Mazda CX-7 Real World MPG

dcjames

I bought a Crystal White Pearl Mica GT FWD CX-7 just a couple of weeks ago with 32 miles on the odometer. Absolutely LOVE this car.

Filled the tank today for the third time. (Following full tank from the dealership.) Put in 12.74 gallons after traveling 242 miles... still had just over a 1/4 tank on the gauge. Comes to 18.99 MPG. Premium 93 octane fuel here is currently $2.37 per gallon.

My daily drive is 19.3 miles each way. Approximately 25/75 City/Rural driving. (Mostly two lane country roads after the 5 miles it takes to get out of the stop and go of the small city I call home.)

Currently have 760 miles and haven't really driven it hard thus far. I plan on taking to the highway this weekend and hope to actually open it up a bit.

rex10

I hope what you say is true. I finally am seeing MPG in the 20's at 1500 miles for pure highway driving. Prior to this tank I was doing mostly city driving and happy to get up to 18 MPG. On a trip to Tahoe I got just over 20 MPG for the uphill portion. The next tank which was some downhill and mostly flat after that I got 22 MPG. I've been wondering about reports of 24-25 MPG, but maybe those figures are just around the corner, so to speak...

cxrabbit

Believe me, I feel your pain. I do a LOT of city driving and did not do well my first few tanks (first fill up I only got about 14.5 MPG). But I am seeing improvements as I clock more miles. I'll be calculating again soon, so I'll let you know how I do.

afrocelt

car is now at 5000 miles...

Last fill up was about 95 percent highway (commute to work) and I hit 23.9. It just keeps going up!

rethwilm

I have almost 9600 miles on my CX-7. I have only achieved 22 MPG on a 1000 mile trip. Hard to say how it did since I had 4 people and luggage for all. Tried to keep it around 75 MPH, but it is really hard to. My low has been 15 MPG, but that was because I was horse playing on the interstae and hit 119 MPH for 3 miles. That will drop your MPG quickly. I check my mileage weekly and am getting consistent 20 MPG for a tankful and have been better about horse playing. I am pleased with the mileage so far. With all that being said, I would not trade better mileage for the fun this car gives me.

fonefixer

AWD OR FWD?

cxrabbit

FWD, in New York
Mostly around-town. And I DO NOT baby it.

First tank I got 14.08 mpg.
Now with over 1,300 miles on it I did 18.18 mpg.

Dealer told me it's still breaking in up to between 3,000 and 5,000 miles, so I expect that number to continue to go up.

fonefixer

Interesting that the FWD mpg isn't that much different than AWD! I got 17.81 mpg (the last fillup) on the AWD CX-7 model with all city driving, Minneapolis, Mn. at 3200 miles. Haven't done any on the road driving, expect to get 22~24 , based on my in town mpg figures.

dcjames

I now have 2250 on the odometer and consistently see 22 to 23 MPG with each fill up. While these figures seem higher than some others reported here, it is important to keep in mind that the majority of my driving is on 2 lane rural roads with a 50 MPH speed limit. I am also pretty conservative with the throttle.

cxrabbit

18.18 mpg and 17.23 on my last two fill-ups. That's with 70-80% city driving.

marleybarr

Driving the FWD OR AWD??

cxrabbit

FWD

kmr5

I have about 3,000 miles on my CX-7, and have been getting 22-23 MPG with each fill up. But like a previous post, much of my driving is highway or suburban commuting with very few traffic lights. I am also fairly conservative in my driving habits

fonefixer

AWD GT , 17.30 MPG (last fillup) all city driving. Going to try using "manual mode" selector almost exclusively to compare MPG figures.

jimster1

I am very seriously considering the purchase of a CX7, but some of the discussions about mpg are worrying me. Can I reasonably expect 20-22 with a mix of suburban and highway driving, if I'm not too heavy on the gas pedal?

nmk

Suggest that you read the last 10-15 posts on this subject.
From how you describe your driving habits (which may change once you get to know and appreciate the CX-7's capabilities) you should not have any problem.

All the best with your new toy (sorry transportation)should you vote with the rest of us.

