with the first one starting with a 2. :(
As speeding fines are not all that severe over here I think in future that I'll put the foot down a bit more and accept the speeding fine which for sure is going to work out cheaper than the fuel I'm burning. Only joking of course. ;D ;D
-
You'll find the speedo will read about 4mph than your actual speed. I've tested this against speed signs and my sat nav and the resultt is consistently the same - 3 to 4 mph higher on the speedo It's not just the mazda - it's the same difference on my golf and jaguar too. ...
-
You'll find the speedo will read about 4mph than your actual speed. I've tested this against speed signs and my sat nav and the result is consistently the same - 3 to 4 mph higher on the speedo It's not just the mazda - it's the same difference on my golf and jaguar too. ...
It is generally the same for EVERY car, no matter what make. Some say it is purposely done to keep you at a lower speed than is actually indicated, with a view to trying to keep you under the imposed speed limit whatever that may be. This of course relies upon your own conscience.
Others will say it's just a function of the mechanical connection (Speedo cable) between gearbox and speedo head.
Whatever the reasoning, as you say this can be compared to a GPS speed display on your Sat Nav.
I've never tried with an electronic display. It would be interesting to see if that too is "purposely" inaccurate.
However as has been remarked several times before, any automatic method of registering fuel consumption, as in an OCB, is going to be notoriously inaccurate. There is no real substitute for brim to brim calculations.
-
You'll find the speedo will read about 4mph than your actual speed. I've tested this against speed signs and my sat nav and the resultt is consistently the same - 3 to 4 mph higher on the speedo It's not just the mazda - it's the same difference on my golf and jaguar too. ...
My last car was showing 2mph higher than the sat nav speed, to set CC at 50mph I had to select 52.
I do miss the nav speed reading because I use to drive to that through the average camera stretches.
It did get more inaccurate above that, but 90% of my driving is below 50mph.
With my present car I don't have that facility, but I've set up the car so a nice lady tells to I'm over the limit.
Last time I checked the average reading against a brim to brim was back in 2000 with a Audi A4, the average was only about 1mpg higher than the true mpg, so I haven't bother since, until now.
-
I read on another forum that speedos reading high is due to UK laws. There was quite a bit of info on it, but the general gist is that apparently it's illegal (in the UK) for a speedo to under-read, so the manufacturers build their tolerances into over-reading to keep their a$$es covered.
-
That was my understanding too... so setting cruise at 73mph is why I still end up overtaking all those drivers who think they're doing 70 when in fact they're only going at 67 mph....
-
This is my first AT and so have nothing to compare it to but that said, I've been brought up to understand that an automatic will always use more fuel as a result of the full range of any gear being utilised whereas this is seldom the case with a manual box.
Yes it defiantly takes the revs higher before changing, unlike the manual, with the manual the gear change indicator often come on well before 2K revs.
IMO this is one reason why the auto uses more fuel, it takes much longer to get into 6 speed.
The 8 speed ZF used in the Bmw will often match the manual car with economy figures and emissions.
But a X1 costs a lot more to kit out to the sport standard.
I'm amazed at the Newbies on here who actually believe what the on board display is telling them, surely you guys know you're being hoodwinked, there have been so many posts on here to that effect..?
The only true way to calculate MPG is to record actual litres put into the tank against mileage covered, and, believe me, you will find a significant discrepancy between what the display tells you, and what you are getting in real life, fact.
Cat.
-
This is my first AT and so have nothing to compare it to but that said, I've been brought up to understand that an automatic will always use more fuel as a result of the full range of any gear being utilised whereas this is seldom the case with a manual box.
Yes it defiantly takes the revs higher before changing, unlike the manual, with the manual the gear change indicator often come on well before 2K revs.
IMO this is one reason why the auto uses more fuel, it takes much longer to get into 6 speed.
The 8 speed ZF used in the Bmw will often match the manual car with economy figures and emissions.
But a X1 costs a lot more to kit out to the sport standard.
I'm amazed at the Newbies on here who actually believe what the on board display is telling them, surely you guys know you're being hoodwinked, there have been so many posts on here to that effect..?
The only true way to calculate MPG is to record actual litres put into the tank against mileage covered, and, believe me, you will find a significant discrepancy between what the display tells you, and what you are getting in real life, fact.
Cat.
I amazed that you actually think brim to brim is accurate, it isn't.
As I have already posted my A4 was only around 1mpg high, which isn't really worth carrying out brim to brim checks.
Once I do establish the error for my car I won't be doing brim to brim refills very often if at all, it uses more fuel carrying more weight than required.
The only accurate way to establish a real mpg reading is to use calibrated instruments, only whatcar does that.
-
Once I do establish the error for my car I won't be doing brim to brim refills very often if at all, it uses more fuel carrying more weight than required.
The only accurate way to establish a real mpg reading is to use calibrated instruments, only whatcar does that.
xtrailman is spot on with both statements and working on the assumption that most of us are not going to invest in calibrated instruments such as that used by whatcar then that only leaves the option of brim filling with the negative such as pointed out, or to get on and drive the thing and forget all about consumption. I recall something that the salesman said to me upon purchasing my first ever BMW and enquiring as to servicing costs. He replied, quite firmly as it happens - "if you have to enquire as to serving costs then perhaps you shouldn't be considering a BMW car".
-
I amazed that you actually think brim to brim is accurate, it isn't.
I disagree. Please explain why you think this method is inaccurate. Provided that you fill the filler pipe to the same level every time and do the correct mathematical calculation, the result is far more accurate than any mechanical or electrical component.
As I have already posted my A4 was only around 1mpg high, which isn't really worth carrying out brim to brim checks.
Then I suggest that either you were not filling to the same level, or your calculations were in error.
There have been innumerable postings on this forum and on the other Mazda forums which have all reported a difference of between 3 & 5 mpg positive difference when doing brim to brim against that reported by the vehicle. That could offer a difference of up to 50 miles on a full tank. Not an unsubstantial distance.
Once I do establish the error for my car I won't be doing brim to brim refills very often if at all, it uses more fuel carrying more weight than required.
Your last point may well hold some credence. But then it all depends on your circumstances. The argument for a full tank can be supported by the requirement to always be able to travel. no matter where or how far, without having to worry if you have enough fuel to make it, or if there is a filling station open.
In my previous position ( before retirement) it was necessary for me to travel long distances in an emergency, any any time of day or night. Peoples lives depended on it.
I could go to bed and know that if I was called out at 3am there would be no delay due to having to refuel.
So given individual circumstances, it could quite easily be more beneficial to drivers to always have at least half a tank available at all times.
The only accurate way to establish a real mpg reading is to use calibrated instruments,
Agreed. The trouble is that the instruments in your car and not just yours, but everybodys, are not calibrated sufficiently and regularly to be deemed accurate.
According to the premise behind ISO 9001 the following is true.
The interval between re-calibration is determined by a number of factors:
- manufacturer recommendations
- operating environment
- accuracy requirements
- how long the instrument historically stays ‘true’
When did you last check the accuracy of your gauges ?
As in many other discussions over this matter, there will always be two sides to an argument. And it will all depend upon whether the people reading it will be concerned enough to actually make a considered opinion. There are those who blindly believe that the gauge is always right because Mazda says so. And those who think for themselves and wish to have a more informed outlook on where their money is going, which will enable them to make concerted efforts to lessening the impact on their wallets.
-
This is my first AT and so have nothing to compare it to but that said, I've been brought up to understand that an automatic will always use more fuel as a result of the full range of any gear being utilised whereas this is seldom the case with a manual box.
Yes it defiantly takes the revs higher before changing, unlike the manual, with the manual the gear change indicator often come on well before 2K revs.
IMO this is one reason why the auto uses more fuel, it takes much longer to get into 6 speed.
The 8 speed ZF used in the Bmw will often match the manual car with economy figures and emissions.
But a X1 costs a lot more to kit out to the sport standard.
I'm amazed at the Newbies on here who actually believe what the on board display is telling them, surely you guys know you're being hoodwinked, there have been so many posts on here to that effect..?
