Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
I wonder if the starting mixture is to rich and this may contribute to the lower gas mileage? :confuse:
Any comments?
I'm thinking about a MazdaSpeed3, with basically the same engine but 8-900 lbs lighter & a stick....it won't suck gas like the CX7....I'm used to 30+ in my Alero & 26.5 in our 2.4L HHR ....I'm no tree hugger & fairly well off....but, I don't think I could stand it getting such low MPG!!
-c92
388miles.
250 miles of NY Thruway at about 70mph.
(much on cruise control)
70 miles of country roads at about 50mph.
68 miles of many stops, all very local errends.
Put in 15gls and then 8gls = 23gls.
23/388= 16.86 mpg. :mad:
So what could it be? Cold weather, ambient temp high teens to mid 20's.
Lousy gas, Mobil & Exxon in North East? :confuse:
These were almost ideal road conditions, steady driving, no
jackrabbit starts.
Any ideas or comments?
Darth Vader Grey GT w/nav AWD
BUT, it's also been very cold here too, which could also account for the difference.
Best mileage I saw was before the update, when it was still a bit warmer out (mild winter) back around Christmas... 18.18 mpg with 60/40 highway/city.
2700 miles on odometer. Remember I was overseas for 3 months.
I checked my past posts in this section of the forum and found the following:
9/27 18.73 trip upto Mt. Whiteface
10/4 17.97 local driving
10/4 23.46 Country road pleasure trip
10/24 21.20 some local but mostly Taconic State Parkway
02/05 16.86 Some lacal but mostly NY State Thruway :mad:
So, something is amiss. :confuse:
Darth Vader Grey GT AWD w/Nav.
Sounds similar to what I'm getting here in NY. I do think out winter gas is bad, but I'm suspicious of the last update
I quit watching mileage closely, but it seems like I'm going about the same distance on a tank as I always have.
-c92
I have also seen many complain that they are doing 70MPH all highway so they should be getting great Mileage.. The article points out that doing 70MPH vs 55Mph will reduce you MPG by at least 12%
Lots more info at the site.
http://www.artsautomotive.com/Mileage.htm
Boy... I wish it were that simple. I'd counter by saying we also have some of the most (potentially) efficient engines and automatic transmissions on the planet.
Besides... "4x4" is a stretch. Not everyone has an AWD version, but even so, the AWDs usually operate in FWD mode and only add a couple hundred pounds of weight.
As long as there are other 4,000 pound unibody vehicles getting mpg in the mid-20's, it IS a mystery...
The Ford Edge has that line up and gets worse gas mileage than the CX-7.
Besides, I'd rather have a four in this car, the weight and balance ratio to me is spot on. A six in this configuration might make the car plow in a curve.
Sorry about the O/T, just rambling on. :P
Vince.
Oh, and it turns out that I do need a new gas cap. And the check engine light went on this weekend. Then off. Then on again today. :mad: This will make the 13th (I believe) time I've had this vehicle to the dealer in the 11,000 I've owned it.The dealer is now on my cellphone quick dial. I seem to call them more than I do my wife.
The mileage on the Taconic State Parkway included 1/2 hour of stop and go for road repair and 1/2 hour on the Van Wyke Expway for 2 fires.
The Thruway experience was all go on cruise control with about 20 miles of light city traffic.
The milage difference was Taconic mileage = 21.20mpg.
NY State Thruway = 16.86mpg
Difference = 4.34mpg
This represents about a 20% drop in efficiency with a difference in temp of 35 degrees.
And yet, for its size, it is a glorious vehicle to drive.
Darth Vader Grey GT AWD w/Tech Package.
The RAV was the biggest nightmare I've ever owned....$6000 worth of waranty work during the first 2-3 years!!! On the other hand the brand new '95 Sunfire & 2000 Z24 Cavalier that I bought my son & daughter ...have never been in the shop for ANYTHING (ever)!!! & they are still driving both of them after all these years!!! Those are the 2 cheapest cars GM sells!!! Go figure?
I'm getting the same type of poor mileage in NY. 13 MPG around-town... and it's only been recently it's been THIS poor. CEL came on last night for the first time so it's going back to the dealer Friday (my dealer has been excellent).
Knowing of this potential IMRC Valve "issue" that the dealerships seem to admit to seeing a lot of, I wonder if that has something to do with the poor mileage. I read something online (not related to Mazda specifically) that I thought was interesting...
"The IMRC is a device on the intake manifold that increases the velocity of the air going into the cylinder at low speeds. Increasing air velocity helps in the proper air-fuel ratios.
"'The issue is that the system also creates a lot of pumping losses, which reduce fuel mileage. By opening up the IMRC a lot earlier to reduce pumping losses, fuel mileage was increased.'"
i am one of those that has been frustrated with the poor gas mileage i've been getting, but after reading this forum, have learned i am not alone nor is it an unexplainable phenomenon.
i recently read about this in the NYTimes, business section- scangauge.com. essentially works as the "missing" a trip computer that i would think would have been easy/smart to have been included in the "tech package" or any other trim level for that matter.
anyone familiar with this? one would have to figure out where the OBDII port is located and plug it in.
on reading the gauges included in this unit, one that's missing is a turbo output gauge. can someone educate me and explain if it would be helpful, and why, to instal one?
thanks, cs
On the other hand, driving up to Tahoe with about 25% city driving on that tank I still got 21.8 MPG, which was a pleasant surprise. That's what I was hoping for- much better driving experience than my previous SUV and better mileage to boot.
