CleanMPG Reviews the 2013 Mazda CX-5

Discussion in 'Reviews' started by xcel, May 11, 2012.

  1. xcel

    xcel Guest

    [​IMG] Quite simply the most affordable and highest fuel economy compact crossover available in all of North America.

    [​IMG]Wayne Gerdes - CleanMPG - May 10, 2012

    2013 Mazda CX-5 – $20,695 to start and rated at 26/35 mpgUS city/highway.

    Mazda bet the bank on a core group of technologies it developed called SKYACTIV and expects to enter the second decade of the 21st century leading the pack in a number of areas. In developing SKYACTIV, Mazda promised more power and efficiency, lighter weight, and the affordability none of its competitors have managed to provide with similar fuel economy.

    We have been keeping close tabs on Mazda’s SKYACTIV progress and waiting patiently for the day it would finally make its way to US shores. In our first review of the 155 HP 2.0L SKYACTIV-G engine equipped 2012 Mazda 3 (CleanMPG Begins a Review of the 2012 Mazda 3i Touring 5-door with SKYACTIV Technology), the technology proved exceptionally rewarding by allowing an unexpected 65.78 mpgUS on one of our fuel economy loops. This occurred not in the warmer summer months but on the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor during January... and the 3i was handicapped with snow tires! Talk about stacking the deck and walking away with the winnings!

    I should also mention that the 3i reviewed above did not include the entire suite of SKYACTIV technologies available to Mazda today. Specifically, the engine's compression ratio was lower (12.0:1 vs. 13.0:1 of the CX-5) due to a packaging constraint of the intake runners and the chassis did not incorporate the latest light weight SKYACTIV components. Unbelievably, it still broke 65 mpg in mid-winter on snow tires.

    More SKYACTIV-G drivetrain detail can be found in the 2013 Mazda CX-5 and its 2.0L SKYACTIV-G report.

    Let’s dive into the details of the 2013 Mazda CX-5

    New from the ground up, the all-new 2013 CX-5 is defined by an advanced 2.0L SKYACTIV-G with either a slick shifting 6-speed manual or an all new 6-speed automatic providing good power delivery and incredible best in segment efficiency. However, the lightweight SKYACTIV chassis (at 3,208 pounds, one of the lightest in the segment) and best-in-class ride and handling creating the fun to drive experience will make it a standout. Adding to its engine and chassis prowess, a class leading interior design uses higher quality materials and a layout that will surely please owners for years to come. All of this and more is standard in the very affordable compact crossover package.

    It was just 2 years ago when any (sub)compact rated at 35 mpgUS highway without either hybridization or a diesel engine was worthy of consideration. To receive the same fuel economy from a much larger compact crossover equipped with a far more powerful yet normally aspirated 2.0L would have been unheard of! Yet here we are.

    Then there is the door busting price. While the fully loaded AWD equipped CX-5 Grand Touring with Tech package will set you back just under $30K, the base model with 6-speed MT at just $20,695 will make the competition wonder how much will have to be placed on the hood of their own offerings in the next few years just to stay competitive with the CX-5 in price!

    Better fuel economy, lower price, improved reliability and the tough to describe enjoyment while cornering just below the limits in this vehicle -- not that we would ever do that mind you ;) -- make for what can arguably be named the best crossover money can buy.

    2013 Mazda CX-5 Specifications

    The 2013 Mazda CX-5 is available in three trim levels: the Sport (as tested), the Touring, and the Grand Touring in either FWD or AWD configurations. Complete specifications, pricing, standard, and optional equipment for the CX-5 can be found within the 2013 Mazda CX-5 – Specifications page.

    2013 Mazda CX-5 Exterior

    Mazda and its "Soul of Motion"


    The all new CX-5's appearance is best described as a different approach to the compact crossover. Mazda’s "Soul of Motion" design language was inspired by nature (what isn’t these days?) and its first iteration arrived in 2010 with the SHINARI concept. While the CX-5’s 5-point grille is a dead ringer, little else was carried forward.

