Mazda CX-5 diesel MPG

[skyking]

Keep singing your song man. Let's look at some hard fuel usage numbers again, this time the 2010 Jetta.
666 fuel logs, 13,281,000 miles logged. 37.8 MPG.
I call that useful data. You spurious claim of 20 ~25% higher than EPA for the Mazda is just that, a claim. You hold up a number from a 2 vehicle sample and call that significant?

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

Keep singing your song man. Let's look at some hard fuel usage numbers again, this time the 2010 Jetta.
666 fuel logs, 13,281,000 miles logged. 37.8 MPG.
I call that useful data.

Is that 37.8 MPG for the AT, MT, ... or BOTH combined?

Here's EPA's User Estimates for the 2010 diesel Jetta
43.7 mpg [MT] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=29408&browser=true&details=on

37.8 mpg [AT] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=29409&browser=true&details=on

That is against a 34 mpg combined EPA sticker for both.

Keep in mind a VERY competent statistician can do amazing things with with small samples from multiple populations. If in doubt, study the tech paper I suggest several posts back. And the folks that run User Estimates are VERY competent statisticians.

So, I suggest you use the tools (and sources) that work best for you.

I am just sharing the sources, tools, and information that I have found over the past few years to be useful.

You are certainly not required to use any of them.

OTOH, some other folks might find them of value/useful ... for those ... enjoy.

 

[angry hampster]

All of this is irrelevant if your tires are not inflated to max sidewall pressure.

 

[LTC8K6]

Is that 37.8 MPG for the AT, MT, ... or BOTH combined?

Here's EPA's User Estimates for the 2010 diesel Jetta
43.7 mpg [MT] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=29408&browser=true&details=on

37.8 mpg [AT] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=29409&browser=true&details=on

That is against a 34 mpg combined EPA sticker for both.

Keep in mind a VERY competent statistician can do amazing things with with small samples from multiple populations. If in doubt, study the tech paper I suggest several posts back. And the folks that run User Estimates are VERY competent statisticians.

So, I suggest you use the tools (and sources) that work best for you.

I am just sharing the sources, tools, and information that I have found over the past few years to be useful.

You are certainly not required to use any of them.

OTOH, some other folks might find them of value/useful ... for those ... enjoy.

Not enough data. 16 and 14 samples.

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

Not enough data. 16 and 14 samples.

Any statisticians out there that agree with that statement?

How about ... if there are multiple trials with the same samples?

What would be considered an acceptable sample size with multiple trials?

IIIRC, it has to do with confidence limits ...

 

[skyking]

so you joined just to post in a Mazda MPG thread. To dispute the EPA mileage, to sing a song of higher numbers.
You sound so smart, but not really going to hide the fact that you are an industry shill.

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

so you joined just to post in a Mazda MPG thread. To dispute the EPA mileage, to sing a song of higher numbers.
You sound so smart, but not really going to hide the fact that you are an industry shill.

I concede that I came to this site and thread specifically because of my interest in the CX5’s fuel economy for a possible personal purchase. I was hoping for information about the SkyActiv-D (diesel).

However, “industry shill” … I don’t think so.

I became more interested in US automotive fuel January 2005 when a Congressional staffer told me unequivocally that US fuel prices would be $4/gallon by 2007/2008. And EVEN MORE INTERESTED post 2008.

As result I have been studying best of breed fuel economies in the US as well as worldwide since 2005.

In fact, it has subsequently become a mission … to SAVE Det3 US from itself!

Much of my time has been spent trying to encourage Detroit and Washington to stop forcing the US consumer into second/third class fuel economy options/choices … that are roughly 5 to 8 years behind the rest of the world’s existing FUEL FRUGAL automotive technology offerings.

In March 2011, Kuzak, Ford’s man in the know, said it would be very easy for Ford to make small displacement very fuel frugal Euro type turbo diesels available in the US. However, unfortunately for the US consumer, he quickly added that Ford would not bring them to the US. Maybe Ford will change that position now that Kuzak has left the company.

further, the Det3 have been arguing that diesel cost premiums may be $6k, or more, than fuel frugal gasoline since 2007. Here is a reality check.

