-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Options
Comments
When I picked up my car last week, I was told I should change the oil at 7500 miles. What are engine chips?
You change the oil at 7500 after that, which I would not recommend on any vehicle out there, the vehicle will run and operate fine, but you will notice a change in performance, you will notice that when you change the oil, you'll feel you have more power. Manufacturers increase oil inetervals for convenience nothing less, but if you want to keep for a long time to come I would do it at 3000-5000 and it would depend on type of oil you use. Hope this helps.
After the 4th tank of gas, the MPG was 21. I'd say about 80% of that was highway driving. It was also the first week of driving the car in the usual manner - that is, back and forth to work during the week, and local town errands on the weekends. The first 3 tanks were used on vacation, which is not representative of the way I normally use the car. The MPG was very "meh" - so-so, about 16 MPG, but we took the car on vacation 2 days after getting it, so I didn't expect much.
However, I was pleased with this last mileage.
When the rings do not seat properly there is the chance the engine will start using oil. Bad!
Also, a new engine is tight and needs breaking in with low stress on the moving parts until it losens up. This is the reason for lower fuel economy in the beginning. As the engine gets close to 5000 miles your fuel economy will improve, but do not expect 29mpg at 85mph.
The saying that a vehicle will get its best economy at 60mph applies to non-turbo engines, essentially, and really means that at 3000rpm, or below, you will get the best economy since 2700 to 3000rpm are the revs at that speed for most small engines. It also means do not rev it above 3000 at ANY TIME to squeeze out the highest mileage. Nobody drives like that and as ssfegy pointed out you need to vary the revs/speeds so the engine can get use to a wide range of rpms.
Engines that have been babied and always driven at low rpms are a bad deal when sold to a second buyer who normally drives at high rpms -- sometimes blowing up when pressed hard. Think of the little old lady cars which just drove around town.
If most of your driving is city and suburbs do your engine a favor and take it for a run on a highway during the week, let it stretch its legs. Drive 5 or 10 miles, exit, and return home.
fowler3
If you hear a loud knocking sound coming from the engine get off the throttle IMMEDIATELY and pull off the road, let it sit for a few minutes. Sounds like a diesel. The engine may smell hot, because it probably is. That's pre-ignition. the fuel/air mixture igniting prematurily usually due to the wrong fuel.
The best way to check economy is to fill up at the same gas station using the same pump. Pumps vary. Set it for auto-shutoff and do not fill to the top of the filler pipe. Repeat test several times in succesion.
fowler3
There's another school of thought from the biking community that says you should drive them hard right off the showroom floor; the claim is that the engine will have more pep in the years to come that way.
I'm not clear on why hard braking would affect the rings?
On the other hand, one of the worst things you can do to a green engine is to downshift (in either a manual or automatic car) to use engine braking to help stop the vehicle. This puts a lot of shock on the rings. Hard braking by itself normally doesn't cause an automatic transmission to shift down through the gears in a way that would harm the engine.
-c92
Break-In Period
No special break-in is necessary, but a few precautions in the first 1,000 km (600 miles) may add to the performance,
economy, and life of your Mazda.
- Don't race the engine.
- Don't maintain one constant speed, either slow or fast, for a long period of time. ill-defined - what is a long period of time? they don't define "slow" or "fast"
- Don't drive constantly at full-throttle or high engine rpm for extended periods of time. ill-defined - what are extended periods of time?
- Avoid unnecessary hard stops. ill-defined - what is a hard stop?
- Avoid full-throttle starts.
- Don't tow a trailer.
Vince.
One will buy a new CX-7 and drive it like it was stolen.
The other volunteer will baby their new one - 500 mile oil change, no revving, no tire squealing, lots of near misses as you creep along on the Interstate at no more than 55 mph (and not too long at that speed).
5,000 miles should be enough time to get back to us on your MPG (and we can compare 0-60 and quarter mile times too).
Vince
I own a Honda Civic Hybrid and have read extensively on mileage and have carefully monitored the mileage I get in my Civic and tested rather extensively what makes or breaks good MPG performance. I offer some mileage fundamentals:
1) Few cars if any achieve the EPA estimates. The EPA testing protocol is somewhat flawed and unrealistic, and gives numbers higher than most will acheive in real world driving.