    The CX-5’s grille is vastly superior to the smiley face adornment of either the 2 or 3. From the top outer edges of the grille and characterizing the long hood are minor but distinct creases heading back towards the A-Pillars.

    Where the CX-5 adds a distinctiveness all its own is the outside of both hood creases where a prominently rounded cutout rolling into the profile highlights the front fender flares without actually matching the front wheel well profile.

    Bold lower cutouts for the optional fog lights add some flair but the headlight lenses seem a bit out of proportion with the “new but different” look of Mazda.

    In profile that same hood crease cutout blends into the humble beginnings of a high beltline crease that becomes more accentuated as you peer down its length into the rear tail light lenses.

    The hard plastic edged front and rear fender flares define most of the crossover segment while the swoosh highlight through doors is underwhelming. The sculpted lower sill plate character line is not so much a design highlight as a tough plastic lower body protector. I wish more vehicles had this feature in fact.

    A pretty rear end is standard.​

    Moving to the rear we find pure unadulterated Mazda -- and one of the best rear configurations in the business.

    The profile's body crease moves through the center of the rear taillight lens (just as many do today) but the curved pie shape of the parking lamp makes it unique. A standard horizontal hatch crease and upper bumper fascia are also standard fare these days. The same hard black protective cover along the sill and fender edges is installed along the lower rear bumper fascia not only giving it a tough off-road ready appearance but also providing real protection from every day scrapes and scratches far better than many competitors.

    The rear glass is angled just as sharply forward as the windscreen glass upfront is angled back. A prominent roof edge spoiler adds not just the look of speed but also helps reduce the overall aerodynamic drag coefficient to 0.33. A shark fin antennae centered at the rear of the roof adds a little something to the CX-5s presence.

    In my opinion up front the CX-5 earns a C, from the side profile a B +, and from the rear an easy A.

    2013 Mazda CX-5 Interior

    The base Sport with the 6-speed manual interior layout.​

    The all new CX-5 is far more modern than anything Mazda has provided in the past. Even the bottom trimmed Sport arrives with high quality soft interior plastics that are pleasant from both tactile and visual perspectives.

    Cloth headliner, extending sun visors, sunglasses holder -- Bright, high quality material insert across passenger side dash and high quality soft plastic surround you.
    Bright window and lock control surrounds, door handles, and nice cloth inserts -- Push button start and a well designed wiper control stalk.​

    The above is mid to high end content for a compact crossover and unavailable from any of its competitors for the $21,490 (incl D&H) as tested 2013 Mazda CX-5 Sport price.

    The tachometer, speedometer, and various user selected displays within the 3 ring instrument cluster are easy to read with large alphanumeric fonts and backlit with metered lighting.

    Plenty of front and rear seat head and leg room for 6 + footers.​

    The CX-5 arrives with a standard tilt and telescopic wheel, 40.1” of headroom and 41” of legroom. You would have to be taller than 6’6” to not find a comfortable fit within the confines of the CX-5 Sport's 6-way manually adjustable driver seat. The Touring and Grand Touring are equipped with six- or eight-way power adjustable seats.

    With an almost best-in-class 103.8 and 34.1 cu. ft. of passenger and cargo volume respectively, a rear hatch cutout that will actually swallow a single large box almost the size of the opening, what is not to like?

    Interior spaces, a solid A – and more to come.

    2013 Mazda CX-5 Price, Volume and Fuel Economy Competitive Comparison

    YearMakeModelPricePassenger Volume (cu. ft.)Cargo Volume (cu. ft.)Fuel Economy (city/highway/combined - mpgUS)
    2013MazdaCX-5$20,695 - $28,295103.834.126/35/29 (at best)

    2012ChevroletEquinox$23,530 - $30,97099.731.422/32/26 (at best)
    2012DodgeJourney$18,995 - $29,99599.539.619/26/22 (at best)
    2013FordEscape$22,470 - $31,19598.134.323/33/26 (at best)
    2012HondaCR-V$22,495 - $29,995104.137.223/31/26 (at best)
    2013HyundaiTucson$19,145 - $27,320101.925.723/31/26 (at best)
    2012ToyotaPrius v$26,400 to $29,99097.234.344/40/42

    Sight-lines to the front are good but you cannot see the front corners unless the seat is adjusted very high. To the rear, the C-pillars (as in most recent vehicles) are overly large (to meet demanding roof crush strength tests) and views directly out of the rear are fine thanks to the large Mazda 5-point shaped rear glass.

