2014 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring AWD Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,237
edited September 2014 in Mazda

image2014 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring AWD Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds long-term update of the 2014 Mazda CX-5 includes discussion of the CX-5's road trip to the Sierra.

Read the full story here



  • fordson1fordson1 Unconfirmed Posts: 1,512
    I prefer backpacking overnight. I do SOME day hikes, but as a general rule I would not drive 310 miles one way to do a day hike. For one thing, it just doesn't seem worth it. For another thing, once you budget 5 hours on each end for the drive, what kind of time does that leave for the hike itself? Oh - you're driving there and staying at a motel or something locally the night before or after the hike? See reason a) - just doesn't seem worth it.
  • rmhpmirmhpmi Member Posts: 37
    This vehicle continues to impress, especially the fuel consumption. I am more and more convinced a CX-5 will be in my driveway next fall when I will finally be in the market for a new vehicle.
  • zimtheinvaderzimtheinvader Member Posts: 580
    fordson1, Although I already drive a crazy amount for both commute and fun I bet I'd drive all sorts of places for the slightest of reasons if my job were to drive cars and write about it. --- It would be interesting to know but I'd have to think there was a hotel stay in there somewhere. I've done 3+ hours there and 3+ hours back with a hike in the middle and that drive back can seem really long without a shower.
  • uthikeruthiker Member Posts: 18
    I'm puzzled by the ongoing mileage reported here. My 2014 AWD GT's poorest tank so far has been 27.2 . A few weeks ago on a1500 mile road trip with a mix of interstate and back roads poorest 28.1 best 31.5.
  • zimtheinvaderzimtheinvader Member Posts: 580
    uthiker, I always wonder if it is that test drivers spend so much time in so much more powerful cars that even though they aren't necessarily purposefully leadfooting it in the other cars the do ask for more performance out of them in their daily driving than many people would. I can see that if I got to drive a Tesla, SLS AMG, or similar on a regular basis I might expect more acceleration out of all the cars I drive. --- And I've found with these more fuel efficient setups like the Skyactive engine it doesn't take much more zip in the driving to drop the mpg.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTMember Posts: 17,476
    These stories are lacking detail. How many people and cargo on the trip? Up to 10,000 feet. From what elevation? 627 miles should be less than 2 tanks of fuel. Was the fill up before or after the end of the trip? Reset at the beginning and end? Being a non turbo engine, I'm sure it was working pretty hard going up to 10,000 feet. No mention of that.
    2020 Ford Explorer XLT
  • metalmaniametalmania Member Posts: 167
    Was that best tank mileage as shown by the onboard computer or by a miles/fuel used calculation at the pump? I've read enough reports of "optimistic" onboard computer fuel mileage readings (most cars, not Mazda in particular) that I don't put much faith in them. The "real" number is miles divided by gallons used, period. I know the CX-5 gets pretty decent fuel economy for its class, but I kind of wish it had a bigger fuel tank. Most full tank ranges seem like they'd be under 400 miles. I'm used to my car being able to go 400+ pretty easily, and it gets about the same or only slightly better mpg than this CX-5. I hope the diesel ends up being a really good engine in the 6, it seems like it would be a perfect match for the CX-5. And I'll say it again because I always do - Mazda, please give us the 6 wagon!
  • craigistcraigist Member Posts: 29
    Most of my tanks (FWD) are under 400 miles, although the "miles remaining" computer is fairly conservative - it probably has 50 highway miles of range left in it when it reads 0 - there was an earlier post about this. With a full tank the computer claims about 391 miles.

    Interestingly, the CX5 has two gas tank sizes. 14.8 gals in the FWD and 15.3 in the AWD. 15.3 is the same as the CRV. I'm not sure why the FWD is smaller.
  • metalmaniametalmania Member Posts: 167
    I think I recall reading that the tank sizes in the FWD and AWD are different so that they each have approximately the same range given their differences in mpg. It does seem kind of odd though, why not just have a bit more range as a bonus for the FWD? I wonder if Mazda will add their iE-loop system to the CX-5. It's a modest mpg bump but every little bit helps.
  • rmhpmirmhpmi Member Posts: 37
    uthiker, are you manually calculating your MPG or using the onboard computer to track your mileage? Your numbers are impressive if they are manually calculated. Inquiring minds want to know :-)
  • uthikeruthiker Member Posts: 18
    Yes I have manually been tracking every tank and find the mileage to be + or - 1 to 3 tenths from the onboard computer and sometimes right on.
Sign In or Register to comment.