Ford Focus Titanium
1.6L EcoBoost (gasoline)
£19,750 => USD $24,292 ~EXPORT LIST
US Dealer MSRP (base) = $22,850 US
47.1 mpg(Imp) combined => ~39.2 mpg(US) 0-62mph 8.6secs
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/specs/16-ecoboost-titanium-5dr-hatchback

1.0L EcoBoost (gasoline)
£20,365 => USD $25,048 ~EXPORT LIST
58.9 mpg(Imp) combined => ~49 mpg(US) 0-62mph 12.5secs
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/specs/10-ecoboost-titanium-x-5dr-hatchback

1.6L TDCI (diesel)
£19,965 => USD $24,556 ~EXPORT LIST (<$1,750 over US MSRP & <$270 predicted EXPORT list for the 1.6L EcoBoost)
67.3 mpg(Imp) combined => ~56 mpg(US) 0-62mph 10.9secs
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/specs/16-tdci-115-titanium-5dr-hatchback

All are the same trim level from what I can tell.

So, even if additional cost is required for diesel US emissions abatement, they should still be cheaper than hybrids for the next 5 or 10 years.



The real issue is regional geo-political statutory CO2 emissions requirements and competitiveness of markets!

The EU is currently under a binding target of 130 gCO2/km for OEM fleet average by 2015 with escalating financial penalties based on gCO2/km over target multiplied by total number of vehicles sold . Currently, the UK fleet average appears to be headed below 138 gCO2/km [about 43 mpg(US)] before 2013 with a 53% 2012 diesel market share.

However, the expected target for 2020 is to lower CO2 emissions to an OEM fleet average of 95 grams per kilometer [about 58/66 mpg(US) fleet average for gasoline/diesel respectively]. The penalty for noncompliance is €95 per gram over target multiplied by all vehicles sold by the OEM. A finalization of this objective is expected before August 2012.

China and India are following similar paths on a slightly delayed schedule. That would result in 73~84% of world automotive markets potentially above 55 mpg(US) fleet average by 2020.

Meanwhile back in the states, IF I understand correctly, the US will probably be “struggling” with a fleet average of about 38~40 mpg in 2020 based on the proposed 2025 CAFE being discussed. This could easily be 30% BELOW EU and worldwide statutory requirements and product.
http://delphi.com/pdf/emissions/Delphi-Passenger-Car-Light-Duty-Truck-Emissions-Brochure-2012-2013.pdf.

Keep in mind that we are talking about 2.5 down to 1.3 gallon/100 miles. Sounds like a savings of over 300 gallons/year compared to the 2011 US fleet average. What would that do for your annual fuel cost budget?


Based on the above, it is reasonable to believe that, as of 3/25/12, there were 17 OEMs active in the US auto marketthat collectively had 389 Step V+ emissions rated vehicle configurations being sold in the UK that are rated >60/~>50 mpg(Imp/US) combined using the NEDC test cycle suggesting that TODAY most of these vehicles would meet or exceed the NOMINAL 54 mpg(US) currently being discussed for our US 2025 CAFÉ.

Here are some those vehicles already seen in the US [with less fuel frugal gasoline powertrains] that would probably exceed the nominal 54 mpgbeing proposed for the US 2025 CAFE when using their current EU diesel powertrains: Aveo (US Sonic?); Meriva 5 door MPV, Insignia (US Regal?), Astra; New C-Max; Mondeo (US Fusion?); Focus; Fiesta; Mazda2; Mazda3; Mazda CX5; plus Volvo S80; V70; V60; S60; V50 to name a few.
Further, if these 380+ vehicle configurations were available in US today, roughly 23% of 2012/2013 US light passenger configuration offerings would be 2025 compliant. Roughly 1/3 (126) of those would be from the Det3 (EU). Believe it or not. http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/


HERE ARE SOME of THE PROBLEMS!