2) A vehicle's best mileage efficiency is typically achieved at speeds of about 50-55 MPH. Faster than 60 MPH will see your MPG.
3) Air conditioning usage will lower all cars' MPG, sometimes quite significantly.
4) A car will get better MPG in warmer weather and worse mileage in cold winter weather.
5) Acceleration is the enemy of MPG. Smooth acceleration and a light foot touch on the pedal will vastly improve MPG. (Yes, not as much fun, though)
6) MPG on most cars will improve after several thousand miles are put on the car. Not sure why, but this was surely the case with my Civic, and many other hybrid owners have said the same to me.
6) If EPA estimates CX7 at 24 mpg on highway, I would think achieving 21 MPG or a little better is about what one would expect, and that without AC and in mild weather. Many will probably average in the upper teens.
7) On the other hand, if you are averaging in the low to mid teens, you must be really stomping on that pedal.
Vince.
Also, knowing a hybrid or econobox gets better mileage is a no-brainer, but without EPA numbers, how do we compare three vehicles in the same class? Some people just gotta have a CUV, and the fact that 18/24 MPG is not all that bad makes owning a CUV palatable to them; maybe it helps them sleep at night knowing that they could do better, but that they could also do a lot worse with fuel economy. At mixed mileage in the 15s, I'm not so confident I could do worse anymore...
-c92
If a potential buyer is ONLY going to use EPA estimates as a foundation for making a choice, then those numbers might be of value, but that's assuming that you can compare virtually identical vehicles between one manufacture and an another. We both know that's a dream. That's why I don't even look at those numbers any more. It's virtually impossible to use those EPA estimates as a basis for comparison between models.
As a class of vehicle (excluding hybrids) SUVs, CUVs, UTEs, etc, get woeful gas milage. If I was a tree hugger, a wacko environmentalist, then I'd shun the entire category. But then, I'd have to forego cargo capacity, road clearance (offroad capabilitity), visual clearance over other vehicles, towing capacity, all those qualities that utility vehicles are noted for.
I suppose you can make the argument that if you can't afford the gas, then don't buy the CX7.
Isn't the CX7 wonderful vehicle! I LOVE MINE!
:P :shades:
The EPA is revising the mpg test and says that "under the new methods, the city mpg estimates for most vehicles would drop 10 percent to 20 percent from today's labels, depending on the vehicle. The highway mpg estimates would generally drop five percent to 15 percent." link
So if you're getting 30% lower than the current EPA rating you could infer that your mpg is outside the range that would be expected.
Actually, that hasn't been my experience at all. Maybe I've been lucky until now... my previous three cars (Japanese VTEC-4 coupe, American NA V-8 pickup, and German turbo-4 sedan) have all been pretty much on the EPA bubble. The Civic actually exceeded the numbers regularly - not that it mattered when gas was less than $1.00 a gallon...
As far as "all" SUV/CUV/UTEs getting woeful mileage, that's not a generalization I'd be prepared to make. Given that we are talking 4-cylinders lately, and given that the government (EPA) is supposed to be telling the truth - well, actually I WOULD expect to believe in the mileage numbers on the Monroney. As they say, "Fool me once..."
Honestly, if the sticker had said 18 highway/15 city, I probably still would have bought the CX-7 (or, maybe the RDX, if its advertised mileage was still higher and I trusted its numbers). But even though I'm generally a cynical type from the outset, my sentiment is still that there is some "fleecing of the people" going on here.
-c92
14.8 MPG I think...
Really poor (if my calculations are correct)
I'm noticing in town - it'll hold in 4th easily..and be slurping the gas. Wish it would drop to 5th quicker,...I find myself manually shifting into 5th and then putting it back into auto...
Not good....
Seems that the automatic shift points are poorly spaced in MHO.
BTW, read somewhere that the blower on the "6" is just a bit larger and produces about 30 added horses and a bit more torque. If that is true, why not change blowers and really dust off the competition after you leave the stop light, that is.
I have almost 3K on the car and my latest 250 mile road trip with 90% Hwy I got 21mpg with the Hwy mph about 80. Who cares, gas is down and so is the Cx-7's gas pedal.
having never used a tiptronic style transmission before - a few questions (silly as they may seem).
does shifting with your foot on the gas cause any damage (unlike shifting in a manual tranny where you'd be light on the gas using the clutch?)
is there any harm in letting the car downshift itself?
tx
-c92
Put in 18.73 gals. for an average of a gnat's whisker above
20 mpg. Mileage is creeping up.
