Fuel consumption

[kjkillick]

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.

[DC77]

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!

[Catamong]

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...

[DC77]

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...

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. 

[RAB2000]

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.

[BigAl]

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

[DC77]

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.

[RAB2000]

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

[rmvf]

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.

[RAB2000]

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.

[BigAl]

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

[ROCKETRON]

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.

[PeteCX5]

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

[Ottoman]

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

[BigAl]

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