The only true way to calculate MPG is to record actual litres put into the tank against mileage covered, and, believe me, you will find a significant discrepancy between what the display tells you, and what you are getting in real life, fact.
Cat.
I amazed that you actually think brim to brim is accurate, it isn't.
As I have already posted my A4 was only around 1mpg high, which isn't really worth carrying out brim to brim checks.
Once I do establish the error for my car I won't be doing brim to brim refills very often if at all, it uses more fuel carrying more weight than required.
The only accurate way to establish a real mpg reading is to use calibrated instruments, only whatcar does that.
Who mentioned brim to brim filling, not me..?
I record actual litres put in the tank taken from the fuel receipt against the mileage reading every time I fill up, then enter these onto a spreadsheet to calculate the true MPG, which is generally about 10% below the reading on the on-board computer, try it for yourself..?
Cat.
-
I reckon brim to brim checking is about as accurate as I can do, I do the math by how much fuel I've used over the distance the car says I've travelled. However I've often wondered if the milometer on cars over-reads as much as the speedo, since that could make quite a difference.
-
The fuel you buy should be near enough accurate, although temperature makes a difference apparently.
Now if you could then use the sat signal for actual mileage covered, that should be reasonable accurate also, providing you don't use too many hills on the route. :D
-
I record actual litres put in the tank taken from the fuel receipt against the mileage reading every time I fill up, then enter these onto a spreadsheet to calculate the true MPG, which is generally about 10% below the reading on the on-board computer, try it for yourself..?
I use Fuel Buddy - a free Android app on my phone - it saves the bother with spreadsheets and provides some other useful information too.
-
Has anyone established whether the Ron rating of petrol makes any difference in the mpg. I filled up with Tesco Momentum before going to Inverness, then Oban, up to Glencoe and back home, filling up at Morrisons in Fort William with their ordinary fuel. I reckon I got about 5 mpg more with the 98 Ron fuel from Tesco, so even taking road conditions into account (drove through the height of storm Desmond - great choice to have a holiday, I know !) there was a noticeable difference. And before you ask, I went by the gauge, not brim to brim, or calibrated measurements, spreadsheets.. etc. :). So it's anecdotal but maybe someone can verify or debunk the premise that premium fuels are better than supermarket fuel with no additives in terms of mpg and engine protection, considering the price differential. Generally I fill up with premium fuel on a one in four basis.
-
It does make a difference with cars designed to run on it.
I had a 180bhp Audi Quattro which was designed for 98, but 95% of the time i used ordinary with a resulting minor power drop.
Nobody could actually tell me what the reduction was, and the only way i could tell was via the front wheels tending to spin during launch off at islands etc.
It wasnt economical with either fuel, 28mpg locally, 33mpg on a run from a car only about 1500kg from memory. Those are brim to brim figures.
-
I had the front wheel drive A5 180bhp coupe which suffered from dreadful torque steer as it tried to put the power down through the front tyres. Sorted the worst of it by changing the Dunlop Sportmaxx tyres with Goodyear AS 2 tyres ... don't think the fuel made much difference at all.
-
I have had my 150bhp 2.2 diesel SE-L CX5 from new and now done just over 40,000 miles. I, also, have kept a record of fuel fills by recording the volume fill up at the pumps.
My overall lifetime average is 44.5 mpg. Driving is mixed but includes several 1000 mile long return motorway trips to Scotland from Hampshire in which I barely get 40mpg.
However, my main point is that everytime the car has come out from a service the fuel consumption has decreased
up to 1st service 45.75mpg
up to 2nd service 45.08mpg
up to 3rd service 43.88mpg
since 3rd service 41.90mpg
I am surprised because I have always thought the mpg should improve as the engine loosens. It has always been serviced at the Mazda dealer who say they don't touch anything that should make a change.
Anybody else observed this?
-
I have had my 150bhp 2.2 diesel SE-L CX5 from new and now done just over 40,000 miles. I, also, have kept a record of fuel fills by recording the volume fill up at the pumps.
My overall lifetime average is 44.5 mpg. Driving is mixed but includes several 1000 mile long return motorway trips to Scotland from Hampshire in which I barely get 40mpg.
However, my main point is that everytime the car has come out from a service the fuel consumption has decreased
up to 1st service 45.75mpg
up to 2nd service 45.08mpg
up to 3rd service 43.88mpg
since 3rd service 41.90mpg
I am surprised because I have always thought the mpg should improve as the engine loosens. It has always been serviced at the Mazda dealer who say they don't touch anything that should make a change.
Anybody else observed this?
I had the same thing with my last car.
43mpg before ist service, then down to 41 after, as you say very strange.
Current car is on around 38mpg at the moment.
-
Yes, I've seen this as well. When I had my Subaru Forester (before first CX5) the same thing happened. I was told by one of their technicians that the ECU's "learn" your driving style and adjust fuel usage to suit. However, when you get it serviced, this learnt part is lost and has to be re-learnt. Don't know if this is fact, but it sounds plausible?
Alan
-
On my reading I'm getting ~ 60mpg, but I've not done a brim check to assert if the figure is accurate as I don't see the point of carrying a full tank of fuel around. The best figure I've had is 80 mpg coming up the M6 through Cheshire ( on the inside lane, HGV speeds)
Much of my driving is motorway, and I generally do around 60 mph. Just took delivery of my new Sport Nav and expected a reduction but straight away I'm getting 60 mpg on the readout.
-
I've never had an average above 55mph over a trip.
Average with last car was usually 41 to 43mpg.
Auto is at 36mpg at present.
-
Just took delivery of my new Sport Nav and expected a reduction but straight away I'm getting 60 mpg on the readout.
Blimey, do you wear slippers when driving? ;D The best I've recorded with my CX-5 is 40.9 mpg and I'm not exactly what you'd call a boy racer.
-
Just took delivery of my new Sport Nav and expected a reduction but straight away I'm getting 60 mpg on the readout.
Blimey, do you wear slippers when driving? ;D The best I've recorded with my CX-5 is 40.9 mpg and I'm not exactly what you'd call a boy racer.
Am also impressed (stunned) by the 60mpg...are you sure you're looking at average mpg and not average speed?!
-
On my reading I'm getting ~ 60mpg, but I've not done a brim check to assert if the figure is accurate as I don't see the point of carrying a full tank of fuel around. The best figure I've had is 80 mpg coming up the M6 through Cheshire ( on the inside lane, HGV speeds)
Much of my driving is motorway, and I generally do around 60 mph. Just took delivery of my new Sport Nav and expected a reduction but straight away I'm getting 60 mpg on the readout.
Very strange, Dave doesn't see the need to fill the tank..?, as for 60mpg, yes, of course you'll see 60mpg on the instantaneous readout if you're going downhill with your foot off the pedal, but you're kidding yourself if you believe you're actually getting 60 miles of driving out of every gallon...
-
The best figure I've had is 80 mpg coming up the M6 through Cheshire ( on the inside lane, HGV speeds)
!!!!!!!
Something smells a little bit fishy here.
-
I can confirm that it is possible to see these kinds of MPG figures (see my post from 21 Aug on page 4 of this thread). I saw 87.5 MPG but that was over only 18 miles of the relatively flat M3 on cruise control in the 50mph average speed limit check section the whole time. I saw over 60 MPG for the remainder of that one journey but it was ALL careful motorway driving. (I can post pics of those figures in the average consumption display!!!)
My indicated average over the the time I've owned the car (c3,400 miles now) I would guess is around 38 MPG and the calculated average based on brimming the tank is 36 MPG. I do quite a lot of short commuter journeys during the week though.
-
I can confirm that it is possible to see these kinds of MPG figures (see my post from 21 Aug on page 4 of this thread). I saw 87.5 MPG but that was over only 18 miles of the relatively flat M3 on cruise control in the 50mph average speed limit check section the whole time. I saw over 60 MPG for the remainder of that one journey but it was ALL careful motorway driving. (I can post pics of those figures in the average consumption display!!!)
My indicated average over the the time I've owned the car (c3,400 miles now) I would guess is around 38 MPG and the calculated average based on brimming the tank is 36 MPG. I do quite a lot of short commuter journeys during the week though.