    2013 Mazda CX-5 Cargo Capacity

    Versatility indeed.​

    NVH? Noise levels are not bad with anything to the front but through the driver’s side glass, anytime a semi or bike is along side, you are going to hear it. In addition, with the windows open, you can hear the injectors ticking away. Vibration through the wheel and seat is minimal.

    2013 Mazda CX-5 Infotainment

    There are two Audio systems including a base system that provides an AM/FM/CD/MP3 radio with Automatic Level Control (ALC), 4-speaker, digital clock, USB and Auxiliary audio Input jacks. The Touring adds 6 speakers and HD radio. The Grand Touring adds a 225W 9 speaker BOSE system plus Sirius.

    While the radio can tune in stations that other manufacturers' radios have never picked up before, the system provides little bass and if you turn it up with the built in equalizer controls, it just gets muddy. The highs are all over the place. While I am most certainly not an audiophile, the radio in the Sport is its most limiting feature.

    Another product planning miscue that the Sport trim with 6-speed manual transmission cannot be ordered with the Bluetooth hands free system?

    2013 Mazda CX-5 Drivetrain

    The true highlight although most will never experience it within the all-new CX-5 is not the 155 HP capable 2.0L but instead its slick shifting 6-speed manual transmission and clutch action. It shifts better than possibly anything I have driven to date other than possibly the Honda Civic 5-speed MT driven late last fall. The shifter is short throws are precise as you can row through all 6-gears (up or down) as fast as your hand can move with only a slight bit of notchiness. I did not miss a gear all week and that is saying something given the maybe 1000 shift over the course of 300-miles? It is the “system” that makes the Mazda manual hum so well with possibly the best clutch I have ever driven. It is light and there is no real sense whatsoever of a grab point. It is also the 6-speed manual that sports the 26/35 mpgUS city/highway rating.

    Ride and Handling

    The 2013 CX-5 SKYACTIV-Body is comprised of 61 percent high or ultra high strength tensile steel, creating a lighter, stronger body with the all but patented Mazda handling prowess.

    An independent McPherson strut up front and multi-link suspension at the rear keep the CX-5 pointed where you want it even in the minor rough stuff.

    With the tall platform, there is enough body roll to keep your attention but it is the ease with which I was able to maneuver within a Wal-Mart parking lot surprised me.

    Driving across a sharp entryway subdivision curb at 22 mph, the CX-5s ride and handling was completely composed. The larger diameter 17’s certainly help and felt like nothing more than an expansion joint on the highway.

    Road feel and turn in? One of the best I have ever experienced. The 3i’s overly synthetic feel at speed as experienced in January has been replaced with a (not overly) progressive ability to turn at ever increasing speeds. It is very linear and now matches my expectations for Mazda tuned suspension and steering setups.

    During the Emergency maneuvers in an empty mall parking lot, the harder I pushed the CX-5, the more I learned to respect the suspension and handling engineers that designed it. Having driven a number of crossovers from the MDX down to the 13 Escape, I do not think any of them feel as lively or controlled when pushed to their limits. Even with the Geolanders at all four corners, the turn in is tight and on the skid pad, you do not get understeer or oversteer, you simply enjoy balance vs. the understeer most B, C and D-segment cars we normally drive provide. And this is a taller small crossover, not the hot 3!

    2013 Mazda CX-5 Safety

    As expected from every manufacturing offering a competitive compact crossover, the 2013 CX-5 is equipped with the standard array of front, side and full side-curtain air bags, four wheel disk brakes, anti-lock brakes (ABS), Electronic Brakeforce Distribution (EBD), Brake Assist (BA), Dynamic Stability Control (DSC), Traction Control System (TCS), Hill Launch Assist (HLA), tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS), daytime running lights (DRL), and active headrests.

