Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Mazda CX-7 Real World MPG

245678

Comments

  • rethwilmrethwilm Member Posts: 24
    I have 1000 miles on my CX-7 and with two fill ups after the initial "full" tank from the dealer I have averaged 20MPG. The driving has been about 60/40 City/hiway. Went 320 miles on 16.1. I am hoping it improves by at least 10% I have been easy on it since it is in the break in period, but find myself zipping through the gears quite a bit.
  • sssfegysssfegy Member Posts: 132
    HI I work for Mazda and noticed you take it easy on your car, you should not do that. For the first 500-1000 miles you should drive like you normally do, rev it up but do not gun it, or set the cruise control on (do not mainatain same speeds for a long period of time) you should let the engine get used to operating in every condition, and not for a long time. Also change your oil at a 1000-1500 miles to let engine chips out.
  • astegmanastegman Member Posts: 171
    Also change your oil at a 1000-1500 miles to let engine chips out.

    When I picked up my car last week, I was told I should change the oil at 7500 miles. What are engine chips?
  • sssfegysssfegy Member Posts: 132
    When the engine is new, a few metal chips inside the combustion chamber tend to fall out , there are very tinny but very easy to get stuck in one of the moving parts and becomes part of it, every engine in the market will do the same, that is due to the finish of the metal inside.
    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.
  • pctechpctech Member Posts: 43
    After a little over 2700 miles, my lowest MPG is 17.93 and highest 22.05. This is mostly higway driving and I must confessI'm neither the slowest driver nor do I always have a light foot when accelerating! I've filled up several times with 89 octane ("mid-grade") and have noticed no difference in run quality or power. But the 10-cent lower cost seems nearly meaningless at over $3.00 per gallon! Anyway, LOVE the car! :P
  • astegmanastegman Member Posts: 171
    I swore up, down, and sideways that I wasn't going to keep track of the MPG, but...

    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.
  • fowler3fowler3 Member Posts: 1,919
    What ssfegy says is correct. When an engine is new: the object of not making fast starts from stoplights, no hard braking, not using the cruise control, and varying your speeds/rpms as much as you can -- is to help the rings to seat properly in the cylinders. The pieces of metal flaking off come from the seating process. Some companis use lasers to machine the cylinders and say not to worry about varying the speed. But others have stayed with this time-proven procedure.

    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
  • fowler3fowler3 Member Posts: 1,919
    Reading from the begining I see several misconceptions about which fuel one should use. Do NOT use regular 87 in the CX-7, it requires premium to prevent pre-ignition, which is very harmful to the engine. Also, premium gas has additional additives to protect the engine not used in regular. Mazda has used the latest technology to get the most out of one of the best 4-cylinder engines made, don't ruin it by going el cheapo.

    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
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Engines that have been babied and always driven at low rpms are a bad deal

    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?
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Seems like he's lumped the easy braking in with the engine break-in period, but the two are unrelated. Hard braking would glaze the brake pads and prevent them from bedding in to the rotors properly, but shouldn't have any effect on the engine.

    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
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    Here's verbatim quote from the owners manual. Somewhat vague in their guidance:

    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.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Ok, we need two volunteers.

    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).
  • wjbushsrwjbushsr Member Posts: 135
    ROTFLMAO :cry:
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    Ok, I get ROTFL, but what's MAO?

    Vince
  • d_hyperd_hyper Member Posts: 130
    ... my "behind" off :-). I.e. very funny.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    That made me laugh so hard I nearly scuffed my cylinder wall! :P
  • kinggoopkinggoop Member Posts: 15
    I've been getting those numbers as well. Last fill up was a little lower 16.8, but that was because I was driving the car hard. I was USING the power and not driving it like an SUV. I used to have a 350Z, so... ya know.. gott have some fun SOMETIMES! :shades: Before that I got about 20MPG as well.
  • elkhairelkhair Member Posts: 2
    Been looking at the CS-7 as my next car. Tempting ride.

    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.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    Excellent advice, but if you're interested in the CX7, why bother? It amazes me that some CX7 owners obsess over MPG. If these people are that worried about squeezing mpg out of their CX7, then that just takes the fun out of owning the CX7. If someone is frets about MPG, then go buy a hybrid...the CX7 is not the right choice.

    Vince.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Vince, you bring a lot to this forum, and I enjoy your posts - but in this case, I think there's a difference between "obsessing over MPG" and complaining that your vehicle is performing 30% below what the government/manufacturer implied it would. I don't want a hybrid for a number of reasons, but I WOULD like my wonderful CX-7 to get somewhere near the EPA numbers, at least ONCE, you know? Think of it in terms of money: say the sticker on your CX-7 was $30,000, but after you signed the contract, the dealer told you "Oh, well, THAT'S just the STICKER. The ACTUAL price is $39,000." You just can't tell people "Well, if you didn't want to spend $40K, what were you doing looking at a $30K car?" Whether elkhair is correct, or if the government's protocol is just screwed up, it ain't fair to the consumer.

    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
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    Everyone knows those EPA numbers on the new sticker are meaningless. The EPA tests vehicles in a very controlled environment that is impossible to duplicate in the real world. The car manufactures trumpet those numbers in order to entice buyers and prove they meet CAFE standards.

    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 :D:):blush: :shades:
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "The EPA rating is a useful tool for comparing vehicles when car buying, but it may not accurately predict the average MPG you will get." fueleconomy.gov

    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.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Everyone knows those EPA numbers on the new sticker are meaningless.

    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
  • 1stmazda1stmazda Member Posts: 17
    most recent tank.....305 km's on 58l

    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...
  • guyfguyf Member Posts: 456
    19L/100 Km???? My Volvo XC90 gets 12.5 on average...

    Not good....
  • nmknmk Member Posts: 111
    Now has 950 mi. and mileage is just creeping up, yet still have not cracked 19 mpg. Spouse and I drive for enjoyment and not to race from meeting to meeting or commutation. Mostly 20% suburban driving and 80% shun-pikeing or on interstate but rarely above 74 MPH on interstate or 5 mph above legal limits.

    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.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    You could probably just swap ECUs (assuming somebody makes performance parts for the CX-7 eventually) and gain 50 hp without touching mechanical parts... Then you might NEVER crack 19 mpg, but you'd probably be having so much fun, you might ever complain about it, either!!! zoom-ZOOOOOM! :D
  • nmknmk Member Posts: 111
    How much more fun can one have beyond the joy of driving this machine as it is. I can hardly wait!!
  • rethwilmrethwilm Member Posts: 24
    take it on some mountain roads that you are familiar with and shift to manual and hold on. We have a cabin in kentucky we use and I thought my Maxima handled the roads. It was awe inspiring to go through the esses with some up/down to them at around 80mph in 3-4th gear. My brother in-law proclaimed it the funnest and most stable ride he has ever been in.. Of course I scared the heck out of him. As I said in an earlier post 119 MPH has been achieved and it was as quiet and non-economical and fun.

    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.
  • 1stmazda1stmazda Member Posts: 17
    i'm going to see if I can get my mileage a little better....

    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
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    you're fine flooring it and shifting all you want. it's still a normal automatic transmission underneath; they've just given you a little more control over it. or, at least they let you THINK you have control... :) usually the computer will prevent you from even downshifting into a gear that would raise engine rpm too high...

    -c92
  • nmknmk Member Posts: 111
    Just returned from an overnight up to Lake Placid including a climb up Mt. Whiteface Elev. 4,800 ft. Approx. 340 miles at 65-74 mph and approx 35 miles at about 30-50 mph. Total of 376 miles driven for the trip.

    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.
  • 1stmazda1stmazda Member Posts: 17
    next tank (for those of you following along:
    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?
  • nmknmk Member Posts: 111
  • nmknmk Member Posts: 111
    Call me paranoid, but I just did two fill ups at the same pump on small mileage, just to see how different driving affects the mpg.

    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
  • fowler3fowler3 Member Posts: 1,919
    Some people are like politicians when it comes to buying cars: they want the power, but not the responsibility, as in, paying for the gas. You can't have it bothways -- economy and power. They want the CX-7's styling without it's thurst.

    fowler3
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    Agreed. Wouldn't it be interesting to know if Mazda design engineers read these threads and started taking notes? But then again, that makes too much sense, eh? ;)

    Vince.
  • afroceltafrocelt Member Posts: 5
    girlfriend and I just filled the cx-7 up for the first time. We pulled in at 21.9 mpg with a 25/75 mix of city-highway (70-75 mph). While down at her home for the weekend, her brother took it out for a ride. He's a street bike enthusiast, and rode hard. In 15 minutes he'd made a noticeable dent in the fuel supply.

    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.
  • marleybarrmarleybarr Member Posts: 334
    A Mazda salesman told me that the CX-7 has to idle for a minute or so, before shutting off, or the turbo will be ruined. Any comments?
  • sssfegysssfegy Member Posts: 132
    It will not be ruined, but it is a good practice on any turbo engine, a minute sounds like alot of time, I would wait about 10-20 seconds and then turn it off, it's not like you will ruin it if you forget a few times.
  • nmknmk Member Posts: 111
    I think that the manual says to idle the engine for a minute or two after coming in from "a long high speed run". The quotes are mine.
  • aussiedawgaussiedawg Member Posts: 9
    I do a mix of rush hour Freeway and city. I really need to get out on a long highway run to see what the mileage can get up to.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Okay, so we un-virgin-ized our CX-7 on vacation with a 2500-mile week of driving... Almost all highway, usually at 75 mph (although a lot of it was at 80+ since the interstate speed limit in West Texas is often 80 mph). There were several stints where I would set the cruise and not touch the pedals for hours. The car had 2000 miles on it when we started; it now has 4500+. All fuel was 91 octane or better.

    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.
  • nmknmk Member Posts: 111
    On Sunday, after a fill up in Ft. Lee, NJ, drove from the GW Bridge to Kennedy Airport and then in and around midtown Manhattan for local shopping and attempting to park. (and you all know what that is like) :mad:
    Left Manhattan and drove up the Taconic Parkway (mostly about 60-70mph) to Home. :)
    Put in 9.07 gallons.
    70 miles of city driving, :cry: 120 miles of parkway :D for a total of 192 miles and an average of 21.2 mpg. :D
    All things considered, not too bad.

    NMK
  • portly_gnomeportly_gnome Member Posts: 15
    Am I the only one feeling duped here? the sticker on mine stated 17 city and 24 hwy. I drive a lot. Regularly up 60K miles/yr. And while the mpg wasn't great, I thought it was good enough for how fun it is to drive.

    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?
  • jbjtkbw00jbjtkbw00 Member Posts: 66
    Not that this helps, but other driving conditions affect your mpg as well. Wind will lessen what you're getting to an extent and so will terrain and tire inflation, but I'm sure you know all of that. The biggest factor is usually acceleration, which a lot of people take for granted. Especially from stop lights and on corners.

    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.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,863
    I'm trying to ascertain if our state lemon law covers substantially lower MPG than stated

    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

  • wjbushsrwjbushsr Member Posts: 135
    Good point...
    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..."
    ;)
  • nmknmk Member Posts: 111
    So yesterday, I drove 22 miles of local suburban traffic and then 80 miles of parkway and interstate between 60 & 74 mph.
    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. ;)
  • astegmanastegman Member Posts: 171
    with the premium gas here at $2.30/gal

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.