Cheers Ant.
I had my first CX for three years and 68,000 miles. My commute to work is 25 miles, of which 20 is motorway driving, and on the M62 at 7 in the morning and 5 at night it's a steady 55 to 60 MPH on the inside lane, pointless trying anything else as outside lane tailgate driving isn't my idea of fun.
Business travel is up and down the M6, again I take it easy at it's always busy through Cheshire and Staffs, It's interesting to see the progress of the BMW drivers in the outside lane, brake lights on and off like a strobe light , and they don't seem to make much progress. When driving around town I've never had less than 50 MPG on the readout, and as I mentioned, my total average is around the 60 MPG on the readout.
Reading the comments, I think I'll do a brim check and see how the data matches up.
-
As has been mentioned previously, be careful because the trip computer is consistently 2-3 MPG higher than the true measured figure.
For mine, the figures after almost 10k miles stack up as:-
Average MPG 43.99 over 9727 miles
Best average MPG on a single tankful 49.48
Best MPG on a single trip 54 over 345 miles (Leicestershire to Kent, almost all motorway), got my first 500+ miles between fill ups on the same journey.
Average cost/mile £0.13 (always using Shell V power fuel)
Alan
-
On my reading I'm getting ~ 60mpg, but I've not done a brim check to assert if the figure is accurate as I don't see the point of carrying a full tank of fuel around. The best figure I've had is 80 mpg coming up the M6 through Cheshire ( on the inside lane, HGV speeds)
Much of my driving is motorway, and I generally do around 60 mph. Just took delivery of my new Sport Nav and expected a reduction but straight away I'm getting 60 mpg on the readout.
Very strange, Dave doesn't see the need to fill the tank..?, as for 60mpg, yes, of course you'll see 60mpg on the instantaneous readout if you're going downhill with your foot off the pedal, but you're kidding yourself if you believe you're actually getting 60 miles of driving out of every gallon...
Very rarely, unless I'm driving long haul such as holidays, I usually put about £30 worth in.If I'm going downhill with my foot off the pedal my readout will show 99 MPG!
I know another CX owner who reckons his fuel consumption isn't so good, but then he has a 4WD version. I've never had less than 50 MPG, but then rarely go over 65MPG.
-
Interesting, you clearly have a very unique driving style, perhaps you could share your secrets with us..?
I too have a 2WD Manual version, which I bought new in May 2014.
Since that time I have done 33,269 miles to date and used 859.3 gallons of Diesel, which by my maths equates to 39.13 mpg.
The trip computer will typically read around 43 mpg, but, as others have observed, it always over-reads by about 10%, which brings my actual mpg down to pretty much what I have calculated, i.e. just under 40 mpg.
Be very wary about relying on your onboard gizmos when it comes to fuel consumption..!
-
Interesting, you clearly have a very unique driving style, perhaps you could share your secrets with us..?
I too have a 2WD Manual version, which I bought new in May 2014.
Since that time I have done 33,269 miles to date and used 859.3 gallons of Diesel, which by my maths equates to 39.13 mpg.
The trip computer will typically read around 43 mpg, but, as others have observed, it always over-reads by about 10%, which brings my actual mpg down to pretty much what I have calculated, i.e. just under 40 mpg.
Be very wary about relying on your onboard gizmos when it comes to fuel consumption..!
No secret really, just common sense. As previously mentioned, much of my travel is steady motorway driving at HGV speeds.
An advanced driving instructor told me to imagine I had an egg between my foot and the accelerator for smooth speed change. Anticipate the road ahead so brake use is minimal, and don't accelerate when going uphill, that's thirsty and wasteful.
Once the engine has run in I'll do a pump check, and see how the figures match.
-
If anyone wants to kelp keep others informed, you can add to HJ's collective real MPG data here http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/mazda/cx-5-2012 (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/mazda/cx-5-2012)
Alan
-
As has been mentioned previously, be careful because the trip computer is consistently 2-3 MPG higher than the true measured figure.
For mine, the figures after almost 10k miles stack up as:-
Average MPG 43.99 over 9727 miles
Best average MPG on a single tankful 49.48
Best MPG on a single trip 54 over 345 miles (Leicestershire to Kent, almost all motorway), got my first 500+ miles between fill ups on the same journey.
Average cost/mile £0.13 (always using Shell V power fuel)
Alan
I've recently managed to do a brim to brim, mainly motorway and so far only one tank full.
Unfortunately you was correct with the average read out being out, mine read around 2.5mpg high over the tank full. :(
I'm going to do another brim to brim but this time over my usual usage short local trips, at lower speeds, if that works out the same I'll know my error, and I'll do another in summer when towing.
All on supermarket fuel.
-
There's only 1 real way to track MPG; firstly forget all the marketing blurb - test conditions cannot be replicated in the real world = seats removed etc..
I've got a CX5 on order and plan to monitor MPG using a tried and tested spreadsheet; I just enter the mileage from the oddometer, fill the tank (does not have to be empty, as long as you fill to max each time), then enter litres and convert to gallons.
I've been using this on several vehicles and is MUCH more reliable than any of the on-board trip computers!
(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j124/willpower128/Emos/whathesaid.gif)(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j124/willpower128/Emos/5bb8f5f9.gif)
If anybody is really serious about logging their fuel consumption, this is the only foolproof and reliable way of doing it. Said it before, said it again. It's not rocket science.
-
I enter all fuel ups and services etc using a Smartphone App called 'Fuel Buddy' https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=mrigapps.andriod.fuelcons&hl=en . There's a short video on the same page demonstrating what can be done with this App.
On my PC I use Spritmonitor which is a German thing but also available in English. http://www.spritmonitor.de/en/ . They too provide an App (link on the page) which is also very good but I've gotten used to Fuel Buddy now so will remain with it.
-
I always use to log every tank full before average read out became common, but once I know an approximate error I will only use the average read out. ;) Except for rare occasions.
I'm not that concerned with the fuel economy and prefer to run will half a tank or less for my usual short trips, I only ever fill it up for a long trip and when towing. Lighter loads aid handling and improve economy so why fill up if you don't need too ?
-
I always use to log every tank full before average read out became common, but once I know an approximate error I will only use the average read out. ;) Except for rare occasions.
I'm not that concerned with the fuel economy and prefer to run will half a tank or less for my usual short trips, I only ever fill it up for a long trip and when towing. Lighter loads aid handling and improve economy so why fill up if you don't need too ?
Exactly my thoughts, like you I normally drive with no more than half a tank full unless on long trips.
However I decided to check the accuracy of the readout with a tank check, and as suggested the figures don't add up. I got a reading of 62.9 MPG as the average over a week's driving - 470 miles, and needed 37.06 litres ( 8.152 gallons) to top up again, using the same pump at my local station, giving me 57.76 MPG.
Here's the screen for my run back from work last night
(http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n163/cyber_dav/WP_20160315_16_25_57_Pro1_zpscohdqio1.jpg) (http://s112.photobucket.com/user/cyber_dav/media/WP_20160315_16_25_57_Pro1_zpscohdqio1.jpg.html)
And here's a screen shot of my run along the motorway:
(http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n163/cyber_dav/WP_20160315_16_16_16_Pro1_zpswc9eilvu.jpg) (http://s112.photobucket.com/user/cyber_dav/media/WP_20160315_16_16_16_Pro1_zpswc9eilvu.jpg.html)
-
I can only dream of returning those figures.
I'm going to fill to the brim today as promised, having done no motorway, but not trying to be economical, i do use full throttle on a few occasions over a trip.
I'm only showing a disappointing average of 39mpg, so i expect to see less with a brim to brim, i'm hoping to see a reduced error having done little high top speed driving. The manual car i had was around 41-43mpg on the average but i never bothered with a brim to brim with the car.
After that the next time i fill up will be next month when i tow.
-
I checked the ' real time' consumption figures occasionally (without trying to get too distracted!). Around town at 30MPH in 4th I'd get around 60 MPG but that would fall to around half when accelerating up to speed.
