Mazda CX-5 vs. Ford Ranger MPG

Chart is based on 156 fuel economy reports for the Mazda CX-5 and 141 fuel economy reports for the Ford Ranger.

Mazda CX-5 MPG

Year	Body/Powertrain	flat, hilly, or mountainousLand	driving style: very light to "lead foot"Foot	A/C use: none to heavyA/C	constant stop and goTraf %	many stops per mileCity %	stop every mile or twoSub %	fairly steady speedHwy %	Hwy Spd	MPG
2021	4dr SUV 162-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed manual FWD	hills	light	light	0	10	20	70	110	32.7
2019	4dr SUV 192-horsepower 2.5L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD	flat	light	none	5	5	25	65	80	27.7
2016	4dr SUV 184-horsepower 2.5L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD	flat	med	hvy	3	2	19	76	67	29.7
2016	4dr SUV 184-horsepower 2.5L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD	flat	med	none	1	3	37	60	62	29.3
2016	4dr SUV 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed manual FWD	flat	light	none	1	10	33	56	79	35.7
2015	4dr SUV 184-horsepower 2.5L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD	flat	light	light	2	15	17	65	70	25.7
2015	4dr SUV 184-horsepower 2.5L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD	flat	med	light	6	6	55	33	66	25.9
Looking for a warranty? Get a quote.
2014.5	4dr SUV 184-horsepower 2.5L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD	flat	light	none	0	50	0	50	110	31.5
2014	4dr SUV turbocharged 173hp 2.2L I4 Diesel 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD	hills	med	light	0	10	60	30	110	31.7
2014	4dr SUV 184-horsepower 2.5L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD	flat	light	light	3	23	22	53	64	30.2
2014	4dr SUV 184-horsepower 2.5L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD	hills	light	light	0	14	67	19	71	25.1
2014	4dr SUV 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD	hills	med	hvy	20	0	50	30	65	26.9
2013	4dr SUV 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD	flat	light	light	12	34	27	27	71	28.3
2013	4dr SUV 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD	flat	med	hvy	8	5	48	40	65	28.5
2013	4dr SUV 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed manual FWD	hills	med	none	2	5	5	88	60	35.3

Return to top

This page shows only averages. See all the Mazda CX-5 fuel economy data.

Ford Ranger MPG

Year	Body/Powertrain	flat, hilly, or mountainousLand	driving style: very light to "lead foot"Foot	A/C use: none to heavyA/C	constant stop and goTraf %	many stops per mileCity %	stop every mile or twoSub %	fairly steady speedHwy %	Hwy Spd	MPG
2021	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed turbocharged 270hp 2.3L I4 10-speed shiftable automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	flat	med	none	0	20	0	80	100	20.5
2020	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed turbocharged 270hp 2.3L I4 10-speed shiftable automatic RWD	flat	light	hvy	10	40	50	0	0	24.5
2011	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed manual RWD	flat	med	light	0	27	13	60	68	20.4
2010	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed manual RWD	flat	light	none	10	10	10	70	100	20.4
2010	2dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 143-horsepower 2.3L I4 5-speed automatic RWD	flat	light	hvy	9	36	0	55	75	27.0
2009	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	flat	med	hvy	8	48	10	35	120	13.0
2009	2dr Regular Cab 6ft bed 143-horsepower 2.3L I4 5-speed automatic RWD	flat	light	none	0	20	0	80	65	26.9
Looking for a warranty? Get a quote.
2008	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 148-horsepower 3.0L V6 5-speed automatic RWD	flat	light	light	5	50	0	45	100	16.0
2008	2dr Regular Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	flat	light	none	10	10	10	70	65	19.0
2007	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	flat	light	none	0	53	0	47	107	14.4
2007	2dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 148-horsepower 3.0L V6 5-speed automatic RWD	flat	light	none	0	0	53	47	65	17.2
2006	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed manual 4WD, part-time w/low range	flat	light	none	10	16	20	54	100	19.4
2006	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	flat	med	none	25	35	25	15	110	12.5
2006	2dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 148-horsepower 3.0L V6 5-speed automatic RWD	flat	light	none	20	10	35	35	75	17.4
2005	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	flat	med	none	0	50	20	30	60	16.7
2005	2dr Regular Cab 6ft bed 148-horsepower 2.3L I4 5-speed manual RWD	flat	light	light	5	20	35	40	60	30.0
2005	2dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed manual 4WD, part-time w/low range	flat	med	none	10	60	10	20	75	15.6
2004	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic RWD	flat	light	none	0	10	20	70	55	20.0
2004	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	hills	light	light	0	0	5	95	65	18.0
2004	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 154-horsepower 3.0L V6 5-speed manual RWD	flat	light	none	0	20	10	70	75	21.1
2004	2dr Regular Cab 6ft bed 143-horsepower 2.3L I4 5-speed automatic RWD	flat	light	light	10	30	40	20	60	27.1
2004	2dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed manual 4WD, part-time w/low range	hills	med	hvy	1	5	10	84	70	18.3
2004	2dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	flat	med	light	9	38	20	34	69	17.0
2003	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed manual RWD	flat	med	light	5	10	5	80	60	21.3
2003	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	hills	med	none	0	3	3	95	70	19.3
2003	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 154-horsepower 3.0L V6 5-speed automatic RWD	flat	light	none	0	10	25	65	65	22.6
2003	2dr Regular Cab 6ft bed 143-horsepower 2.3L I4 5-speed manual RWD	flat	light	none	8	8	21	64	65	24.8
2003	2dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed manual 4WD, part-time w/low range	flat	med	none	0	0	90	10	70	14.6
2002	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed manual 4WD, part-time w/low range	flat	med	light	0	18	0	82	74	16.7
2002	2dr Regular Cab 6ft bed 146-horsepower 3.0L V6 5-speed automatic RWD	flat	v.lt	none	10	10	10	70	60	22.0
2002	2dr Regular Cab 6ft bed 135-horsepower 2.3L I4 5-speed manual RWD	flat	med	light	0	48	35	18	75	25.5
2001	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	flat	light	hvy	0	0	30	70	60	18.5
2000	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 150-horsepower 3.0L V6 4-speed automatic RWD	flat	med	none	0	0	20	80	100	16.3
2000	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 150-horsepower 3.0L V6 4-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	flat	med	none	100	0	0	0	0	11.4

