Fuel consumption

[Candyman]

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.

[BigAl]

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 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.

[AndyC]

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

[BigAl]

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

[AndyC]

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.

[deepeg59]

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.

[Candyman]

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.

[Scottbrook]

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!

[Catamong]

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.

[howardsathome]

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.

[BigAl]

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.

[MikeTB]

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.

[howardsathome]

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.

 

[MikeTB]

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.

[McDon]

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.