Motorway driving I'd get around 70 MPG on the flat but that changes dramatically even on seemingly slight inclines. I drive around the North west ( Merseyside and Cheshire) on my commute, and the M57 / M62 is predominantly flat but with some variation along the way.
Here's another screenshot down the M62 towards warrington at steady 60 in 6th down the incline - you can see the trip reading ~ 460 miles from my fill up, still a lot left in the tank.
(http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n163/cyber_dav/WP_20160315_16_15_42_Pro1_zpshyi14rjf.jpg) (http://s112.photobucket.com/user/cyber_dav/media/WP_20160315_16_15_42_Pro1_zpshyi14rjf.jpg.html)
Consumption is steady at around 55-60 but nudge over 65 MPH and the economy falls away. I must clean the car soon too!
Economy figures this morning:
(http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n163/cyber_dav/WP_20160316_07_11_21_Pro1_zpssdjzvuaw.jpg) (http://s112.photobucket.com/user/cyber_dav/media/WP_20160316_07_11_21_Pro1_zpssdjzvuaw.jpg.html)
-
I must clean the car soon too!
There's your problem then - aerodynamics. ;D ;D
-
I'm sure that aerodynamics has a lot to do with it. But (as I've said before), I cant help feeling that there's something in the software which increases fuel usage deliberately above 70 as if to penalise you for going above the national limit. Driving at a steady 70 by the clock is fine, set it to 70 via a sat-nav (indicates 72-73), the fuel consumption falls off a cliff! Its not exponential as you would expect from aerodynamic forces alone.
Alan
-
The max torque for the 175 is at 2000 rpm, so stick to that and i believe you will see your best mpg at higher speeds?
The 150ps has a max torque from 1800 up to around 2600, not sure about that last figure, but you get the idea it has a flat torque curve.
It appears there is a large consumption penalty for the extra 25ps.
Torque upto 1500 rpm is exactly the same for both engines, after that the 175 leaves the 150 behind.
Filled up again today brim to brim.
Average was 38.9 mpg, actual 36.52 mpg, so around 2.4 gal optimistic.
My last test was speeds up to 80 mph with an error of around 2.5 mpg.
So solo all i'll do is subtract 2.5 mpg of the average reading.
-
The max torque for the 175 is at 2000 rpm, so stick to that and i believe you will see your best mpg at higher speeds?
The 150ps has a max torque from 1800 up to around 2600, not sure about that last figure, but you get the idea it has a flat torque curve.
It appears there is a large consumption penalty for the extra 25ps.
Torque upto 1500 rpm is exactly the same for both engines, after that the 175 leaves the 150 behind.
I fully agree with your suspicions. Both my 150ps CX5's are / were very unforgiving at low revs. The diesel Seat Alhambra's I'd had previously could chug along in high gears at low speeds and be virtually impossible to stall, but once the revs drop in gear on the CX's they almost 'kangaroo' and jerk.
I sold my caravan a couple of years ago so have never towed using my CX's but I suspect they wouldn't tow well, especially from a standing start. But for my purposes now they are fabulous, if they just tweaked the satnav and infotainment they'd be perfect.
-
I've never towed with the 150ps, but the 175 is a stonking tow car, the manual car i had would tow 1565 kg as low as 1250 rpm, but was happier at 1500rpm.
Solo i had it down below 1250 at times on the flat.
I noticed with the manual car that the change gear indicator would ask for a higher gear well below 2K usually around 1700 rpm.
The auto is completely different it often goes to 2K or above revs between changes, something the manual never asked for, which is why i believe it uses more fuel, along the the auto box losses.
I assumed the 150 ps with the same torque upto 1500 rpm would also be an excellent towcar.
-
I'm new to the forum and have read this thread with interest. I'm currently in a CX-3 with the 1.5 diesel, AWD and auto. I have quite a demanding drive to and from work which goes over the hills from the Peak District to Manchester - 23 miles each way and I get about 42. The trouble is, this car is proving too small so I'm contemplating a CX-5 AWD diesel 175 auto.
If I could get approaching 40, I'd find that very acceptable given my current average (the published combined is 54!). What I also enjoyed when I had a test drive was the excellent pulling power and the grown up suspension. I have had a succession of RAV4s and going to the CX-3 was probably what I expected but that car has Mazda 2 running gear and it shows. The suspension is way too soft for my liking.
-
Honest john apperas to give mpg figures around what i had and get, and what car also gives one model with which you can adjust driving style etc, both are worth checking out.
-
Honest john apperas to give mpg figures around what i had and get, and what car also gives one model with which you can adjust driving style etc, both are worth checking out.
Any regrets with your CX-5? That's the one I would get.
-
No regrets its a good car, only the entertainment and nav bugs are the main issues, having said that Mazda cars do appear to have more problems that other jap cars i've had.
-
No regrets its a good car, only the entertainment and nav bugs are the main issues, having said that Mazda cars do appear to have more problems that other jap cars i've had.
Have you got the latest software? Mine has been done a couple of weeks ago and its fine now.
-
No regrets its a good car, only the entertainment and nav bugs are the main issues, having said that Mazda cars do appear to have more problems that other jap cars i've had.
Have you got the latest software? Mine has been done a couple of weeks ago and its fine now.
I've installed 511, but not 512 as it offeres nothing for me. My BT problems are now resolved since the BT module was replaced.
-
No regrets its a good car, only the entertainment and nav bugs are the main issues, having said that Mazda cars do appear to have more problems that other jap cars i've had.
Have you got the latest software? Mine has been done a couple of weeks ago and its fine now.
I've installed 511, but not 512 as it offeres nothing for me. My BT problems are now resolved since the BT module was replaced.
Your satnav runs BT does it?
-
Please don't start corrupting this topic entitled Fuel Consumption with postings about Sat Nav versions. There are other topics covering this.
(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j124/willpower128/Emos/620044001173394813.gif)
-
Hiya all, I'm posting in the correct thread after posting in oil levels, it's to do with the top grade fuel versus supermarket fuel, my plan last Thursday was to drive 380 miles on a full tank of asda petrol and see if it was much different to shell v power. Anyway I normally use v power, so when the day came I realised I still had over half a tank of v power, so I just topped up with 29 ltrs of asda fuel, didn't reset avg consumption. Well the asda fuel was 99.7 a litre, at bridge of dee aberdeen, when I needed to refuel on the m6, I put in BP ultimate it was £1.25+ a litre, and the avg comp was still reading 38mpg at the time, so at £1.12 a gallon dearer meaning you can get a extra litre of the supermarket fuel it kind of negates any milage bonus of using the dearer fuel. Obviously motorway forecourt prices are the dearest but sometimes people do have to use them. I'm no longer going to mess or experiment, one thing I have realised having this car for near on 4 years is how good the consumption is up to 70 mph, but any faster it dips really quickly.
-
Please don't start corrupting this topic entitled Fuel Consumption with postings about Sat Nav versions. There are other topics covering this.
(http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j124/willpower128/Emos/620044001173394813.gif)
Takin my shirt off over here boss.
point taken.
-
Hiya all, I'm posting in the correct thread after posting in oil levels, it's to do with the top grade fuel versus supermarket fuel, my plan last Thursday was to drive 380 miles on a full tank of asda petrol and see if it was much different to shell v power. Anyway I normally use v power, so when the day came I realised I still had over half a tank of v power, so I just topped up with 29 ltrs of asda fuel, didn't reset avg consumption. Well the asda fuel was 99.7 a litre, at bridge of dee aberdeen, when I needed to refuel on the m6, I put in BP ultimate it was £1.25+ a litre, and the avg comp was still reading 38mpg at the time, so at £1.12 a gallon dearer meaning you can get a extra litre of the supermarket fuel it kind of negates any milage bonus of using the dearer fuel. Obviously motorway forecourt prices are the dearest but sometimes people do have to use them. I'm no longer going to mess or experiment, one thing I have realised having this car for near on 4 years is how good the consumption is up to 70 mph, but any faster it dips really quickly.