What Det3 US product can comply with current and future CO2/km requirements? What does that do to Det3 US exports?

What happens when one or more “foreign” OEMs starts importing their >50 mpg(US) combined vehicles to the US post 2015? What if those imported or domestically built “foreign” offerings are aggressively cost competitive?

Keep in mind all of this is constantly under the threat that fuel prices will continue to cyclically increase under pressure from increased petro/energy demand from China, India, and the rest of the world … just as they have done since 20¢/gallon back in 1947. What, $6 to $8/gallon by 2020? You tell me.

What WILL these conditions do to Det3 US market share? Will the Det3 US “GIFT” 50% or more of their current US market share to “foreign” OEMs just like they did between 1973 and 1990? We can be reasonably certain that it will take the Det3 US 3 to 5 years to react after the fact.

If that is the case, then what happen to Det3 US production volumes, US jobs, OUR US economy, NATIONAL SELF-CONFIDENCE/SELF-ESTEEM, OUR … INDUSTRIAL BASE, BALANCE OF TRADE, NATIONAL SECURITY???

Also, understand that Det3’s current approach is doubling development costs by using a dual path powertrain strategy, one US and the other … the rest of the world. This is seriously detrimental to production economies of scale (resulting in higher cost products). Both of these are detrimental to company profitability.

Personally, I would prefer to purchase a fuel frugal cost effective Det3 machine that meets our family requirements including true fuel frugality. However, since the Det3 refuse to sell TRULY fuel frugal [>50 mpg(US) combined] vehicles like the Grand C-Max, then the Mazda CX5, maybe a Geely/Volvo, or Hyundai/Kia become the alternative when (NOT IF!) they ARE imported.

I am fighting for a BETTER USA for … ALL … of … HER PEOPLE … through education of the general public (as well as Congress) and hopefully better and broader cost effective product choices for the US consumer.

NOTE: I am not opposed to anyone having an 8 mpg performance machine … but please don’t waste your and my time telling me that the Federal Government or the general public/taxpayer owes you or anyone else $1/gallon fuel. So, IF … you can afford it … ENJOY!!!

My argument is that there should extreme choices on the fuel frugal end of the product spectrum as well! And, small annual incremental improvements do NOT STIMULATE significant market expansion … even when inexpensive. Appropriate diesels allow significantly better fuel economy (30% to 50%) almost immediately without giving up size/weight and the ability to tow due to their higher torque.

Are you beginning to getting the picture?

IF, I had to label myself … I would say … PATRIOTIC AMERICAN … trying to share what I have learned … PLUS … save Det3 US from itself, the US auto industry, the US industrial base, US jobs, US CRITICAL and CREATIVE THINKING, US INNOVATION, reduce petro-dependence, improve balance of trade, increase the velocity of money within the US economy in order to generate economic expansion, increase tax revenues, reduce Federal spending on fuel, recover OUR … “CAN DO” spirit, improving NATIONAL self-confidence/self-esteem/inventiveness and self reliance … while improving NATIONAL SECURITY!

I do not perceive that as being an “industry shill”.

However, you are welcome to believe as you wish …

Sorry about the lenght ... but skyking openned the door ...

 

[LTC8K6]

Looks like the UK titanium is different than the US Titanium, and one of your selections is a Titanium-X, whatever that is.

Plus a US Spec diesel costs more, I believe. I think our emissions standards are tighter.

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

Looks like the UK titanium is different than the US Titanium, and one of your selections is a Titanium-X, whatever that is.

Plus a US Spec diesel costs more, I believe. I think our emissions standards are tighter.

The Titanium X is the 1.0 Liter EcoBoost. And as far as I know it is NOT available in the US at this time ... at least according to my local dealer and fueleconomy.gov.

So far as I know there is NO Focus diesels offered in the US as well.

I do agree that there will be a moderate "premium adder" for NOx abatement required for US compliance.

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

Looks like the UK titanium is different than the US Titanium, and one of your selections is a Titanium-X, whatever that is.