Good luck

fonefixer

I drive the AWD version and at 3500+ miles currently receive about 17.3 mpg (all stop and go driving.) I'm sure the FWD will do somewhat better, but 20+ mpg appears to be the highway mileage number on both models.

mamey1

If you are looking for fuel efficiency in the AWD, forget it. Look elsewhere. 17-19 mpg is about right for city driving. 20-22 mpg for highway is also correct.Hopefully Mazda will make improvements in fuel efficiency.

But if its fun you are looking for- believe the hype. Oh and it runs well on 91 octane.

fonefixer

I agree. 17~19 mpg(city) sounds right on the money. Don't think any other name plate does much better considering an apple to apple comparison with 244 HP or more. Toyota's RAV w/ the six engine might be rated at 20~21 mpg in town, don't know what actual real world reports are coming in on that model.

After driving 3500 miles on a Cx-7 AWD with strictly stop and go, averaging 17.25 mpg.

geo010765

I purchased a CX-7 a few months ago. It is a Grand Touring AWD model. I have yet to exceed 18 MPG in the car. Extremely dissappointed in the MPG! Even on a road trip that was 90% highway mileage, I still did't get above 18 MPG!!! I could have bought a full-size SUV and got better gas mileage than this thing...

They tell me that the engine isn't broken in yet. Will keep you informed.

defreitasm

I am some what amazed at all of the concerns about gas mileage with the CX7. I know some of you may have not realized it before buying it, but anyone who visited this forum prior to purchasing it should have little excuse unless they only spent a small amount of time here.

I knew on my first visit that the CX7 would need premium and it had a reputation for being thirsty. It should be little or no surprize, but it sounds like we may have a bit of buyer's remorse from the arena that were maybe hopefull it wasn't really true.

I did not buy this car thinking I was going to get great gas mileage. If that was my goal, I would have went with something like a low powered CRV. I'm sorry but you just have to accept that this car is fun to drive and with that comes the truth that it is not an economical vehicle.

Yes in some cases you could get a bigger vehicle or something the same size with a V6 instead of a 4 with a turbo. There are some advantages and disadvantages to going with the 6, but that is a choice that should have been made prior to signing on the dotted line.

I'm glad I got the CX7 and I'm glad it has a 4/Turbo. Do I ever have second thoughts?... of course, but I like this vehicle and I looked at and test drove quite a few of the competition. This car does what I want it to do and when I want it.

One of the reasons I "had" to buy something like the CX7 was that I also have an Audi and a Jetta. I am spoiled by the way those cars perform. I would have considered something from Audi or VW in an SUV, but I didn't want to go into the 40 to 50K price range. Call me spoiled or snobish, but it's tough to drive other vehicles once you've driven something with German engineering though the competition is getting closer. Cars of that nature are enjoyable to drive and had I chosen one of the other cars I looked at it may have been a problem for long term.
As an example one of the vehicles I tested was a Honda Pilot. The Pilot had decent power and had a cushy ride, but the handling would have been to soft for me. The play in the steering wheel was excessive compared to any of the other vehicles I tested. Another issues I had with the Pilot was it was just plain boring. I can't understand why they didn't make the body look like its Acura equivlant the MDX. I was almost all set on buying the big clunky looking box because deep down I know from experiance that Honda does build a fine product and the Pilot did have some nice features, but decided that I would not be happy unless I ruled out a CX7 by driving one. Within seconds behind the wheel, I knew it was exactly what I wanted

I commute about 65 miles a day and I have found through experiance that how a car feels makes a big difference in wanting to get behind the wheel. I haven't gone on any super long trips but when a car handles great, long trips seem a lot shorter and you feel less tired in a car that handles the road for you.

You can guage the difference in drivability by the fact that my wife doesn't mind driving the CX7 on those days I did not want a big floatosome of the rive didn't want something else with thought and to

I do apoligize to those that somehow missed the fact that the gas mileage in this car sucks.

Other cars I looked at and tested:
Murano
Grand Vitara XL7 (Modified Equinox)
Equinox
CRV
RAV4
Pilot
Sante Fe
Highlander

vbbuilt

You and I think alike. If you go back in this forum, you'll find that I've bitched about people complaining about their MPG. Give me a break! Sweating and crying about getting more MPG out of their CX-7 is similar to people complaining that their chocolate cake isn't sweet enough!