It's easy to run away with the idea that high grade fuel is all about mileage but for me that is only a bonus. The main reason I use it is because of the benefits in keeping the injectors clean, the EGR and the cat. Now see, you've got me in trouble so to keep the thread on topic I would summarise by saying it acceptable to expect other benefits than reduced consumption.
-
I agree anchor, I use it for the same reason now, checked out shell v power on website, 25% more anti friction additive now in the v power range over the old V power range
-
Latest data after a couple of weeks on one tankful. I had 661.6 miles on the trip, and the pump took 50.38 litres, 11.03 gallons.
According to my calculations I got 59.96 MPG on this, but the readout gave me 63.9 MPG.
Either the computer is flawed, or the odometer was 43.21 miles short!
-
Hi
I am new to the forum and a recent owner of a 2013 CX-5 2.2l sports nav from a approved showroom.
I have had the vehicle for almost 4 weeks now and had been driving it with much care.
I am only getting a economy of 43.8 mpg after much careful driving clocking around 1300 miles. 80% of the driving was on motor way keeping the speed between 70~ 80 mph
I just want to check whether I am unlucky to have picked a used car which gives much less mpg than what is advertised. is there any one out there who is getting around 50~60mpg ???
-
Welcome hazzy - I usually get 40mpg in my 175ps, currently it's reading 43mpg but that's unusually high so I suspect your 43.8mpg is about all you can expect.
Those figures are okay for a mid-large SUV 2.2 diesel but nothing like the claimed Mazda figures.
-
I Usually get around 40-43 from an auto 175 but i find it can be substantially improved if you only do 50-60 mph. if you do 70 mph plus then it uses disproportionately more ,probably down to the aerodynamics as it is very high.
-
With the warmer weather my read out is around 42.5mpg, less the error makes it 40mpg.
I have had the read out as low as around 38mpg, so less the error makes it poor IMO at 35.5mpg.
Towing i recently got a read out of around 27.5mpg, less the error makes it 25mpg.
My last 175 manual returned around 41 to 43mpg locally, less the 2.5mpg error.
Twice i had 55mpg on a run off motorways.
And twice had a read out off 34 mpg towing, so still over 30mpg which i think is good.
-
Thanks for the replies guys. 55mpg sounds good Is that when you were almost between 50 to 60. Yes I have noticed the mpg goes up between 50 to 60
-
Update on mine; 43.5MPG true figure after 17k miles (trip computer average is 45.5, so still running at +2MPG above true). That compares with an overall average of 41MPG on my previous one (same model) over a 70k mile life.
Alan
-
Thanks for the replies guys. 55mpg sounds good Is that when you were almost between 50 to 60. Yes I have noticed the mpg goes up between 50 to 60
Probably around 50mph or less, i can't remember but it was a steady relaxing drive in summer. And more importantly there was no DPF burn.
I had a burn today, read out is now down to 38mpg.
-
I've just done a trip from Dundee to Inverness then down to Edinburgh. Average mpg was 43.2. Granted much of the A9 is covered by average speed cameras, but there are a few stretches of dual carriageway and motorway too a's well a's some town driving. Not bad for a petrol ...
-
One week old 2WD 150ps (about 350 miles on the clock) and the computer is averaging around 46mpg just now, which I'm reasonably happy with. Mixed motorway and rural/urban driving. Of course the real test is measuring a few tankfuls over a trip distance and I'll do that in due course but in the meantime I'm hoping to ease the computer average up as the car runs in better over the coming weeks and months.
-
Is there any chance we could plug ourselves in the OBDII port read the data and plot the consumption then plot the actual consumption based on refueling ? or has anybody attempted this ?
-
It's perfectly doable but what do you want to see?
-
Plots of the actual consumption. I have noticed that there seem to be a few disparities between the readings and the actual fuel used and I am curious to see what's the actual difference ! (sorry I like plots ;) ).
-
Plots of the actual consumption. I have noticed that there seem to be a few disparities between the readings and the actual fuel used and I am curious to see what's the actual difference ! (sorry I like plots ;) ).
Indeed. There seems to be about an 8% disparity. To add to the plot I'd be interested to know how accurate the odemeter is given the speedometer is about 10% out. And if the Odemeter uses software to calculate miles travelled then maybe the brim test is faulty as the mileage reading is flawed!
-
Indeed. There seems to be about an 8% disparity. To add to the plot I'd be interested to know how accurate the odemeter is given the speedometer is about 10% out. And if the Odemeter uses software to calculate miles travelled then maybe the brim test is faulty as the mileage reading is flawed!
I've a feeling that speedometers are allowed to be out up to a limit - but only in one direction! They're allowed to read higher than actual speed but never lower. That way a speeding motorist can't ever blame his car manufacturer. Up to 10% faster seems to be quite common in various cars when I've measured using GPS.
Odometers on the other hand I think have to pretty accurate - but not sure what the actual regulations are...
-
Just returned from an 2,280km round trip pulling a caravan. I'd hesitate a guess that somewhat over 99% of the trip was done on motorways (French) with Cruise Control used almost non-stop other than at Toll booths etc but even here, having a t-card meant we were sailing through at close to 30kmh. The outward journey of 1,140km was done during the time of the recent French strikes meaning that I couldn't be 100% sure that fuel (Diesel) was always going to be available and as a consequence topped up the tank on more occasions than was absolutely necessary just to be sure. Using the brim-to-brim method it works out that the fuel consumption works out at 10.6 litres/100km which considering that I had 1200kg of Caravan in tow I am more than pleased with. Non towing figures aren't really that much less.
Only hick-up and I mention it only in passing and without the intention of inviting further discussion, was that the tyre pressure warning light illuminated approx 200km into the journey. Upon checking the tyre pressures this turned out to be a false alarm with the light going out after an engine restart. Darn annoying all the same but I'm thankful that at least the dreaded diluted oil light didn't illuminated. Also never once noticed (smell) the DPF regeneration which must have happened several times which is probably down to the driving at motorway speeds etc.
-
Using the brim-to-brim method it works out that the fuel consumption works out at 10.6 litres/100km which considering that I had 1200kg of Caravan in tow I am more than pleased with. Non towing figures aren't really that much less.
In old-fashioned imperial measurements, that works out to be about 26.7MPG. I've no idea whether that's good for towing a caravan or not I'm afraid.
-
One week old 2WD 150ps (about 350 miles on the clock) and the computer is averaging around 46mpg just now, which I'm reasonably happy with. Mixed motorway and rural/urban driving.
6 weeks in and my average has improved to about 48-48.5 MPG on the computer. I'll be doing a proper tank measured reading in due course.
-
Using the brim-to-brim method it works out that the fuel consumption works out at 10.6 litres/100km which considering that I had 1200kg of Caravan in tow I am more than pleased with. Non towing figures aren't really that much less.
In old-fashioned imperial measurements, that works out to be about 26.7MPG. I've no idea whether that's good for towing a caravan or not I'm afraid.
Well its better than my 22.5 mpg towing this week! Which frankly I think is poor that's the true figure not the computer.
-
I have the 150PS 65-plate Sport Nav. My commute is Bedford to Slough, mostly on M1, M25 and M4(Sometimes I come off at Maple Cross and cut through Denham/Iver to avoid traffic). I'm getting high 50s to low 60s on a run according to the computer. Average speed according to the car is around 30-40mph, but there are times when I can get up to 70mph. I'm using the speed limiter to ensure that I'm not speeding through the numerous cameras on the route!
Overall, I'm impressed with the performance and efficiency of the vehicle.
-
It shows what reduced body weight and speeds can do, and no AWD or auto losses.
On a recent motorway trip i managed just over 40mpg on the computer, so actual around 38mpg. Speeds upto 90mph but mainly at around a boring 70mph (actual 66mph).
I have never used the speed limiter, does it employ braking for downhill, or is it like the CC which can exceed the set speed?
-
.........or is it like the CC which can exceed the set speed?
From this can we assume that for you CC isn't living up to what was expected of it? If so, then I'm a bit surprised because as I stated in another post, the CC on the CX-5 (Auto) is probably one of my favourite aspects and soooooo much better than the CC fitted to my now ex VW Touran. Even when pulling the caravan by setting CC to 100km/h the set speed is maintained continuously whether it be up or downhill.