    A Blind Spot Monitoring (BSM) system, Adaptive Front-lighting System (AFS) with auto-leveling bi-xenon headlamps and a rear view camera with distance guide lines is also available with the higher end trims.

    IIHS Crash Test Ratings

    Mazda CX-5 has already earned an IIHS Top Safety Pick.​

    With a solid IIHS Top Safety Pick behind it, only the NHTSA regimen of crash tests is left. It has a better than even chance at scoring a top rated 5 stars from these as well.

    2013 Mazda CX-5 – Fuel Economy Results

    While the 2013 Mazda CX-5 may be rated at 26/35 mpgUS city/highway, it is certainly worth a lot more than that. The following is the highest round trip we have ever driven a crossover of any type to date. I have seen in excess of 40 mpg in the 2003 3.5L equipped MDX and slightly > 50 mpg in the 2.0L EcoBoost equipped 2012 Ford Edge but we never seen anything close to this from a vehicle in this segment before.


    2013 Mazda CX-5 aFCD calibration results

    Trip A = 69.2 miles -- aFCD = 65.7 mpg -- 1.125 gallons of fuel consumed. Actual distance traveled per Google Maps = 71.7 miles

    Actual mpg = 71.7/1.125 = 63.7 mpg.


    The CX-5 Sport’s odometer under reports by 3.5%, the aFCD over reports actual fuel economy by 2.0 mpg at this level or 3.14% and the speedometer under reports actual speed at 60 mph by almost 1.5 mph.

    2013 Mazda CX-5 Conclusions

    Ride over a number of different surfaces is slightly stiff but still quite comfortable. Braking and road feel are top notch and handling proved to be Mazda trademark excellent with only a slight amount of body roll in hard turns and both wheels breaking at the same time near its limits.

    The 13 CX-5’s on-center feel is as close to perfect as I would dare hope for from this type of vehicle. The turn in is also very quick and responsive. The fuel economy? How about we simply describe it as “stupid high”?

    The only minor miscues experienced included the Sport trim’s radio providing lack of clarity and bass, lack of Bluetooth, vinyl covered visors, a Push Button Start/Stop car with a proximity key but not having the door locks proximity keyed and I am not entirely fond of the front end design but the rear makes up for it. Also the Sport’s Yokohama Geolander 225/65R17’s do not roll very well either and I can only wonder what the CX-5 would do with some low RRc based Goodyear Assurance FuelMax or Bridgestone EPs on the rims.

    Mazda is building something really good here. From the truly fuel efficient drivetrain, slick shifting MT, higher quality interior materials and the tall driving position giving its current and future owners a commanding view of the road, there is not much to dislike even on the base Sport trim.

    SKYACTIV is the real deal and thankfully those looking for a compact crossover now have a real choice with Yaris and Fiesta like Fuel Economy without sacrificing the space that meets yours and your family’s needs?

    And possibly the CX-5’s most endearing attribute of all is the $20,695 starting price when equipped with the 6-speed manual transmission. In this configuration, more of your hard earned will stay in your wallet rather than go to the bank OR the pump unlike most of its competitors will provide today.

    Good Stuff Mazda and your A-Game is definitely showing. With the SKYACTIV-G so good, I have to wonder what is going to happen when the SKYACTIV-D turbo diesel arrives. Whooa boy, look out.

    2013 Mazda CX-5 - It has quite a lot going for it (including efficiency!) thanks to Mazda's magicians and SKYACTIV.​
  2. chilimac02

    chilimac02 Bible Professor & Minister

    beautiful house in the background. I can't believe those trees don't have leaves yet...

    sounds like a good vehicle for its size.
  3. seftonm

    seftonm Veteran Staff Member

    If I were shopping today, this would probably be on my short list.
  4. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi All:

    Not a bad ride. Heavy tires and the aero is "not so good" but for a compact crossover, it beats everything else in the segment we have driven recently.

    2013 Mazda CX-5 Review

    aFCD Fuel Economy RT Calibration Loop – Initial fill location and top off.