I double checked ... I should not have been using the Titanium X (1.0L EcoBoost).

Oooops ... here is what I should have used ...

Ford Focus Titanium
1.0L EcoBoost (gasoline)
£19,115=> USD $23,511 ~EXPORT LIST
56.5 mpg(Imp) combined => ~49 mpg(US) 0-62mph 11.3secs
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/ford/focus/specs/1.0-125-EcoBoost-Titanium-5dr-Hatchback


NOT ... 1.0L EcoBoost (gasoline)
£20,365 => USD $25,048 ~EXPORT LIST
58.9 mpg(Imp) combined => ~49 mpg(US) 0-62mph 12.5secs
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/specs/10-ecoboost-titanium-x-5dr-hatchback

Sorry about that.

 

[skyking]

I opened the door? really? you come in here and copy and paste from somewhere else, in all these funky colors and fonts, and the flags go up. you still have not convinced me.

 

[aphex]

Seriously going to consider the CX5 if they bring a Diesel to the states next model year. My Mazda3 isn't going to last forever, about to pass 200k.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Any statisticians out there that agree with that statement?

Yes.

How about ... if there are multiple trials with the same samples?

Measuring the same outlier 5 million times just gives you 5 million non-representative results. Given that the biggest factors in fuel economy are terrain and driving style and that these are extremely unlikely to change significantly for any specific individual driver multiple trials from the same sample are effectively worthless here because the variables aren't going to vary.

What would be considered an acceptable sample size with multiple trials?

IIIRC, it has to do with confidence limits ...

No, actually it has to do with the nature of the variables being measured. The confidence limits are a result of the analysis, not some a-priori fixed value. You have to run the statistical analysis first, and then compute the confidence limits. Confidence limits do not, a-priori, tell you how many samples you need.

A guy living in Seattle who commutes every day in stop and go traffic over hills is going to observe a much lower MPG than someone who lives in North Dakota who commutes on wide-open, flat, 55 mph roads. Without knowing the specific individual usage patterns of each member of the small sample, it's simply not possible to say that it's representative.

Is it possible that a 14-person sample is just magically spot-on for the overall? Sure. But it's spectacularly improbable and the only rational response is severe skepticism of the results reported by such a ridiculously tiny sample.

ZV

 

[Gunbuster]

With the way my 2004 3 is rusting out I have to say no. I hear the rust is still an issue on newer 3's as well.

 

[Zap]

With the way my 2004 3 is rusting out I have to say no. I hear the rust is still an issue on newer 3's as well.

IDK about that. We had a 2005 Mazda 3 in Wisconsin as a daily driver from new purchase until January 2011. Not a single speck of rust that we could see.

 

[Doppel]

I had a mazda and would be hard pressed to get another. It rusted way before its time and I've seen a lot of them with rust problems. I also think subarus seriously are highly prone to rust. In a climate with road salt check out a, say, 2004-2005 forrester and you'll see wheel well rust more times than not. Now go check out a toyota sienna or honda pilot from the same age and you are highly unlikely to see any rust at all.

This is anecdotal. I have not found any site online that has any convincing numbers one way or the other of which vehicles are more prone to rust, so it seems we're forced to rely on urban myth as much as anything else when discussing vehicles prone to rust.

 

[50 mpg by 2012]

Yes.



Measuring the same outlier 5 million times just gives you 5 million non-representative results. Given that the biggest factors in fuel economy are terrain and driving style and that these are extremely unlikely to change significantly for any specific individual driver multiple trials from the same sample are effectively worthless here because the variables aren't going to vary.



No, actually it has to do with the nature of the variables being measured. The confidence limits are a result of the analysis, not some a-priori fixed value. You have to run the statistical analysis first, and then compute the confidence limits. Confidence limits do not, a-priori, tell you how many samples you need.