-
It shows what reduced body weight and speeds can do, and no AWD or auto losses.
On a recent motorway trip i managed just over 40mpg on the computer, so actual around 38mpg. Speeds upto 90mph but mainly at around a boring 70mph (actual 66mph).
I have never used the speed limiter, does it employ braking for downhill, or is it like the CC which can exceed the set speed?
From an auto point of view - my last car was a Peugeot 508 1.6 eHDi with the EGC(a 6 speed manual with an auto function), and that allowed the car to be moving at anything up to 5mph with the engine on stop.
It doesn't employ braking for downhill, but it will start beeping at you once you've gone over the speed limit. I find using the speed limiter helps with fuel economy as you tend to use little fuel to maintain a constant speed, rather than constantly accelerating/decelarting/accelerating/decelerating which is more inefficient.
-
I have had my car just over 3 weeks now and have done just over 600 miles, taking it easy and using mainly country and A roads.
According to the computer I am averaging 40.7 mpg at present....fuel consumption doesn't worry me at all, but i have to admit,I am quite impressed with that!
-
Glad you're happy with your fuel consumption, but as pretty much everybody on this forum has found out, the computer is set to trick you, if it reads 40mpg, you're probably only actually getting around 36 - 37 mpg, as it typically is around 10% out, the only way to prove this is to measure a fill up brim to brim, as a good number of us have to do if we need to record mileage accurately for business purposes.
It makes me wonder whether Mazda may have also done a "VW" when it comes to emissions... :-\ :-\ :-\..??
No, perish the thought... :o :o
-
Glad you're happy with your fuel consumption, but as pretty much everybody on this forum has found out, the computer is set to trick you, if it reads 40mpg, you're probably only actually getting around 36 - 37 mpg, as it typically is around 10% out, the only way to prove this is to measure a fill up brim to brim, as a good number of us have to do if we need to record mileage accurately for business purposes.
It makes me wonder whether Mazda may have also done a "VW" when it comes to emissions... :-\ :-\ :-\..??
No, perish the thought... :o :o
In my opinion, the manufacturers are as bad as each other....just that VW were first to get caught! Likewise the computer read outs....I've had various makes and they are all somewhat optimistic.
-
Recently purchased a 2.0 Sport CX-5 with about 64k miles on it. Was always going for petrol as we only do 4k or so miles a year.
First refill and it did 33mpg on a proper brim-to-brim basis. I think a lot of the recordings on this thread are based on the trip computer. I know our old Focus was inaccurate by 10-15% so haven't paid much attention to the CX-5 one.
That tank was for Shell V Power (Nitro+?) so not sure if there's any performance or economy benefits to be had but plan is to keep this car for 4 years or more so probably will stick with it for the engine protection value anyway.
I would say at this stage just about satisfied with 33mpg. I would say 3/5ths of that tank was on longer journeys, including motorway use of 40-50 miles each. The rest being shorter town trips between 2-7 miles a time. At a guess it was perhaps doing 36mpg on the longer trips and probably dropping into 28-29mpg on the town trips.
As others have observed I think the car could do very well in the 50-70mph range but any quicker and it may drop off quite rapidly. Probably the aerodynamics being the main issue here.
So, yes, not too bad but not spectacular either. I guess it probably did better than the other car we were considering, the 2.0 petrol Honda CRV.
Longer trip coming up at Christmas so will report back.
-
Rab,
The 2.0 petrol is the only one (according to Honest John's real MPG campaign) to get anywhere near its "official" figures at 86% as opposed to 70-78% for the diesel variants. Having said that, 33MPG does sound a bit low, though, they reckon around 40 average.
Alan
-
I have had mine for four and a half months, done 2100 miles and according to the trip computer have averaged 39.8 mpg (haven't bothered doing it manually!) mainly A and country roads with say around 20% of town driving.
-
Thanks for your comments there. I guess if the trip computer is over estimating by 10% then I'm not too far off given the larger proportion of town driving. Another small factor is the iStop wasn't functioning for about half of this first tank. It has then been working quite well since. A bit mysterious that but seems fine now. I wonder whether the battery was depleted having been on a forecourt for perhaps 6 weeks or more and only doing short test drives.
Anyway I'll try and keep my results up to date on here.
Thanks
Rob
-
Have had mine for 55 months still reading 37.6, even with a 10% discrepancy it still beats the 1.6 petrol Mazda 3 I had. That's the difference between sky activ engines and predecessor. Plus difference in size of the two cars.
-
2nd refill and this time covered around 290 mile and gave 34mpg on a brim-to-brim basis, up from 33 mpg on the first tank. Slight improvement due to 1 long trip to Devon. Computer indicated 37.2mpg average for the tank so yes computer over estimates by around 9-10% it seems.
The 3rd tank is currently showing on the computer 39.5mpg for around 250 miles so far as majority on the return leg from Devon. So could be 36mpg in reality but will come down from that as we will end up using the car round town for the rest of the tank.
So I think it's fair to say the car does 36-37mpg out on the open road and I suspect does drop from that significantly if you start going 75-80mph+. Round town it's probably doing 30mpg depending on just how short the trip is.
So actually overall pretty pleased and car's giving about the mpg I had expected I suppose. It's not bad at all for 2.0 petrol in what is a good sized family car.
-
At 30K miles, my figures are:-
Average consumption according to trip computer - 45.67 MPG
Actual consumption based on measured fuel vs mileage - 43.45 MPG
That's 68 full tank fills (all except 2 being Shell V+ diesel) totalling £3,835.88...
13p/mile average fuel cost
Alan
-
Mine is an auto and I get around 42 in winter and 44 in summer but to be fair I do mainly long runs. I find that the calculated figure is very close to the computer reading. If I done more short runs or traffic driving then maybe the computer would be shown to be more optimistic.
-
Had my CX-5 for 5 months now, I do a lot of town driving so my mpg is between 29-32 mpg I do not mind this as I didnt expect amazing mpg with a great bit auto awd motor, I have done a couple of long runs but with the car packed heavily and 5 in the car I managed 38mpg which again is quite acceptable I love the car and certainly wont be changing it, its done 16,000 miles now so may loosen up a bit more and maybe get some extra miles between fill ups, not counting on it though
-
Hi All
I picked up my new CX5 Sport Nav 2.2 175PS D Auto last Friday and so far I have done about 175 miles (mixed motoring) and I have enjoyed every mile. So far, the computer is quoting 34 mpg. Now I appreciate there is an element of settling in to do, but was just curious to how long before I will see any improvement in fuel consumption.
Did you all get the same sort of figures as I am getting and what sort of improvements did you get after your settling in process.
Ottoman
-
Initially, yes. It will improve, but don't expect the figures quoted in the brochures. Mazda told me, when I had my first one, that they don't consider it run in until 12.5k miles. Mines a manual, not an auto, and my overall average is about 43/44mpg after 30k miles. However, I've also used Shell Vpower diesel since the start. I believe it does make a difference. I would also describe my driving style as "relaxed", I try to use the torque rather than the power to make progress.
Alan
-
Thanks Alan.
Yes I have heard from lots of reports that the Mazda figures are a little ambitious. I bought it knowing that it's not going to be the most economic vehicle, especially with it being an auto. I'm hoping it will return high thirties and anymore is a bonus.
Ottoman
-
the Mazda figures are a little ambitious.
;D ;D ::)
Seriously, though, give the Vpower fuel a try. I know it's generally about 10p/litre more than the standard Shell diesel (and quite a bit more than supermarkets). The thing is, it works out about the same in terms of cost per mile, but extends the tank range (that I find useful). I do think it runs better as well.
Alan
-
Thanks Alan, i'll give it a go.
-
Pleasantly surprised to not find the CX5 in this list!
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/real-mpg/revealed-the-10-worst-cars-for-real-mpg-uk/ (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/real-mpg/revealed-the-10-worst-cars-for-real-mpg-uk/)
-
My car has now clocked 1000 miles so I decided to do a brim to brim check and got 38.5mpg over a variety of driving.