    71.7 miles traveled on the aFCD RT fuel economy calibration drive loop. Gurnee, IL Speedway to Ryan Rd. and back.

    The route began at the Speedway in Gurnee, headed almost due North to Ryan Rd. and looped back to the same Speedway and pump.

    The first click began at just .2 gallons and I added another 4.0 on top of that so the Mazda CX-5’s actual capacity is probably closer to 18 - 18.5 gallons, not the 14.8 it is spec’ed at.

    Winds were out of the SE at 0 to 5 mph. Temperatures ranged from 50 – 58 degrees and traffic was light to moderately heavy through the construction zones near I-94 and Highway 50 in Kenosha, WI. “That 70’s Show” town ;)

    Final top off and fill location at the Speedway in Gurnee, IL.​

    Last edited: May 15, 2012
  5. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi All:

    Here are the aFCD calibration results.

    2013 Mazda CX-5 Review

    Trip A = 69.2 miles -- aFCD = 65.7 mpg -- 1.125 gallons of fuel consumed. Actual distance traveled per Google Maps = 71.7 miles

    Actual mpg = 71.7/1.125 = 63.7 mpg.


    The CX-5 Sport’s odometer is under reporting by 3.5% and its aFCD is over reporting actual fuel economy by 2.0 mpg at this level or 3.14%.

  6. Carcus

    Carcus Well-Known Member

    By the looks of it, 'somebody's' not happy with the cat chow purchase.

    What were you thinking?
  7. herm

    herm Well-Known Member

    LOL, she is making a sad face.. its enough to feed 40 cats!
  8. jeffdavis

    jeffdavis Lurker

    Wayne, did I miss it, or did you leave out your speeds on this fuel economy run? Any word on that? Average speed? Top speed? Thanks!
  9. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi Justin:

    It does not quite have the space of your Pilot but it would be a decent replacement.

    Mike, I can almost bet you and a future family will be considering one but with the 2.2L SKYACTIV-D turbo diesel instead ;)

    Carcus and Herm, she will eat practically anything. Clothes, paper, packaging, plastic, nuts and bolts... And she really likes cat food so I have to keep that away from her too ;)

    Jeff, the top speed was 55 and the bottom was of course 0. Avg speed was 41 mph with 8 traffic lights, ~ 10% city and maybe 8-miles of two lane through the construction on I-94.

    I should have some steady state speed results later today.

    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 20, 2012
  10. Carcus

    Carcus Well-Known Member

  11. PaleMelanesian

    PaleMelanesian Beat the System Staff Member

  12. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi Carcus:

    From within the 2013 Mazda CX-5 Exterior description in this review:
    I am hoping for that 35 mpg at 70 mph. Few provide it and it would be interesting if the CX-5 can.

    As I look out of my office window, I see maybe a 10 mph wind from the SSE and the FE vs. SS results are taken on that same NB and SB stretch of I-94 and averaged as all of our aFCD calibration FE drives. Traffic should be cleared between now and 03:30 PM with the highest temps after 01:00 PM. I will try and get out of here just after noon for the long stretch of steady state data recordings. At close to equivalent start and finish elevations of course and provided by the new Garmin 1390T that came in the mail yesterday and is currently mounted in the CX-5. The old 1490T was rebooting on an almost continuous basis and was useless for my needs.

  13. EVuser

    EVuser Well-Known Member

    The entry level price looks lower than a Prius V but if the V can pack the stuff and deliver the goods it looks like it would simply be the better TCO choice. V obviously doesn't have the awd upgrade potential but that doesn't seem to be a player your review.

    What would make this a better buy than a V for the savvy hypermiling family needing some room?

  14. PaleMelanesian

    PaleMelanesian Beat the System Staff Member

    Mike, my thoughts on that - I like driving. I like stick shifts. I like a sharp handling vehicle. The CX-5 satisfies those, the Prius doesn't. The CX-5 is also cheaper to buy and may have similar ultimate hypermiling potential. The way I drive, there's going to be little difference in the fuel consumption.