Trying to get more MPG out of the CX-7 ain't going to happen and those who complain and own a CX-7 need to get a dose of common sense. If MPG was the chief concern in their buying decision, then why on God's green earth did they buy a CX-7? Sheesh! If CX-7 owners sweat about the MPG, then they need to either sell their vehicles or find something else to complain about.

My two cents and my rant. There! I feel better! And I don't want to hear any of you whining about my rant! :shades:

Vince.

astegman

Sing it!! Buying a car is a pretty darn big purchase and while I did a minimal amount of research before buying my CX-7,I at least knew about the mileage/premium fuel issues, and decided that it simply didn't matter. I think I spent about a day reading these forums and that was that.

To those who are stressed about the mileage - well, you've earned a hard lesson, I hope. Caveat emptor, or however it's spelled in Latin.

geo010765

I did not come here before buying my CX-7, so I was unaware of this problem! I was looking for a place to let my feelings be known and to warn others that the CX-7's MPG sucks.

Further, I think Mazda sucks for putting false information on the car when I bought it. It is supposed to get 18 MPG City and 24 Highway. When I bought this gas hog, I assumed I would get something in the 20-22 MPG range since I do a lot of highway driving. Mazda completely miss-represents the gas mileage of this car. They should be ashamed!!! I will never buy another Mazda, EVER!!!

Anyone who wants to deal with them, all I can say is "Caveot Emptor - Buyer Beware!"

maltb

Actually, Mazda has no contol over EPA estimates. Write your congressman.

vbbuilt

defreitasm

I sympathize with you because it sucks when your expectations are not being met with a major purchase like the CX7. Having said that, I'm not sure any vehicle I have ever purchased has ever gotten what's on the sticker.

I only have about 1600 miles on mine so I don't know if it is fully broken in. I have been getting between 16 and 18 miles per gallon with mixed driving but mostly highway.

On the highway especially on my way to and from work, I try to keep it between 65 and 80. I tend to accelerate to maneuver around traffic but I'm not a daredevil. I don't feel I am the most conservative driver, but based on my driving habits I think I am where I should be in contrast to the sticker, which is obviously mileage based on controlled conditions. In order for me to get closer to accurate highway mileage results, I'd have to try and refuel after I commute since I haven't taken any major highway trips.

Overall, I don't think the mileage in my case is that bad except that it's hard to swallow the results when I think of it coming from a 4 cylinder.

vbbuilt

"hard to swallow the results when I think of it coming from a 4 cylinder."

Don't forget you're dealing with a turbo-charged engine. By nature, they're thirsty. Comparing it to a normally aspirated engine is like comparing apples to oranges.

Vince.

defreitasm

"Don't forget you're dealing with a turbo-charged engine. By nature, they're thirsty. Comparing it to a normally aspirated engine is like comparing apples to oranges.

Vince."

I realize that and I wasn't really complaing. LOL

cxrabbit

I only have about 1600 miles on mine so I don't know if it is fully broken in. I have been getting between 16 and 18 miles per gallon with mixed driving but mostly highway.

Same here (with a little over 2,000 miles on the car). But I do MOSTLY around-town driving. Last tank I only got 13 MPG.

I'm not complaining. I didn't buy an SUV thinking I'd get great mileage. I was just hopeful I'd get between the 18 and 24. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't.

fonefixer

Excellent post with which I agree 100%! Now have 4500 miles on a AWD GT, receiving 16.52 MPG all city driving on my latest fill up. Factoring in the cold weather here in Minnesota, only about 1~2 MPG off the sticker listing of 18 town and 24 highway. In other words, the CX-7 is achieving about what it advertised.

fonefixer

So what are you getting for city and highway mileage? Do you drive the AWD or FWD CX-7? Have you checked your tires lately?

carlitos92

No kidding. So what? The fact is that regardless of who was responsible (in this case, perhaps the government), there was false information published about this car from a source that is intended to be trustworthy.

