Fuel consumption

[BigAl]

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

[rmvf]

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.

[howardsathome]

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.

[BigAl]

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

[BigAl]

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.

[rmvf]

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.

[rmvf]

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.

[BigAl]

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.

[rmvf]

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.

[howardsathome]

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.

[BigAl]

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...

[howardsathome]

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.

[BigAl]

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...

[MikeTB]

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.

[BigAl]

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