Return to top

This page shows only averages. See all the Ford Ranger fuel economy data.

See TrueDelta's information for all SUVs

See TrueDelta's information for all Mazda models and Ford models.

TrueDelta Reviews the Real Gas Mileage of the Mazda CX-5

Mazda CX-5 Real Gas Mileage: Pros
Year	Comment
2014	In a bid to broaden the appeal of its cars, Mazda added a focus on fuel economy to its traditional emphasis on handling. The 2013 CX-5 earned surprising EPA fuel economy ratings of 26 mpg city, 35 highway--but with a manual transmission and front-wheel-drive. Add AWD and a six-speed automatic transmission, and the ratings fell to a less lofty but still competitive 25/31. This, though, was with the wheezy 155-horsepower 2.0-liter engine. Certainly adding a half-liter of displacement (and 29 horsepower) must impact mpg. It does, but not much: fuel economy drops by a single mile per gallon, yielding 24/30. For those who'd like to trade the extra power for one mpg, the 2.0 continues to power the base "Sport" trim. I don't foresee many takers. The larger engine feels much stronger. At least as important, it doesn't sound nearly as weak and buzzy. But you won't find powertrain performance among the reasons to buy a CX-5 because the improvement merely makes the CX-5 competitive in this area. The CR-V and RAV4, among others, are about equally quick. Even with slightly lower EPA ratings the CX-5 still bests the 22/29 RAV4, especially in city/suburban driving. But there's a new segment champ. The 2014 Subaru Forester manages 24/32. see full Mazda CX-5 review

