mazda5 = underpowered ??

[8smitty]

Hey I'm the new guy looking at buying a mazda5 grand touring as the wife wants the heated leather and dvd for the kids....we drove a touring model on Sat. and it seemed a little underpowered...esp since it seems to shift out of 1st and into 2nd to quick....granted we are coming from a Trailblazer SS with 400hp but I thought it would be a little more responsive....any possible suggestions to boost the power a bit....we like the 5 as we don't want to go the minivan rt and the 5 has a lot of functionalilty....thanks guys

 

[drdiaboloco]

any possible suggestions to boost the power a bit....we like the 5 as we don't want to go the minivan rt and the 5 has a lot of functionalilty....thanks guys

Yeah, wait for the 2011 model with more power and the largemouth bass face.

Or get the manual. Doesn't change the power a bit, but it's faster/"more responsive".

Or go the Car and Driver Magazine route and pop in the drivetrain from a Mazdaspeed3.

 

[8smitty]

I would love the manual but we are wanting the grand touring model with the additional features...it is crazy that they don't offer a manual in that trim package

 

[drdiaboloco]

it is crazy that they don't offer a manual in that trim package

True, I guess, but I'm happy with the Sport... Prefer the cleaner look to the body add-ons of the more upmarket models (aside from the fogs, which I had added at time of purchase).

Never in my life saw the need for heated seats (though my wife's bottom disagrees), and if you insist on DVD for the kids there are aftermarket alternatives. I suppose you could even retrofit seat heaters and leather seat covers, but that starts getting to be a huge PIA.

Perhaps we should just be happy/amazed that they offer a manual at all, considering how few 5's they sell and how even fewer of them have a stick.

Guess we'll see if Ford does the right thing and offers a manual on their (supposedly) upcoming Focus C-Max. That might have to be my next Mazda5, especially since they uglied up the 5 for the new model.

 

[Mazda5wannabe]

I have a 2006 GT with the MT, so they used to offer it. I tried both the AT and the MT when shopping and the MT was a lot more responsive. I live in the interior of BC and you can't drive anywhere without driving up a mountain (or so it seems). I never feel like I need more power.

Which is different from WANTING more power!

 

[Heat]

I would love the manual but we are wanting the grand touring model with the additional features...it is crazy that they don't offer a manual in that trim package

Which features are you wanting off of the GT that aren't on the Sport?

You can add leather for about $1,500 (or $800 if you do it yourself, see http://www.katzkin.com/main.html). Add a nice aftermarket radio for around $200, or add one with navigation for $500 to $1,000 (see www.crutchfield.com for the options). On the Mazda OEM radio, keep in mind that it can't play .mp3s, and you will need to spend around $130 to hook up an iPod.

Foglights can be added to an ’09 for around $233 (OEM) (http://www.mazdaparts.org/exac11.html), less for other brands. I’m assuming the ’10 prices will be similar.

How much is the GT you are looking at? Mazda5 Sports with manual transmission are advertised at $16,500 in the St. Louis area.

 

[DKaz]

Have you tried the manual mode of the AT to see if you can get it to rev higher? The 2.3 hardly has any power in the lower RPMs.

 

[8smitty]

well for one we want the sunroof...heated leather I know could be done by katzkin as I had them do a mustang for me a few years ago....the radio's are all the same so that is no biggie to change out...I guess I could add the headlights, exterior body parts...so really the sunroof is the downer

 

[A1an]

I don't find it all that underpowered for the intended purpose of my 5 (slogging through stop-and-go traffic, highway cruising, hauling mountain bikes).

Before I started getting into these sub-200hp vehicles I daily drove various Mustangs. At first I missed the power. Fortunately it didn't take long to get accustomed to the lack of torque. I really don't miss it anymore and have come to the conclusion cars with gobs of hp/torque are pretty much a waste for daily driving.