A guy living in Seattle who commutes every day in stop and go traffic over hills is going to observe a much lower MPG than someone who lives in North Dakota who commutes on wide-open, flat, 55 mph roads. Without knowing the specific individual usage patterns of each member of the small sample, it's simply not possible to say that it's representative.

Is it possible that a 14-person sample is just magically spot-on for the overall? Sure. But it's spectacularly improbable and the only rational response is severe skepticism of the results reported by such a ridiculously tiny sample.

ZV

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Gunbuster]

In addition to the rust I can not stand the plastic around the wheel wells. No doubt this is also related to the mazda 3 rust issue as an attempt to avoid rock chips. So freaking ugly. I hope they at least go to painting them body color in the future.

 

[Goguinness]

The current Jetta TDI is EPA rated at 42 highway.

I have a 2016 Jetta S with the newer 1.4 TSI, and a manual transmission. I have gotten 44.2 out of a tank full. Max torque is available at 1450 RPM. Why buy a diesel for thousands more? It is a fun car to drive with all that low end torque.

 

[skyking]

my old beetle has done 52.5 on full tank. to each his own. it gets 44 all the time in mixed driving

 

[Demo24]

Lately I've found Mazda's epa numbers quite accurate. The 2014 mazda3 we had basically always returned the values it should irrelevant of driving style, although over 70mph the highway figure started to drop off.

However, if this person is pulling numbers from the euro cycle that's a poor way to guage numbers here given it's always been very optimistic.

I'm very to curious to see what the real numbers will be. I'm expecting right around 40mpg highway. This is because the new equinox diesel supposedly gets 40 hwy.

On a similar subject, if you do want semi-consistent 50mpg, apparently the Cruze Diesel is where it's at.

 

[PricklyPete]

Lately I've found Mazda's epa numbers quite accurate. The 2014 mazda3 we had basically always returned the values it should irrelevant of driving style, although over 70mph the highway figure started to drop off.

However, if this person is pulling numbers from the euro cycle that's a poor way to guage numbers here given it's always been very optimistic.

I'm very to curious to see what the real numbers will be. I'm expecting right around 40mpg highway. This is because the new equinox diesel supposedly gets 40 hwy.

On a similar subject, if you do want semi-consistent 50mpg, apparently the Cruze Diesel is where it's at.

I've never been a huge fan since of Diesel engines, but it just felt right when we bought our Q7. The vehicle weighs 5.5k lbs and I easily get over 30mpg on highway trips (if not more...gotten in the 35-37 on particularly advantageous drives (no traffic, no hills). Even driving up to the mountains (5 hour round trip over multiple passes, with a sky box on top, and around town while up there), we averaged over 25mpg. While I would never put a diesel in a 911, I definitely see the benefits of a diesel in a more practical vehicle.

 

[Gunbuster]

Ultra Necro!

Op from 2012, Still waiting on Mazda US Diesel in 2017... I have a Passat TDI to sell back next year, come on Mazda.

 

[Demo24]

I've never been a huge fan since of Diesel engines, but it just felt right when we bought our Q7. The vehicle weighs 5.5k lbs and I easily get over 30mpg on highway trips (if not more...gotten in the 35-37 on particularly advantageous drives (no traffic, no hills). Even driving up to the mountains (5 hour round trip over multiple passes, with a sky box on top, and around town while up there), we averaged over 25mpg. While I would never put a diesel in a 911, I definitely see the benefits of a diesel in a more practical vehicle.

Yeah, the powerful diesels in vehicles definitely make a lot of sense and I've always liked them. We have friends with the VW version of that vehicle with well over 100k and practically no issues. They love it and the fact you can go a really long time on the highway before needing to refuel.

 

[PricklyPete]

Yeah, the powerful diesels in vehicles definitely make a lot of sense and I've always liked them. We have friends with the VW version of that vehicle with well over 100k and practically no issues. They love it and the fact you can go a really long time on the highway before needing to refuel.

Yeah...it is really changing my tone on Diesels. Easily go 600-650 miles on a tank when driving mostly highway.

Will be interested what the long term reliability will be on this thing.