Overall it looks like I'm getting 2MPG worse than the EPA rating. Not too bad, but I'd be happier hitting those numbers or exceeding them as has been my experience with other cars.
3000 miles on an AWD touring model (with factory roof rack).
As for suing because you're getting bad gas milage. Not a chance. You made the choice, knowing up front, that the car had less-than-optimum MPG. Everyone knows this and everyone gripes about it. If you really don't like the CX-7, recommend you sell it and find something else. :shades:
Vince.
Agreed. But potential owners need to make those decisions BEFORE they step foot into the show rooms. Seems kind of lame to sign on the dotted line then discover they just bought a gas guzzler.
That's why I can't understand why people complain about the MPG. Well, golly gee, you KNEW beforehand, before you purchased the vehicle, what you were getting into. Complaining about it in this forum isn't going to fix anything. As the adage goes, "You made your bed, now go lie in it".
Just another rant! :shades:
Vince.
That's why I can't understand why people complain about the MPG. Well, golly gee, you KNEW beforehand, before you purchased the vehicle, what you were getting into. Complaining about it in this forum isn't going to fix anything. As the adage goes, "You made your bed, now go lie in it".
Just another rant!
Vince."
Reminds me of the "callgirl princpal" LOL
My thoughts are that if someone would design a spreadsheet or database chart that we could all enter our data to, we then might see if it is worth changing brands of tires.
Price of gas in Northeast = $ 2.60 / Gal. average?
Cost per mile 17 mpg. = $ .153
Tire replacement cost (4) = $400.00 (H value 130 mph)
Mileage needed to break even for
one mpg gain (if proven) = 2615 miles
Formula: 17pmg. / $2.60 = $ .153 cost of gas per mile
4 tires @ $100.00 per set / $0.153 = 2615 miles
Here is my concept:
Bridge- Good- Other
stone year Brand Tire size MPG Miles Driven
By comparing brands, we then may be able to determine if it pays to change brands.
Darth Vader Grey GT AWD w/Tech Package
:confuse:
Yes I quite agree, except for buying tires based on past experience may not be the way to go, because each vehicle has a particular set of dynamics and tires have improved dramatically in recent years.
Could I have maybe done a little more digging into the gas mileage before I bought the CX-7? Well... I guess... maybe... but until I bought it and discovered that instead of getting 19-24 it gets 14-18 in perfect "real life" conditions, I didn't know to research that particular aspect, now did I? Perhaps I should have researched the reliability of the remote start systems as well. But again, I didn't know mine wouldn't work properly until it STOPPED working properly. Nor did I know about the fuel cap, faulty satellite radio, faulty key, faulty windows, mis-aligned headlights, lack of wiper fluid sensor, wipers that won't work when its under 15deg, etc., etc., etc..
My mistake, obviously, was looking at the window sticker and then unbelieveably, I READ the sticker. I'll never forgive myself for that. My next unforgiveable sin (my family will live in shame for several generations... I should really fall on my sword for this one) was to *gasp* BELIEVE some of those bits of text. I know... I know... hindsight is 20/20. Its obvious to me now that I needed to hire a research company to launch a campaign - no - a private detective agency to delve into the deep, dark depths of the Mazda Engineering enclave to unearth the "real" stats and specs they keep hidden from the unsuspecting public. Perhaps THEN I would have uncovered the conspiracy that makes me appear such an idiotic consumer, and you such the savvy, worldly, omniscient consumer that you are. I'm jealous. :P
Agree completely on the MPG issues. In my own defense, I use the fact that there wasn't much MPG info on the forums in late July when I bought mine.
I think that maybe, just maybe, with a K&N-type air filter and 40 psi in the tires, I could hit those EPA numbers downhill, with the wind. That's how the gubment tests them, right? :P
-c92
I confess to being ignorant (OMG, that's a new one for me!) :P But what is a K&N-type air filter? How is that better than the stock CX-7 filter? You infer that it might help MPG? If so, how?
Vince.
BTW, buy the "cleaning" kit that is sold separately. The air filter has a lifetime garauntee, but needs cleaning every 10K miles in normal conditions.
Reality and the hype don't agree.
Do you honestly think that the auto manufacturers wouldn't use K&N from the factory if it meant 10% better mileage? Thereby improving their CAFE numbers, lowering their fines, and increasing sales? Trust me, there is no improvement in mileage to be had from an air cleaner (unless the one you are replacing is REALLY clogged).
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Not necessarily. There is an optimum amount of air to produce complete burn. Too little oxygen obviously means incomplete burn but you can't burn more fuel than is available by adding more than the optimal amount of oxygen.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
BTW, EPA ratings for gas mileadge I heard are up for revisions soon on vehicles.
My guess is that car manufacturers use paper filters because consumers (and even dealers) would balk if they HAD to pull the filter out and clean the fabric and re-oil it, no matter what the interval. The serpentine intake tubes and resonators in front of the filter are mostly if not completely for sound control, and in the cars where people don't care about intake roar (Corvette, Viper) these contraptions don't exist like they do on a CUV or family sedan. Get rid of all that junk, and assuming you aren't pulling hot engine compartment air, you will offset any lost tract tuning benefits with increased efficiency.
you sure can improve pumping losses and make air travel to the cylinder more efficient
Of course, but it still does not follow that simply increasing air flow will get you there. And, if there were simple cheap solutions, I still have to wonder why the car companies wouldn't adopt them.
tidester, host