Just received my latest Wheels Magazine subscription and noted an 11 Compact SUV megatest.
Their early review of the CX-5 was not complementary. The review was on the basis of the petrol engine (diesel not available at release).
Wheels are a magazine I trust mainly on the basis they are very quick to point out the positives and negatives of every model in very clear detail. There is never a clear favourite with any vehicle or brand, so their reviews are always a surprise.
So their criticism of the petrol CX-5 was based on very clear facts. Bottom line: it's far too slow.
They start the article explaining that the growth of the SUV market in Australia is mirrored by the waining of the tradition large sedan market. They also left Toyota's RAV4 and Honda's CR-V out of the comparison because both models are being refreshed (we're yet to get the CR-V now available in the US). But the expectation is that these models are unlikely to battle for the lead.
The long time leader of the segment has been the VW Tiguan.
In the comparison, they decided to choose the petrol Tiguan and the diesel CX-5. Their explanation for this was that the turbo petrol Tiguan was clearly superior to its diesel counterpart whereas it was the reverse for the CX-5.
The test included some interesting figures, including a highway overtaking test (which is 80-120km/h - or approx 50-75mph test), a 0-100km/h test (roughly 0-60) and a fuel economy test (in L/100km).
The results follow with a score out of 10.
The results ended up being (some names might differ in the US, petrol unless otherwise specified):
So you can calculate:
http://www.convertunits.com/from/kilometre/hour/to/mile/hour
http://www.convertunits.com/from/kW/to/hp
http://www.convertunits.com/from/newton-metre/to/foot-pound+force
11th Suzuki Grand Vitara - 5/10
Power/Torque: 122kW @ 6000rpm, 225Nm @ 4000rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 11.4
80-120km/h (secs): 8.5
Fuel economy (L/100km): 11.4
10th Holden (GM) Capitiva - 5.5/10
Power/Torque: 123kW @ 5600rpm, 230Nm @ 4600rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 9.7
80-120km/h (secs): 7.9
Fuel economy (L/100km): 13.4
9th Mitsubishi Outlander LS - 6/10
Power/Torque: 125kW @ 6000rpm, 226Nm @ 4100rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 9.6
80-120km/h (secs): 6.1
Fuel economy (L/100km): 9.6
8th Kia Sportage - 6/10
Power/Torque: 130kW @ 6000rpm, 227Nm @ 4000rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 10.1
80-120km/h (secs): 7.2
Fuel economy (L/100km): 14.2
7th Hyundai ix35 Elite CRDi (turbo diesel) - 6.5/10
Power/Torque: 135kW @ 4000rpm, 392Nm @ 1800-2500rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 8.2
80-120km/h (secs): 6.2
Fuel economy (L/100km): 7.1
6th Subaru Forester - 6.5/10
Power/Torque: 126kW @ 5800rpm, 235Nm @ 4100rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 10.3
80-120km/h (secs): 7.3
Fuel economy (L/100km): 8.9
5th Renault Koleos - 6.5/10
Power/Torque: 226kW @ 6000rpm, 226Nm @ 4400rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 9.8
80-120km/h (secs): 6.5
Fuel economy (L/100km): 10
4th Ford Kuga/Escape (turbo diesel) - 7.5/10
Power/Torque: 147kW @ 6000rpm, 320Nm @ 1600-4000rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 8.8
80-120km/h (secs): 6.1
Fuel economy (L/100km): 10
3rd Skoda Yeti - 8/10
Power/Torque: 112kW @ 6000rpm, 250Nm @ 1500-4200rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 9.9
80-120km/h (secs): 7.1
Fuel economy (L/100km): 9.3
2nd Volkswagen Tiguan - 8.5/10
Power/Torque: 132kW @ 4300rpm, 280Nm @ 1700rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 7.9
80-120km/h (secs): 6.4
Fuel economy (L/100km): 9.6
1st Mazda CX-5 (turbo diesel) - 9/10
Power/Torque: 129kW @ 4500rpm, 420Nm @ 2000rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 8
80-120km/h (secs): 5.7
Fuel economy (L/100km): 6.9
What's truely amazing about these results is that the 0-100 and 80-120 figures are not only at the head of the field, but it's matched by a significantly better fuel economy.
Worst Performance Results:
0-100: Suzuki Grand Vitara
80-120: Suzuki Grand Vitara
Fuel: Kia Sportage
Best Performance Results:
0-100: VW Tiguan
80-120: Mazda CX-5
Fuel: Mazda CX-5
See article:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennstewart/7225984806/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennstewart/7225983654/in/photostream/
Their early review of the CX-5 was not complementary. The review was on the basis of the petrol engine (diesel not available at release).