The best mileage I ever got out of my broken-in CX-7, on a 700-mile freeway trip, DOWNHILL, was 22 mpg. I think the consumer has a right to have accurate predictions about the car they are buying, and if someone who mostly drives highway trips posts to this forum and says they can't get mpg into the 20's, there's a problem. It's small consolation that EPA estimates may be "wrong" across the board.

As I've said before, my '93 Civic routinely did better than its EPA numbers, even driven like a bat out of Hades, so I can't fathom what in the EPA has been derailed so badly in the time since then.

Yeah, if people wanted a gas-miser, they should have bought a Prius, but the point is, if they wanted a CX-7, why shouldn't they expect 18 city, 24 highway? Period.

sssfegy

I agree in general I guess! But do any of you folks that are unhappy with 16-17.5!mpg in town, do you ever go and check economy cars what they're getting in town? You are up for a big surprise(18 is very VERY common!), and the rest of you I'm sure they heard...but ofcourse that's why we come here right? :P

cxrabbit

Because the EPA tests all cars the same way, and with a TURBO you are going to get even MORE of a varience depending on how you drive it. The EPA tests cannot account for that.

Complain to the goverment. It wouldn't be the first time they mislead you about something... (okay, I'll avoid politics, LOL)

Carlitos... funny you say that. I have NO IDEA what my Toyota Matrix was getting exactly because I didn't accurately track it like I'm doing with the CX-7. It was SUPPOSED to be getting 30+ highway and I think it was close to that, but I have no idea what I was getting around town.

Ultimately, I didn't buy an SUV for it's fuel efficiency

ssteigss

As a comparison. I drive a 2003 Jetta 1.8t. That engine is turbocharged also but has about 65 less horse power and 80lbs less torque. The Jetta also weighs about 700 pounds less and is not 4WD(which hurts gas mileage)I drive 95% City and I get about 20 mpg on average. My wife's CX-7 is currently getting about 17 MPG in 95% city driving. My first few tanks were 15 MPG so the car is getting better as it breaks in. So the difference is certainly reasonable. As many others stated you cannot compare this car to a CRV or a 4 Cylinder RAV-4, which have puny engines with little power compared to the Mazda. I realize a 6 Cyl Rav-4 has better listed MPG #'s but if you read these boards very few people are getting that in the city. We did take 1 road trip in the CX-7 which we got 21MPG but the car only had 500 miles on it so I would expect it to get better as it breaks in.
In summary I am looking to buy a CX-7 for myself next year as long as my Wife's proves reliable.

carlitos92

Wow, you must really DRIVE your Jetta. Because I have a 2000 1.8T with a Neuspeed chip in it, and I've never gotten below 24 mpg on a tank. That includes mixed highway/city driving - but when I say highway, I mean 90+ mph, and when I say city, I mean full-throttle starts, every time. When that car was my primary ride, I generally drove it like I stole it, and I usually got between 24-28 mpg. That was less than the EPA numbers, but I accepted it because I tweaked and punished the vehicle.

And like I said in my earlier post, I got 22 mpg in the CX-7, downhill on a highway trip (where I set the cruise in the 70s and did not hit the brakes for hours at a time). The car was already broken in. To me, 22 mpg is acceptable, but I'm not happy about it.

nmk

So finally back from New Zealand after 3 months and longing to take my CX-7 on the road. Drove 90 miles on turnpike at 70mph,
30 miles on back country roads at 55mph, and 53 miles in small upstate town doing errands. I only stomped on the gas once to cross a dangerous intersection, other than that drove sanely. 173 miles @ 11.2 Gals. = 15.4

I was doing much better before I left the country. Perhaps sitting for 3 months it forgot how to ration fuel :confuse:

NMK

ssteigss

The 2003 Jetta has more boost than the 2000. It gets 180hp stock while yours is 150 stock. I realize you have a chip so your probably getting much better than that. But even doing 90MPH you will probably get better mileage than I do. Constantly stopping and going, add in idling at lights which I hit several on my commute and you will get much worse MPG than coasting at even 90MPH. I usually get closer to 28 on the highway. I agree I want more MPG, but as many have said look at turbo charged cars with similar HP/torque and weight, see what their getting and then your comparing apples to apples. And if the argument is that it should have a 6 cylinder take a look at what the Ford Edge got in Edmund's test.... 14.7 MPG. Nissan Murano(very comparable vehicle in size)Many on board are getting 16MPH City. So it seems to me the problem is the type of vehicle you bought. I do agree though that the system of coming up with these #'s is a little wacky. I'm not really sure what standards are used to determine MPG ratings.