The salesman has told me that after about 3000 miles I should hit the heights of 40-45 mpg. Do you think he is being a bit ambitious.
Ottoman
-
They do improve with mileage but assuming the same sort of driving you may hit 40, but a bit more on light cruising at 50-60.
-
Had a remap on mine for almost 2 months now, like for like driving has has increased by 2 mpg around town and on a journey covering over 650 miles I managed 3 mpg increase, of course not everyone likes remaps but I have always been a fan as long as its not tuned to destroy itself.
-
Unavoidably, for the past few weeks my driving has been restricted to a mixture of town, countryside and the odd few kilometres on dual carriages - but no motorways. Over this period the consumption appears either to be pretty much constant or the computer is broken lol. Anyway, in my 2.2 AWD Auto I'm averaging out 7 litres/100km or 40.35mpg.
-
I had a run down to Cornwall for the Easter break and I did a brim to brim check of the journey down there. With careful driving and at speeds not going over 75mph , I managed 44mpg but it did feel a very long journey.
I did an overall check when I got back home and over the whole trip I managed 38mpg. This included going up and down those long steep hills and also not being as conservative on the way back.
I am guessing these are common numbers.
Ottoman
-
I had a run down to Cornwall for the Easter break and I did a brim to brim check of the journey down there. With careful driving and at speeds not going over 75mph , I managed 44mpg but it did feel a very long journey.
I did an overall check when I got back home and over the whole trip I managed 38mpg. This included going up and down those long steep hills and also not being as conservative on the way back.
I am guessing these are common numbers.
Ottoman
I got 39.8 and mine has a remap, same as you was pretty conservative for the first half of my journey but the rest I got bored and made progress a little better, being the 2.2 AWD isn't particularly economical
-
Just had a week in Cornwall and according to the trip I averaged 43.1 mpg going down there and 40.7 mpg coming back....313 miles each way (2016 petrol) quite pleased with that.
-
43.1 mpg going down there and 40.7 mpg coming back
That's the difference between going downhill and uphill, then... ::)
-
I found 2 reports online about real world NOx and CO2 for diesel. Both published by ICCT.
These gave Mazda a typical CO2 of about 40% above the official data. Among the worst tested.
At least the NOx is relatively good.
-
I was chatting with the sales staff in my local dealer on Friday and allegedly there are plans for world wide legislation to make manufacturers actually do real life mpg readings. Exactly what is involved I can't say, or what body would be overseeing the results. But it would mean testing a car as it would be driven on the road. Not stripped down on a carefully prepared track.
That would prove interesting.
-
Interesting. I also had an X-Trail from 2003-6 - the earliest variant with the Renault diesel engine. I was averaging 41-2 MPG and the front tyres did 45000 before being changed. Never did change the rears - it went back to the lease company at 80000. At 32000 on the CX5, the N/S/F is approaching the wear indicator, but the others aren't too bad.
Not happy with the fuel consumption of the CX5, though. Their real world figures have a much larger variation to the official ones than most other marques. And I still find it hard to believe that they are allowed to test the 150HP version and publish those figures for the 175HP as well...
Alan
I have a CX5 Sport nav Auto 2017 AWD and is returning around 38MPG around town . Its done 3000 miles my old 64 plate done about 35MPG that always had 5W30 oil on the 3 oil changes. but my !7 plate is running on 0W 30 and with nitrogen in the tyres not Air from new. makes a bit of a difference .
-
I check my fuel consumption every 700 miles or so dividing distance travelled by diesel used.
Our 2015 model CX-5 (175hp diesel auto with AWD) averaged about 39 mpg over three years with a best figure of 44 mpg. We try to avoid too many short trips.
However its replacement, a late 2017 car with the same spec, has just done 2000 miles averaging 44 mpg. It topped 46 mpg on one leg and managed a true 50 mpg over a 100 mile trip in the Scottish Highlands.
I understand that a higher ambient temperature helps but WHY is the new model so much better? Has anything changed?
In comparison, our '65 reg Mazda 6 tourer, similar, but without AWD, has averaged 45.5 mpg over its life with a best figure of 51 mpg. It topped 60 mpg over 80 miles on the M61/M62 once, when traffic/roadworks kept speeds between 50 and 60 mph.
-
Six months since we bought it new . Today finally managed a good long run with the cx5 AWD sport nav. Aberdeen to Lairg and back. There was a bit of extra driving around Lairg, so around 310 miles return journey.
Cx5 performed brilliantly. Very comfortable. The A96 from Aberdeen- Inverness can be a sod of a drive, but the car got a good blow out with bursts of overtaking acceleration while getting past the Sunday driving fraternity and got 48.5mpg. Very happy with that as its been returning 38mpg from the 45min commute in to Aberdeen city centre five days a week, so was itching to find how much on a long drive.
-
Zero the trip computer after each fill up and check it by calculation. The trip computer works with a moving average that will reflect your most recent driving. It can be misleading.
-
Having driven 3 x 2.0 Litre 6 speed MX-5's my average was between 45-49MPG on intermediate and long runs which to me wasn't bad at all especially when some MX5 members were getting 29 MPG or ion most cases 35-40MPG which to me is down to individual driver foot control on the accelerator.
With the Mazda 3Coupe 2.2 Skyactiv Diesel i could achieve well into the 70MPG mark on a long run whereas most drivers seem to be hard pushed to get into the 50's and this was borne out when I refilled the fuel tank.
The 3 CX-5's I have driven to date I can, according to the computer readouts achieve anywhere between 52 to 66.2 MPG and again this is borne out by the refills of the fuel tank in which deducting around 3MPG from the indicated to actual used fuel figure means that I am getting really good MPG even from half a barn door going through the air.
My style of driving has been honed through years of motoring and regular testing when employed by the Police, my conclusion is that most drivers nowadays are accelerating close to the manufacturers 0 to 60 times, continue to keep their foot on the accelerator when up to cruising speed which will normally be in excess of the posted limit and push it down a bit further when going up hill to maintain momentum and/or when overtaking all of which will consume more fuel. When approaching traffic lights they keep the speed up and knock it off last second through heavy braking and then have to wait idling the engine until the lights go green before taking off as though in a F1 Grand Prix until they hit the next set, and so on and so forth.
I have done all the above when in my youth and especially when in Hillclimb and speed events all over the country in my much modified Sunbeam Imp Sport ( laugh as you may she was able to beat many bigger engined cars on a number of circuits and Hills timewise :) :)
Driving HGV1 Artic's has shown me that nowadays you gain little in the way of time going anywhere in the UK and have lost count of the number of cars that hammer past me on Motorways at least 5 times on some of the longer journeys I make in the order of 200+ miles each way at a mind blowing 56MPH.
Having spoken to a number of Transport Managers, all informed me that when HGV's were first limited to 56MPH the journey times from Birmingham to Southampton by a speed limited vehicle were 10 minutes extra, the saving was made on fuel at 1 gallon each way saved per vehicle and at 100 vehicles a day that was a big saving over the year.
Anyway my point for blathering on, accelerate smoothly not quickly, look ahead to see what traffic is doing and bring speed down slowly without coming to a grinding halt, anticipate what inclines are before you and gain momentum going down without overdoing the accelerator and then let your foot slowly off the accelerator going up with the rub off of speed down a few MPH allowing you to get over the rise. Do these few things and watch your fuel go further. The gauge in the CX-5 is show MPG is something that I thought I'd never use ..How wrong was I as it's a competition to see how far over to the right I can keep it for the longest time.
-
My old 2014 CX5 Sport Nav Petrol used to average 37-39 Mpg round town and 43-48Mpg on a run. I am use to driving rotaries so I have a heavy right foot ;D
Have any of you used this website? http://www.fuelly.com/car/mazda/cx-5
I keep track of my RX8 MPG and cry every time I update my mileage lol :)
Admin Note : Please read this http://mazdacx5forums.co.uk/index.php?topic=64.0. Specifically post dated 29/9/2015 Thanks :)
-
I've had three CX5s, and on every one have averaged 55 to 60 MPG.