It was a hoot to drive on those curvy mountain roads.
Purchased on August 31st and now have driven 1495 miles.
363.3 km on 59.9l
16.5 km/100 if my math is correct.
that's with me driving very aware.....
(about 80-20 City driving)
any other canadians want to throw out mileage?
Driving around town running errands etc. in a small city on the Hudson river. 6.66 gals. for 119 miles = 17.87mpg.
Took a slow drive along the river over local country roads never exceeding 55mph. 1.96 gals. for 46 miles = 23.46mpg.
Have driven a total of 1600 miles to date.
Happy motoring......
NMK
fowler3
Vince.
guess what im trying to say is that if you drive the car hard, you lose efficency fast.
We bought the CX-7 for its driving experience, and so far we're not dissapointed. We just dont floor it constantly (unlike the Car and Driver editors it seems .
ps- We're at 1300 miles, though only 500 is us.
Final numbers:
The average came out to be 21 mpg.
Results varied between 20.5 and 22.5 mpg. (The 22.5 mpg was a tank of gas with the A/C mostly off, and going down an elevation change of a few thousand feet over several hours)
Not the 24 mpg I wanted, but it'll do for now.
Left Manhattan and drove up the Taconic Parkway (mostly about 60-70mph) to Home.
Put in 9.07 gallons.
70 miles of city driving, 120 miles of parkway for a total of 192 miles and an average of 21.2 mpg.
All things considered, not too bad.
NMK
I hadn't questioned the fuel economy at first, but after the first few tanks, I thought something was wrong. I'm at 2200 miles right now. I'm getting 17mpg in the city, and I vary at (get this) 16 mpg - 20mpg Hwy. 16!! I never dive more than 9mph over the speed limit, and it was driving the speed limit - 65 mph - that got me the 20.01 mpg. At 4 mpg under the listed sticker price in the best situation, saying I drive 60K miles per year, that's 500 gallons more gas to buy, or with the premium gas here at $2.30/gal, its costing me $1,150 more to drive this vehicle in ideal situations. At 16mpg, it's $2875/yr more.
I've taken it to the dealer and they decided, with the assistance of Mazda techs, that there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It it's advertised with 17/24 mpg, how can it get away with being 25% lower than advertised?
I'm trying to ascertain if our state lemon law covers substantially lower MPG than stated fills the requirement that it, "substantially impairs the motor vehicle" or "significantly diminishes the value of the motor vehicle." I would say yes to both.
Thoughts anyone?
I'm not saying that you're flooring it all the time, but I just wanted to add those factors into what you may be experiencing. I don't think the A/C running is as much a factor as it used to be, but you never know.
Just my .02 on what you're going through. Keep us posted.
I'm 99.9% sure the answer is no. A manufacturer can not be held responsible for the numbers the EPA assigns. That would be like lemon lawing a car because it doesn't run the quarter mile as fast as Motor Trend said it should.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
The way the manufacturer can get around it is, that it's based on"E.P.A. estimates', which is why they always say "actual mileage may vary..."
Put in 5.7gls. for an average of 19.2. BTW, I don't have a heavy foot at stop lights.
Milage has been slowly creeping up, but I really expected more mpg on this last fill up, because it was almost ideal driving conditions. Oh well.
NMK
PS> But I did have fun on the curves and hills.
In my neck of the woods, I'm thrilled to find premium at $2.55! You're getting a great price.
Yes, the mileage is not terrific, but that's been pretty well-dcoumented on these forums and elsewhere as well. When I was shopping around in June/July for a new car, I knew going in that the CX-7 was not going to be efficient. I read these boards, sniffed around the internet, etc. For me, the so-so efficiency wasn't a deal breaker. I'm not trying to dismiss or minimize your frustration - these are your hard-earned dollars you're talking about - but relying on the sticker numbers seems shaky at best. I've always considered those numbers to be a hazy, optimistic "in a perfect world" type of thing - to be taken with a grain of salt. Caveat emptor, I guess.