Wheels are a magazine I trust mainly on the basis they are very quick to point out the positives and negatives of every model in very clear detail. There is never a clear favourite with any vehicle or brand, so their reviews are always a surprise.
So their criticism of the petrol CX-5 was based on very clear facts. Bottom line: it's far too slow.
They start the article explaining that the growth of the SUV market in Australia is mirrored by the waining of the tradition large sedan market. They also left Toyota's RAV4 and Honda's CR-V out of the comparison because both models are being refreshed (we're yet to get the CR-V now available in the US). But the expectation is that these models are unlikely to battle for the lead.
The long time leader of the segment has been the VW Tiguan.
In the comparison, they decided to choose the petrol Tiguan and the diesel CX-5. Their explanation for this was that the turbo petrol Tiguan was clearly superior to its diesel counterpart whereas it was the reverse for the CX-5.
The test included some interesting figures, including a highway overtaking test (which is 80-120km/h - or approx 50-75mph test), a 0-100km/h test (roughly 0-60) and a fuel economy test (in L/100km).
The results follow with a score out of 10.
The results ended up being (some names might differ in the US, petrol unless otherwise specified):
So you can calculate:
http://www.convertunits.com/from/kilometre/hour/to/mile/hour
http://www.convertunits.com/from/kW/to/hp
http://www.convertunits.com/from/newton-metre/to/foot-pound+force
11th Suzuki Grand Vitara - 5/10
Power/Torque: 122kW @ 6000rpm, 225Nm @ 4000rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 11.4
80-120km/h (secs): 8.5
Fuel economy (L/100km): 11.4
10th Holden (GM) Capitiva - 5.5/10
Power/Torque: 123kW @ 5600rpm, 230Nm @ 4600rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 9.7
80-120km/h (secs): 7.9
Fuel economy (L/100km): 13.4
9th Mitsubishi Outlander LS - 6/10
Power/Torque: 125kW @ 6000rpm, 226Nm @ 4100rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 9.6
80-120km/h (secs): 6.1
Fuel economy (L/100km): 9.6
8th Kia Sportage - 6/10
Power/Torque: 130kW @ 6000rpm, 227Nm @ 4000rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 10.1
80-120km/h (secs): 7.2
Fuel economy (L/100km): 14.2
7th Hyundai ix35 Elite CRDi (turbo diesel) - 6.5/10
Power/Torque: 135kW @ 4000rpm, 392Nm @ 1800-2500rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 8.2
80-120km/h (secs): 6.2
Fuel economy (L/100km): 7.1
6th Subaru Forester - 6.5/10
Power/Torque: 126kW @ 5800rpm, 235Nm @ 4100rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 10.3
80-120km/h (secs): 7.3
Fuel economy (L/100km): 8.9
5th Renault Koleos - 6.5/10
Power/Torque: 226kW @ 6000rpm, 226Nm @ 4400rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 9.8
80-120km/h (secs): 6.5
Fuel economy (L/100km): 10
4th Ford Kuga/Escape (turbo diesel) - 7.5/10
Power/Torque: 147kW @ 6000rpm, 320Nm @ 1600-4000rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 8.8
80-120km/h (secs): 6.1
Fuel economy (L/100km): 10
3rd Skoda Yeti - 8/10
Power/Torque: 112kW @ 6000rpm, 250Nm @ 1500-4200rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 9.9
80-120km/h (secs): 7.1
Fuel economy (L/100km): 9.3
2nd Volkswagen Tiguan - 8.5/10
Power/Torque: 132kW @ 4300rpm, 280Nm @ 1700rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 7.9
80-120km/h (secs): 6.4
Fuel economy (L/100km): 9.6
1st Mazda CX-5 (turbo diesel) - 9/10
Power/Torque: 129kW @ 4500rpm, 420Nm @ 2000rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 8
80-120km/h (secs): 5.7
Fuel economy (L/100km): 6.9
What's truely amazing about these results is that the 0-100 and 80-120 figures are not only at the head of the field, but it's matched by a significantly better fuel economy.
Worst Performance Results:
0-100: Suzuki Grand Vitara
80-120: Suzuki Grand Vitara
Fuel: Kia Sportage
Best Performance Results:
0-100: VW Tiguan
80-120: Mazda CX-5
Fuel: Mazda CX-5
See article:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennstewart/7225984806/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennstewart/7225983654/in/photostream/
Last edited: