26 MPG combined won’t set any records for fuel efficiency among compact SUVs, but for the 2017 Mazda CX-5 4WD 2.5L 4-cyl, it’s a reasonable tradeoff. This vehicle focuses on driving enjoyment and a high-quality feel more than ultimate efficiency, appealing to buyers who value responsive handling and a stylish interior as much as saving money at the pump.

City and highway performance

The EPA estimates for the 2017 Mazda CX-5 4WD with the 2.5L four-cylinder engine and automatic transmission are 23 MPG in the city and 29 MPG on the highway. The city figure reflects the CX-5’s willingness to rev and its readiness to accelerate; these qualities contribute to its fun driving character. While stop-and-go traffic will impact fuel consumption, the engine’s responsiveness makes navigating urban environments more engaging than many competitors. The highway figure is respectable and should be easily achievable on long road trips if you aren’t constantly burying the gas pedal to pass.

Annual fuel cost

The EPA estimates the annual fuel cost for the 2017 Mazda CX-5 4WD 2.5L at $1,700. This is based on driving 15,000 miles per year and using national average fuel prices. Your actual fuel costs will vary depending on your driving, the type of driving you do, and the price of gasoline in your area. The $1,700 figure provides a benchmark for comparing the CX-5’s fuel costs to those of other vehicles. The EPA fuel cost is calculated using regular unleaded fuel, as the CX-5 doesn’t require premium.

Real-world expectations

While EPA estimates provide a standardized baseline, real-world fuel economy can vary. Drivers with a heavy foot can expect lower MPG than the EPA estimates, while those who prioritize fuel efficiency may exceed them. The CX-5 has Mazda’s “SKYACTIV” technology, with features to improve fuel economy, but their effectiveness depends on the driver’s behavior. Careful acceleration, anticipating traffic flow, and avoiding excessive idling can improve real-world fuel economy. Tire pressure, vehicle maintenance, and even weather can influence fuel consumption.

How it compares

The 2017 Mazda CX-5’s 26 MPG is roughly in the middle of its all-wheel-drive compact SUV competitors for fuel economy. A comparable Honda CR-V AWD achieves around 28 MPG combined. A Subaru Forester with its standard all-wheel-drive system typically gets 26 MPG combined. The Toyota RAV4 AWD is roughly equivalent to the CX-5. Some competitors like the Nissan Rogue offered hybrid versions that boosted fuel economy considerably above 30 MPG. The CX-5 buyer is often willing to accept slightly lower fuel economy to get the refined driving experience they desire. For access to all Mazda fuel economy data, you can browse our model pages, and for more details, you can check out the CX 5 MPG across all years.

Tips to maximize efficiency

Use the CX-5’s “SKYACTIV” technology. This is important for the CX-5 because it isn’t a hybrid or PHEV and relies only on engine optimizations for fuel efficiency. Avoid aggressive acceleration and braking, as these waste fuel. A lighter foot will allow the engine to operate more efficiently.

Ensure your tires are properly inflated. Underinflated tires increase rolling resistance and reduce fuel economy. Check the tire pressure regularly and inflate them to the recommended pressure listed on the driver’s side doorjamb. This is important for the CX-5, as its sporty handling characteristics can be diminished by poorly inflated tires.

Minimize idling time. Idling consumes fuel without covering any distance. If you anticipate being stopped for more than a minute, turn off the engine. This is more relevant in the city, but if you’re on a road trip, avoid extended stops with the engine running. If the vehicle has a start/stop feature, make sure that it is functioning correctly.

Reduce unnecessary weight in the vehicle. Extra weight increases fuel consumption. Remove unnecessary items from the trunk or cargo area such as items for sports or hobbies. This is important if you frequently haul cargo. The CX-5’s smaller size means its fuel economy is more sensitive to weight than a larger SUV.