But to answer your question...not sure what is out there to give these things a bit more power. You could go with the usual cold air intake and exhaust but you will lose a bit of daily driver comfort. Not sure if SCT or another similar tuner offers tuning packages for the 5. An ECU reflash like that won't usually give you tons of power but they tend to give you a bit more enjoyment by messing with the timing curve, shift points, etc.

 

[thaxman]

I would love the manual but we are wanting the grand touring model with the additional features...it is crazy that they don't offer a manual in that trim package

Is your SS a manual? America has moved decidedly toward the idea that maual shifing is for either cheapos or Ferraris. I read that last year 7% of all cars sold were manual.

Compared to my 97 Accord EX VTEC, Subaru Legacy, CRX, Sonata Dad's FWD Impala V6, Bro's VUE and pretty much any other car I've driven that wasn't a performance model, its right in line power wise. Manufacturers REALLY analyze the power-to-weight ratio of what they offer, making them pretty much identical unless you opt for the upgrade. What's really a shame is that Mazda doesn't offer the 5 w/an engine upgrade. Would really love the 2.3 turbo from the CX-7, as all I really want is a few more horses and 20-30 lbs more torque.

 

[mpvue]

the 5 is only 'underpowered' in comparison to overpowered behemoths like the trailblazer SS (what does that get, like 13mpg?) I commute in my 5, have no problem merging, or passing, or even cruising at 80 and still have plenty of reserve to pass.
4 bangers just have to be driven differently. it likes to rev. I spin it up to 6K quite often and still knock down 25mpg.

 

[morethan5]

The 5's power is adequate for most anything, in the way that a Corolla is adequate for getting somewhere. When compared to something in the closest vehicle class -- the minivan -- the 5 is significantly underpowered. A Sienna or Odyssey will simply blow a 5 away AND get decent mileage.

I own a Sienna and a 5.
The 5 gets me 28-30 mpg going back and forth to work.
The Sienna just gave me a trip average of 26.2 mpg on a 1700 mile round trip.
In comparable driving, the 5 gets about 5 mpg better.

 

[mpvue]

The 5's power is adequate for most anything, in the way that a Corolla is adequate for getting somewhere. When compared to something in the closest vehicle class -- the minivan -- the 5 is significantly underpowered. A Sienna or Odyssey will simply blow a 5 away AND get decent mileage.

I own a Sienna and a 5.
The 5 gets me 28-30 mpg going back and forth to work.
The Sienna just gave me a trip average of 26.2 mpg on a 1700 mile round trip.
In comparable driving, the 5 gets about 5 mpg better.

YMMV, but cars.com shows a 0-60 for the 5 to be 9.2, and the sierra 8.6; .6 second difference, hardly 'blown away'.
they also show mpg for the 5 to be 21-27, and the sienna 19-24; pretty substantial difference.
they are obviously different cars, and I know the sienna is a much larger box w/ more capacity. but I KNOW I can drive my 5 a lot more spirited than a sienna. there isn't any other 'minivan' that can handle like the 5.

 

[morethan5]

Drive a 5, then a Sienna. Use the manual shift mode in both, so the previous drivers' styles are not taken in to account for when the transmission decides to shift.

For my model years and versions...
2007 Sienna 4295 lbs / 266 hp = 16.1 lbs/hp
2008 Mazda 3475 lbs / 153 hp = 22.7 lbs/hp

In weight : power, the 5 is disadvantaged by 29% or the Sienna is advantaged by 40% -- depending which one is used as the reference.

This is significant in my opinion.

Add the same number of people to each, and the differences become even larger.

The Sienna isn't exactly a comparable vehicle to the 5, but a 2007+ Sienna is considerably faster than that (0-60 time).

Sienna FWD 7.2 sec / 15.7 sec / 0.76g
Sienna AWD 7.4 sec / 15.8 sec / 0.74g (winter tires for all)
Mazda 5 9.4 sec / 17.3 sec / 0.80g

Sienna FWD
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...007_honda_odyssey_comparison_test+page-5.html

Sienna AWD with winter tires
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...oyota_sienna_limited_awd_short_take_road_test

Car and Driver earlier published 0-60 times as low as 6.7 sec for the Sienna FWD -- which is possible if manually shifted. The biggest challenge is keeping the tires from letting go -- which do let go in 1 and 2 with no problem, and 3 if shifted late, from 2.