My latest model is the first I've towed with, I recently went up to the lakes, and was pleased with the towing figures, just over 30 MPG with the van on the back.
For this I switched to BP Ultimate diesel, but have noticed an improvement on MPG driving without the van, about 4 MPG better.
-
are all CX5 engines the same?
Driving fairly hard I reckon my true average over 12,000 miles is no more than 35 mpg.
I have just been out on a fairly short run and noticed that my consumption seemed very low.
On a flat road at 30 mph in 4th gear I was only seeing 32 mpg.Figures
Normally I would expect to see over 50 mpg at that speed.
Any explanations?
figures I gave were indicated current values.
I have since given it a serious blast - not so difficult when the TT course is nearby.
At the same conditions the reading was 63 mpg.
I don't know how it works for people who always drive for economy.
Unfortunately we cannot get premium diesel here, so I am going to have to invest in some additives.
-
If you are going off the trip computer, don’t be misled by it. Do tank to tank calculations for accurate results. The trip computer needs resetting at every fill up and it will be drastically effected if a regen takes place.
-
Maybe it's just me but I just can't get my head around folks obsession with the mpg of a car that they already own. Once you've chosen and then bought the thing there's no getting round the fact that if you want/need to use it you'll have to put fuel in it. Surely by that stage whatever mpg it achieves is irrelevant other than if/when a fault occurs and the on-board average mpg is plenty accurate enough to tell you that ???
-
Most I have had from my 2.2 AWD 175 auto is 34 mpg out on the motorway at a steady 70. But that only drops to 33 around town, being as aerodynamic as a brick I suppose that's not too bad
-
I have had my 14 plate 175 Nav Sport for just over one year. During that time I used supermarket fuel and my Fully app gave my yearly average as 36 mpg. I then used BP standard diesel and used Redex for two refuels to clean the injectors. I have had a further three refuel since using the addatives and my average is up to 41 mpg. Over the next two months I have a number of long distance runs to make so it will be interesting to see how the mpg progresses.
-
Petrol 2.0 here.
So far fueled once and onboard computer shows average 39.2 for this trip (approximately 50/50 split of short town trips and motorway runs to the airport. Getting close to 1.4 of a tank left, so second fueling is soon-ish and I will calculate the real mpg then.
Would be interesting to know how good or bad it is. My previous car was always an optimistic one showing around 64mpg while in reality it was 51-52.
-
2.0 petrol auto i am getting 30.4 mpg according to trip computer, i do a bit of overtaking on country road commute 6 miles each way and drive a bit fast...so thats should be the worst of it.
-
The satnav mph display is usually around 5% less than the car mph display. Given that the car works out average fuel consumption using the distance covered/gallons used, if the distance covered figure is out by 5% does that mean that the average calculated is also out by 5%?
Has anyone compared the cars odometer/milometer to the figure on a satnav?
I'll have a go next time I travel any distance in my CX5.
-
proper fuelling and calculation:
Trip computer showed 38.4 mpg
manual calculations gave me 38.6 mpg
Out of 460 miles half was done in the town and half on motorways.
P.S. My previous car being smaller had bigger fuel tank ;D
-
More driving and more calculations.
Mixed driving (50% town. 50% motorway) gives results in around 36-37mpg (brink to bring calculations)
Motorway driving results in 41-42mpg
Tip computer always gives a difference of around +2mpg comparing to bring to brink calculations.
-
I haven’t posted for quite a while as I am so pleased with ‘Bussy’ a 2 WD Auto CX5, with Diesel engine, as it is the first auto we have had I am mightily impressed with the fuel consumption in the 15000+ miles she has done .
Average is 52 mpg with occasional foray into the low 60’s on long runs, this I put down to years of driving experience and a multitude of courses I made during my professional career which further assisted this end.
I do not try the manufacturers 0-60 times when accelerating nor do I carry out ‘traffic light’ Grand Prix stop starts, I occasionally give her nibs a full boost but only when warmed up fully and just enough to clear her throat.
Many who post on here need to look at their driving habits and re-adjust them, seen too many failed F1 stars behind the wheel on the roads who drive fast and use fuel faster.
Anyone who’d like to take me up on the point, please feel free to do so.
Happy driving.
-
I haven’t posted for quite a while as I am so pleased with ‘Bussy’ a 2 WD Auto CX5, with Diesel engine, as it is the first auto we have had I am mightily impressed with the fuel consumption in the 15000+ miles she has done .
Average is 52 mpg with occasional foray into the low 60’s on long runs, this I put down to years of driving experience and a multitude of courses I made during my professional career which further assisted this end.
I do not try the manufacturers 0-60 times when accelerating nor do I carry out ‘traffic light’ Grand Prix stop starts, I occasionally give her nibs a full boost but only when warmed up fully and just enough to clear her throat.
Many who post on here need to look at their driving habits and re-adjust them, seen too many failed F1 stars behind the wheel on the roads who drive fast and use fuel faster.
Anyone who’d like to take me up on the point, please feel free to do so.
Happy driving.
It's hard to imagine how life could get anymore exciting than that :P
-
Around town driving I'm averaging 36mpg but's getting better every time I fill up.
I have noticed 40mph in 4th the average real time mpg reading is in the high 50's.
-
Update. While on along run on single carriageway A & B roads I zeroed the trip and managed 45mpg. Not too shabby
-
I have reported several times already on my terrible fuel consumption.
My mileage is very low which obviously doesn't help.
I recently met a lady with a 2018 CX5 with as near as possible the same spec as mine. Sport AWD diesel.
Her average over 33,000 miles was 48.5.
Mine over 16,000 miles is 36.1.indicated (actual 35.6)
This is mostly driving on the same roads so should be somewhere near the same.
I have checked many times and on a flat road at 40 mph i can get 50-60 mpg but no more. The slightest hill drops into the 20s.
Incidentally the original Toyo tyres started cracking up after 5 years so had to be replaced.
-
I have reported several times already on my terrible fuel consumption.
My mileage is very low which obviously doesn't help.
I recently met a lady with a 2018 CX5 with as near as possible the same spec as mine. Sport AWD diesel.
Her average over 33,000 miles was 48.5.
Mine over 16,000 miles is 36.1.indicated (actual 35.6)
This is mostly driving on the same roads so should be somewhere near the same.
I have checked many times and on a flat road at 40 mph i can get 50-60 mpg but no more. The slightest hill drops into the 20s.
48mpg is good for an AWD 2.2. Mazda only claim low 40's for an all AWD 2.2 and it's computer predicted not real world figures so it will be less. They claim 41mpg urban for my 2.0L 2WD on average around town I get 38ish on a run I can manage 45. I agree when a hill appears the mpg goes through the floor I find the gearing slightly high so it kills my average mpg. I also find the radar doesn't help.
-
My 21 plate Gt petrol auto 2.5 AWD only does 28 mpg but i am only doing short 6 mile journeys at moment also heavy on the pedal but i still love my car, so much so i have now bought it out of its pcp agreement so its all mine now ;D
-
Hi all.
I will be picking up my new 2.5 GT sport 1st of June and am interested in what others are getting to the gallon and under what conditions. I have not seen many posts regarding this spec.
I know we all drive different so values differ but the more people who respond the better to work out the average MPG will be appreciated.
Also, if anyone is using the CX5 2.5 for towing I would be interested in your opinions including the Mpg.
My profile shows a 2021 model as there is no way to show a 2022. can this be rectified?
Thanks in advance.
-
Well our Cx-5 is returning somewhat poor (to my mind) mpg but it seems to be slowly getting better, we were only getting about 25 / 27 mpg which just recently has improved to around 30 mpg this is mostly around town so I suppose is not to bad for its size these a real figures not from the computer. There are only 1450 miles on the clock so it will be interesting how things change with more mileage.
Petrol consumption aside it is a much improved vehicle compared to our 2014 sport nav (2.2 175bhp diesel) except the 6 speed auto box doesn't really suit the petrol engine, the gearbox performed much better with the diesel due to its low down torque, the petrol engine has none of that torque at low revs (nature of the beast really). It feels like the gearbox could do with two more gears as the gaps between ratios seem to big.