    The Prius would be a better vehicle for my wife, who would rather "just drive" and get there without much fussing about the details. She's on the good side of "regular" drivers, but will not ever put the kind of attention into driving that I do. The Prius does half of the hypermiling automatically.
  15. Carcus

    Carcus Well-Known Member

    Cx-5 has almost 3 inches more ground clearance and towing capabilities vs Prius V. Substantially lower entry price and what should be lower maintenance costs (if you keep your vehicles for a long time, IMO) would have me leaning towards cx-5. (if I was in the market)

    I'm guessing I would average low to mid 30's in the cx-5 vs mid 40's in the V. So Not a lot of $ difference in fuel costs for your average 15,000 miles per year driver. (prolly less than $500/yr unless you're a hard core city driver)
    Last edited: May 11, 2012
  16. Carcus

    Carcus Well-Known Member


    Width is almost the same but Cx-5 is 16.5 inches taller.
  17. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi Mike:

    Maybe this would help?
    I cannot believe I just wrote that but in some cases … :D

    As Andrew said, there is something about being engaged with a stick that Auto's and especially Electrics no matter the type lack. I do not care if it’s a single speed BEV, dual clutch performance machine, belt and cone CVT or PSD based AT, they are not nearly as engaging as a stick no matter what the manufacturers add with regards to paddle shifters, manumatic modes and simulated performance modes.

    Rant on:

    I get especially frustrated with paddle shifters on Autocross tracks I drive once in a while at an event. Your wheel is rarely aligned for straight ahead operation and pulling or pushing a paddle when the wheel is hard over at 270 degrees from upright is kind of stupid.

    Every time I see one of those commercials where a manufacturer shows a guy pulling a paddle to up shift, I wonder if he really knows WTF he is doing?

    Rant off: I really do love sticks but Prius’ provide better than stick like FE in 90% of the cases without having to do anything.

    Carcus, short and long term maintenance costs of the v will be lower than the CX-5. I think you are right about the fuel economy deltas for a mostly highway driver. If you need to tow, the CX-5 can while the v is not built for it.

  18. Carcus

    Carcus Well-Known Member


    I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one. While the Prius has a good maintenance record.. there's a lot more expensive parts and complicated trouble shooting involved in a prius vs a well built conventional vehicle .... I think this will show itself to a larger degree as the vehicles age ... say 10+ years and 150,000 miles.

    add... if you check Edmunds true cost to own on a 2007 Mazda 3 vs a 2007 Prius, a five year run will cost you $7,383 in maintenance and repairs on the Prius vs $6748 on a Mazda 3.

    /I also theorize that some of the positive prius maintenance reputation is due to who and how they've been driven (vs your average economy car)
    (i.e. 55 year old frumpy, conservative, driving for mpg, with garage commuters are about as good as it gets for being easy on a vehicle)

    //having said all that, Mazda's new engine tech is a bit of a wild card in the long term maintenance department
    Last edited: May 11, 2012
  19. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi Mike:

    To make a very OT but direct point, I will use the 2012 Civic as an example. There is not a highway car in America that can pull what the 28/36 mpgUS city/highway rated 2012 Civic with the 5-speed stick can when pushed to its maximum out on the super slab. I am talking a touch under 90 mpg in a Civic EX coupe with the 5-speed MT and shod with Continental ContiPro Contacts of all things while driving the I-5 in CA on a fuel economy calibration and measured 66.2 mile RT loop earlier this spring. Maybe the Passat TDI w/ the 6-speed MT can match it and even the Prius c if there are a few slowdowns along the way but in my experience, that 12 Civic with a stick is an OPEC killer on the Interstate! You can also pick up a brand new 2012 Civic LX with the 5-speed MT for < $16K right now and that is a bargain no matter the interior or exterior miscues. Get any of the sticks in heavy traffic and lights however and they (you) are dead.