What Our Members Are Saying about the Real Gas Mileage of the Mazda CX-5

Mazda CX-5 Real Gas Mileage: Pros
Year	Body/Powertrain	Comment
2015	4dr SUV 184-horsepower 2.5L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD	My Mazda is the AWD model, and, I'm pleasantly surprised that it's bascially hitting its EPA numbesr so far. I've done 3 long trips, mostly interstate, running 70 - 75 Mph, and, average mileage is running 27.5 - 30 Mpg. see full Mazda CX-5 review
2014	4dr SUV 184-horsepower 2.5L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD	Hard to complain about averaging 27 mpg in an all wheel drive vehicle that is mostly surburban driven. see full Mazda CX-5 review
2014	4dr SUV 184-horsepower 2.5L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD	This SUV gets as good mileage as my father's Ford Escape Hybrid! Overall, I love that I am actually getting better MPG than my previous car, which was a 2009 Mazda 6. see full Mazda CX-5 review
2014	4dr SUV 184-horsepower 2.5L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD	The number two reason I chose this vehicle was for the gas mileage, which has so far exceeded my expectations. According to the information screen, I've been averaging between 29 and 30 mpg. see full Mazda CX-5 review
2014	4dr SUV 184-horsepower 2.5L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD	Fuel economy was the best in its class. see full Mazda CX-5 review
2013	4dr SUV 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD	True to EPA estimates, 25 city/31 highway for the AWD AT. I've tracked about half of the miles I have driven on fuelly and get ~28mpg (mostly using the car to commute to work on state routes w/ 55 mph speed limits). see full Mazda CX-5 review
2013	4dr SUV 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD	see full Mazda CX-5 review
2013	4dr SUV 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic FWD	Outstanding, I am still meeting or beating the EPA standards for this vehicle with an automatic transmission. Over a 3500 mile road trip, the total (calculated) MPG was 31.3 for the entire trip, this was 2600 miles of interstate, and about 900 miles of city driving and touring. The speeds on the highway were 70-80 MPH for most of the interstate, so this seems to be above EPA speeds. Of course the mileage drops off above 70 mph, but cruising at 80 MPH in west Texas, the average (tank to tank) on the two tanks was 29.6 MPG. Most of this is because of the fact that the transmission is a help as well, the locking converter and six speeds allow for a good range of flexibility for the engine to run. see full Mazda CX-5 review
2013	4dr SUV 155-horsepower 2.0L I4 6-speed shiftable automatic AWD	Being a "green" thinking person, I liked the fact that the Mazda has the best fuel economy in it's class, by a fair margin! It does deliver on it's claim: I get 30-33 on the highway, depending on average speed, even in the up and down terrain of Seattle highways, and average 20-23 in strictly city driving. Again, we have a lot of hills in Seattle, which have a big affect on fuel economy. The modest sized engine does work and rev a bit more than some of the others I drove, but it does just fine overall. IF you want a very fast 0-60 time get a BMW or Porsche SUV, but be prepared to pay the price at the pump!! see full Mazda CX-5 review

What Our Members Are Saying about the Real Gas Mileage of the Ford Ranger

Ford Ranger Real Gas Mileage: Cons
Year	Body/Powertrain	Comment
2011	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed manual RWD	Could be better. Right now getting a nudge over 20mpg each tank, which is somewhat expected but could still be better. see full Ford Ranger review
2009	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	2009 4.0L 4x4 with Auto is just HORRIBLE for fuel mileage - all these trucks with the 4.0L are! Although the Ford Ranger has an excellent and proven track record for reliability and the new vehicle pricing was very competitive, I could have purchased a larger more expensive truck with a V8 and more features and by this time I'm sure that I could have broken even if you consider how much the Ranger has cost me in additional fuel costs. Although I'm confident that this little Ranger will last for years, I'm afraid that I will be trading it earlier than I would have wanted to find something that is not such a gas guzzler. see full Ford Ranger review
2008	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	Ford needs to wake up to the cost of gas - All you can get now in a 4x4 is the 4.0L engine - That motor eats gas. Ford I want the option of a 3.0 L and even a 2.3L 4x4 see full Ford Ranger review
2006	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed manual 4WD, part-time w/low range	With todays gas prices I would have liked to have the option of a smaller motor. The 4.0L can really drink fuel see full Ford Ranger review
2004	2dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range	I average anywhere between 16 and 19 mpg, I believe that Ford could achieve alot better fuel economy out of a truck the size of a Ranger that doesnt even have a V8 see full Ford Ranger review
2003	2dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed manual 4WD, part-time w/low range	I averaged 15-16mpg in mixed driving during the summer. About 11-12mpg in the winter. On long trips I could get 18-20mpg, but the best I ever got out of it was 23mpg going down the I80 into California. see full Ford Ranger review
2002	4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed manual 4WD, part-time w/low range	I would always like to get better gas mileage but considering mine is 4WD and has the larger engine, the gas mileage is not that bad. I would not want to give up power to get better gas mileage. I do feel Ford could improve on fuel economy. see full Ford Ranger review
2001	2dr Regular Cab 6ft bed 119-horsepower 2.5L I4 5-speed manual RWD	V-6 fuel economy in a 4 cyl. No matter what I do it gets 20 mpg. should be better see full Ford Ranger review