Hi! I went on a trip this weekend which recorded 1,028 miles round trip. It was mostly on interstate with mostly 70 MPH speed limit. I had my adaptive cruise control set at 75 on my way to my destination. I averaged a disappointing 24.7 MPG!!! I say disappointing because in my daily commute to work with mostly stop/go and a stretch with a 45 MPH speed limit, I get 26.5+ MPG???

On my return trip Sunday, I did not engage the cruise control. I ended with 25.4 MPG. I controlled my acceleration, after a slowdown for traffic, to a smooth increase in speed. That made a difference. You see, when the adaptive cruise control slows down for a slow moving vehicle on your lane and when you change lane, it punches the accelerator to resume the set speed! Not good!

Anyway, I just thought I'd post my experience on a very disappointing MPG.

 

If you're trying to optimize mileage, stay below 70 mph. You're pushing a lot of frontal area through the air on one of these things and aero does take a toll.

 

Building upon what Paris1 said, not only are you pushing a brick through the air at relatively high speed, you are most likely encountering cooler air this time of year. The thing about cooler air is once it drops below roughly 40°F, atomization of the fuel starts to suffer.

To illustrate the above point, I recently took a 3,000+ mile trip in my TL; the first tank was done with the OAT hovering between 20°F and 28°F, and my car only got 29 mpg, the next tank (later in the same day after visiting friends and having a long meal), same flat roads, same wind conditions, same speed on the CC (roughly 74 mph), but with the OAT now up over 40°F (well over by the end of the tank), and the car registered 32 mpg.

 

So what is the "Skyactiv" technology all about? Isn't it suppose to make the engine system compensate for all of the variables to make efficient delivery of fuel system and all? Yeah, CX5 has a lot of frontal area that may not be aerodynamically correct!

 

Skyactiv technology is pretty much at the leading edge of efficiency in the market, but the reality is it cannot repeal the laws of physics; pushing a brick against a 70+ mph headwind takes a lot of energy. The 2.5 liter Skyactiv engine in our 2016 Mazda3 pushes that car along at ~75 mph and returns ~35 mpg while doing it; the thing is, the CX-5 is both heavier and has a lot more frontal area than the Mazda3.

 

So the bottom line is; if you want to drive something heavier and taller than Shipo's "svelte" Mazda 3 that gives you that all-important (for what reason I've never been clear on) elevated driving position, you're going to pay the price. Don't blame it on Mazda for "incorrect" aerodynamics. It's what the buying public craves right now.

 

Yeah, my bad. Drop the thread.

 

Thought Id share my experiences. Today i was able to get just a hair over 30mpg 55 to 60mph on the state road. ON the interstate we generally get around26 to 28 b/c we going faster. Cant complain about that. I know some people claim they can't get 30 but you can.

 

We drove from OKC to Tulsa on Saturday, driving roughly 75-85 mph, mild hills and mild breeze w/o the adaptive CC. We averaged 25.3 MPG according to the computer... I can't complain about that.

 

I drove round trip from Los Angeles to Madras Oregon and that included some hills, some curvy roads. I was impressed by nothing but 29-31 mpg. And I drove 75-80.