Mazda 5
http://www.caranddriver.com/buying_...ring_short_take_road_test+t-specs+page-2.html

I'm not sure that the manual 5 speed is going to be much, if any, faster than the auto 5 speed. A torque converter isn't a bad thing, for acceleration, if it keeps the engine at a higher rpm during the event. The biggest penalty is going to be weight. If the auto is shifted manually, the times are going to be pretty close.

 

[Robotazky]

^^ I just drove my mom's '09 Odyssey last week and it will definitely "blow away" my 5.

 

[mpvue]

^^ I just drove my mom's '09 Odyssey last week and it will definitely "blow away" my 5.

morethan5 and robotaz both chose to ignore my last point: the 5 will easily outhandle the ody and sienna. sure, I guess either can outscoot the 5 to 60 or in the 1/4 (really, I'm not going to have a pissing contest over fractions of a second), but for real world driving, and exit ramps, and back roads, the 5 has the clear advantage.

 

[Robotazky]

morethan5 and robotaz both chose to ignore my last point: the 5 will easily outhandle the ody and sienna. sure, I guess either can outscoot the 5 to 60 or in the 1/4 (really, I'm not going to have a pissing contest over fractions of a second), but for real world driving, and exit ramps, and back roads, the 5 has the clear advantage.

I didn't ignore it at all actually. Both of your comments are opinion. Both of my comments are opinion.

There is no question, in my mind, that I can smoke a stock 5 if I'm in my mom's Odyssey whether it be in the twisties or drag races. It's just a way faster vehicle and performance in curves can be overcome in straightaways unless the entire circuit is curves. Differences in real world performance between the two are only fractions of a second on paper, but like night and day on the road. I will be the first to admit, and endorse, the fact that our 5s handle way better than an Odyssey. But, they're out-gunned by a V6 with almost 100 more horses. That's very hard to overcome with just handling, as I'm sure you know. It's really stupid to even compare the two in my opinion. So, I guess my concluding comment would have to be: how did this conversation go from a question of whether the 5 is underpowered to a question of whether different classes of vehicles blow the 5 away? Regardless of how the 5 is categorized, we all know it is not a minivan like a Sienna or Odyssey.

 

[mpvue]

ok

 

[Robotazky]

Actually, to answer the original question, I think you have to consider the category of vehicle first. I don't want a bigger engine in my 5 personally. If I wanted faster, with brute power, I'd be looking at big minivans. I'm really happy with the fuel economy and also how easy it is to get in the engine compartment to perform maintenance. If they can get the same economy out of this car with a more powerful engine, I'd be all for that. So ultimately I guess the answer lies in a comparison of HP/LB or HP/cubic inch of all vehicles. Somewhere in that spectrum is where the 5 would sit. That's the only way to answer the question.

If the Mazda 5 power-to-weight ratio is: 3417:153, or ~22LB/HP,

then using a table of power-to-weight ratios quickly grabbed off the internet shows it to in fact be underpowered when compared to other cars.

2009 Honda Odyssey: 17.98 LB/HP
2009 Toyota Sienna: 16.05 LB/HP
2009 Kia Rondo: 19.05 LB/HP
2009 Honda Fit: 21.27 LB/HP
2009 Subaru Forester: 19.12 LB/HP
2009 Ford Focus Coupe: 18.50 LB/HP
DeLorean DMC-12: 24.08 LB/HP

Is it underpowered? I'd say the fact that it's closer to a DeLorean than Kia Rondo or Ford Focus says enough. My answer is: yes, it is underpowered. Do I care? No, but i'd take more power if it got the same MPG.

 

[5zoom]

The 5 only seems underpowered when fully loaded. If you keep the engine RPM up when merging on to the freeway/climbing a hill, its definitely adequate.

99 percent of the time, its enough power.