    The other side of that coin is that 99.99999999% of the driving public will not push their sticks like Andrew, Sean and I (I actually punched in 3 of us/300,000,000 of them and it comes out to that ;)). Drive a 12 Civic with an AT at steady state and it will do well but with the FUBAR ratios of Honda's 5-speed MT’s is going to suck the life out of it for no other reason than corporate profit when run at steady state like most will. Even I would prefer a low RPM steady state using a DWL approach for the long haul but Honda decided we cannot handle better fuel economy or a much more quiet and relaxing drive at 60 + mph if we buy one of their cars with a stick. The 12 Civic AT runs 1,880 RPM at 60 mph vs. MT's 2,516 RPM at 60 mph. Both should be running no more than 1,500 RPM at 60 (MT or AT) with the 1.8L’s available 140 HP on tap and definitely not 2,516 RPM from the 5-speed MT!!! Even I can get tired of shifting through the first 5 gears by just 25 mph :rolleyes: :mad: :mad: :mad:

    Sticks are almost always more engaging and usually a lot more fun… Until the inevitable 2-hour stop and crawl and then you will curse them to hell and back until the day you die :D

    Carcus, there is no maintenance other than oil changes and tire rotations on a 0 through 5-year old Prius. I do not recommend the latter anyway. 5 oil changes at $30 (you or $60 them) a pop is nothing and Toyota dealerships throw in the first two years for free now too. Maybe a set of tires? I can almost bet the monster meats on the CX-5 are going to cost more than replacements on the v.

    To bring it back around to the 2013 Mazda CX-5, it has a slick shifting 6-speed stick making it:

    1. More Fun to drive

    2. More engaging to drive

    3. More fuel efficient because Mazda knows something about what it is doing vs. every other manufacturer other than VW and its Passat TDI with the 6-speed MT that knows exactly what it is doing (3 more mpgUS highway compared to the all-new efficient 6-speed ATs from either company should tell other manufacturers drivetrain engineers and managers that they are completely clueless) and

    4. $20,695 + D&H at retail for a 3,400 + pound Crossover with room to spare.

    Those are compelling reasons to consider the CX-5 compared to any of its competitors in the compact crossover segment or even when cross shopping vehicles from other segments. People spend $21K for 12 Focus' w/ 27/37 mpgUS ratings. Why the **** would you do that when you could have a CX-5 instead? Following Wriconsults posts about the 2012 Mazda 3's with the 2.0L SKYACTIV-G for sale in the Portland and Seattle areas with $2 to $3K on the hood, if the CX-5 ever receives that treatment, what a bargain!

    Oh well, so much for the CX-5’s steady state results this afternoon :(

    Last edited: Aug 20, 2012
  20. jmeagher

    jmeagher Member

    Hi xcel, new here. Just took ownership of a GT version of the CX-5. I'm totally jealous of your Sport's manual, but my wife did not want a stick and I'm not a (complete) fool.

    I'm new to the concept of hypermiling, having just stumbled on this community via the usual convoluted Internet meander. I've always instinctively been a fuel-conscious driver, maybe because I came late to the driving game from the bicycle world and have a pretty good appreciation for the amount of energy it requires to climb a hill.

    Even so, I'm not getting ANYWHERE near what you are clocking, 70+? Wow!

    Best I've done is 43 mpg. I've perused through the articles here and I'm already changing some of my driving habits as a result, so I'm going to set myself the challenge of getting to 70.

    Anyway, I've got a pretty basic question that might be better-suited to a newbies area, but wondering if you could shed some light:

    From a fuel consumption standpoint, if I'm in 6th gear doing 35mph on a flat road and need to accelerate to 45, is it better to use 6th and gradually get there, or, take strain off the engine, downshift to fifth, then back to 6th at speed?

    Instinctively I've always thought more revs = more gas, but I've noticed that when I accelerate in 6th, the gas consumption on the instant readout goes to pretty much the same numbers as if I was in 5th. Although I'm suspecting that indicator isn't the most-accurate in the world.

    Also, is it better to shift into neutral when decelerating, or does the car really use zero gas when decelerating, as the instant-mileage readout seems to imply?

    Anyway, sorry for the basic questions, congrats on your new car. Good looking mutt too.

    Last edited: May 11, 2012

Share This Page