fonefixer

Driving the same GT AWD here in presently cold Minnesota with all in town driving brought on my last fill 290 miles on 17 gallons = 17/mpg. Won't make a huge difference but might want to check the tire presure, I keep 34 psi all around. Had them at 37, but the ride was a bit too harsh.

ssteigss

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7128017

One thing I forgot. Take a look at the link above. Its a story about the innacurracy of EPA estimates. When they conduct these tests it's in a lab with the car already warmed up, no stop and go conditions and the speeds don't exceed 60MPH. In other words optimal conditions that in the real world can't be duplicated. Just starting your car and idling for 2 minutes on a 20 degree day burns more gas than driving 55 MPH for the same period of time. So it is not Mazda you should be mad at, it's the Gov't's standards for the testing. You cant blame the car companies either since the ratings seem to be in their favor. If someone offered you $20K for your car and you knew it was worth only $10K would you correct them...most likely not.

maltb

Exactly! Toyota made a big public stink about the Prius not hitting the EPA estimates because they knew they were full of sh...crap.

Also, those of us in CA have it even worse with our reformulated fuel. I was shocked taking a road trip up north once. With my first fill-up in Oregon, I started getting +4 MPG. as soon as I filled up back in CA, it went right down.

cxrabbit

Yup, I think there are legitimate differences depending on where you live and the mix of gas you're getting. North-easterns don't seem to fair as well as some down south (at least in my observations). Last tank I got 13 MPG and it's been real cold here (finally) for the last few weeks. I don't seem to be doing much better on this tank, but we'll see when I finally calculate it.

I'm in NY.

defreitasm

I was beginning to wonder if the Northeast was an issue. I'm in NY and my combined city/highway averages about 16 with apx. 1800 miles and 93 Octane. I don't baby it but I don't overdo it either. Of course that's subjecttive. I want to try to guage it on a highway only run but it's tough since my daily commute involves some running around town before and after my commute dropping off/picking up my daughter. I have made some highway only runs but I'm not really concerned with my mileage so I never made the attempt. Of course now with all this hopla over mileage, I'm curious. Another reason I don't care is that the vehicle I replaced (Odyssey) didn't get great gas mileage so I am right where I used to be but now it's fun to drive. My Jetta is fun to drive and gets me sometimes 30 on the highway but it's a fuel-injected 5, so that's a horse of a different color.

cxrabbit

Defreitasm... I do the same kind of driving... especially this time of year. I'm doing mostly short-runs, around town driving and it definitely KILLS the mileage... like you, I don't baby it but I don't overdo it either. I've even been taking a different way to work because it's all highway (but less direct - not a huge difference in distance though) to see if that improves my mileage.

My mileage has DEFINITELY been worse since its gotten so cold. I'm not sure how much of that is the engine itself or the fact I'm warming it up longer. Could be a bit of both.

defreitasm

I've seen someone post that his mileage seemed better in the cold but I doubt that. :confuse:

cxrabbit

Well mine has DEFINITELY been worse in the cold. I went out a bit ago and filled up on gas and my latest tank was at 13 MPG.

carlitos92

Mileage is usually worse in the cold, but you also have more power available because of more oxygen in the air that flows past the sensor(s).

Intercooling compounds the benefits in turbo engines. I haven't seen it so much with the CX-7, but in my turbo Jetta, I'd estimate that in an ambient temperature drop from 90F to 30F, power is up at least 10% if not more. It's like a whole different car...

johnny__rf

I drive my CX-7 real hard. I've got 2500 miles on an AWD GT and I have had mpg's from 15-18 mpg. It's so hard not to push that turbo.............Zoom zoom!!!!!!!!!!!

fonefixer

I got 17 mpg (all in town) here in cold Minnesota on my last fill driving an AWD GT in a normal fashion. If you are reporting 15~18 driving it fast and hard, then the sticker claiming 18 city and 24 highway must have some merit.