Motor Trend compares SUVs

[PJO]

Spoiler alert. The CX-5 did not win.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1209_2012_2013_compact_crossover_suv_comparison/

 

[dsonyay62]

Funny how didferent folks view things. If you read "The Truth About Cars" blog, you'll get a whole different take on the 5.

2nd place ain't too bad... 1st loser

 

[CX-SV]

So subjective when splitting hairs at the top it really doesn't matter, I agree that either a 1st or 2nd place is appriopriate for the CX-5 or Escape. These 2 are at the top of my personal list for this class of vehicle. I don't pick vehicles by rankings, I read between the lines.

 

[nyctravis]

Not a bad finish at #2. Never really saw the Escape's interior before closely. I can't stand that Microsoft logo plate-that would drive me nuts and I find it really tacky and gaudy. The vent and stereo dial placement looks like it's trying too hard to be cool.

 

[Aviboy97]

I don't get how MT editors claim the CX-5 is crazy slow when it has the same trap speed as the Escape and is only .5 seconds slower to 60, and the Escape is considered to have plenty of power. Rubbish or poor writing if you ask me.

Take into account that the Escape is waaay more expensive and gets less fuel economy, the CX-5 becomes even more attractive.

 

[CX-5 Rat]

Big deal, so it didn't finish first. If anyone wants a truck that can do burnouts and gets 8 miles to to the gallon, buy a Raptor.

 

[SilverBulletES]

The Escape's interior (as well as almost every Hyundai) looks like it's been designed by a Klingon. Don't see the appeal of the exterior either.

 

[plemieux]

The Escape's interior (as well as almost every Hyundai) looks like it's been designed by a Klingon.

I like Star Trek...

 

[mr.fusion]

They basically say the like the Mazda the best and it's the best looking and best to drive.... if only it was a little faster. I didn't buy mine to race, fortunately lol. I get what they are saying because the skyactiv doesn't have a lot of torque... no turbo to add low rpm grunt, so I think it does feel slower than it really is. But seriously, it's not under powered at all for actual driving in real world traffic... the more you drive it and get used to the car, the better it feels.

 

[1ba67]

I agree. I don't miss the power one bit. I also don't care about all of the gadgetry of Sync. If you are into all of that then the Escape might be a better choice. It will be interesting to see what the real world fuel mileage is when people start getting them. I read one mag. review that only averaged 19 mpg with the 2 litre eco-boost. I'm sure that included alot of heavy footed driving.

 

[Kelme]

I don't get how MT editors claim the CX-5 is crazy slow when it has the same trap speed as the Escape and is only .5 seconds slower to 60, and the Escape is considered to have plenty of power. Rubbish or poor writing if you ask me.

Take into account that the Escape is waaay more expensive and gets less fuel economy, the CX-5 becomes even more attractive.

This is Motor Trend, the same magazine that in 2001 called the Chrysler PT Cruiser the Car of the Year, the same car that in 2010 made every single list of the Worst Cars of the last decade.

Plus the very last sentence of the report gives you a little bit of Motor Trend history: Best of all, this one's from the home team

 

[SilverBulletES]

Yeah, I'm not sure if it's good or bad that the worst car magazine of all time (barring Consumer Reports) gave it 2nd place.

 

[Vorret]

Yeah, I'm not sure if it's good or bad that the worst car magazine of all time (barring Consumer Reports) gave it 2nd place.

What's wrong with Consumer Reports? (curious, my stemother swears by that magazine!)

 

[respy78]

What's wrong with Consumer Reports? (curious, my stemother swears by that magazine!)

CR is great for those who prioritize spending $ as carefully as possible over driving experience.

 

[Jcanracer]

I get what they are saying because the skyactiv doesn't have a lot of torque... no turbo to add low rpm grunt, so I think it does feel slower than it really is. But seriously, it's not under powered at all for actual driving in real world traffic... the more you drive it and get used to the car, the better it feels.

I agree with you. I think this is subjective. For example, my previous car dyno'd at 155hp @7400rpm (142lbft) and weighed 300lbs less than the CX5. Yet the CX5 feels more torquey and suitable for daily driving. But this is my take on it, based on previously driving a torque-less car which had to be kept above 4000rpm to make any usable power. So if the reviewers are used to driving nice BMWs and such, then of course the CX5 will feel low on torque.

 

[erhayes]

CU gave the CX5 a fairly good write up. The magzine pointed out the good handling, cornering and braking. Also mention the excellent fuel mileage, if I remember correctly. They also agreed with just about every other magazine that more power would be appreciated or needed. I have found that CU, in most cases gives an unbiased opinion and good data when they test items. Just because, I or others happen to be bull headed doesn't alter that fact. JMO. Ed

 

[CX-SV]

I subscribe to Consumer Reports, but use them mostly for reliability data/reports since they are useful given fairly large sample sizes.

Their instrumented testing is ok (for comparison purposes mainly). Their safety discussions have limited value, better to go straight to source such as IIHS for actual results/photos/videos of actual crash testing and related data. Their subjective automotive opinions have limited value but they are great for washing machines and fridges though.

 

[ta240]

Funny how didferent folks view things.

yep, just like all things subjective. I'd see so many car reviews where one place hated it and another thought it was the best. But that is good, otherwise it would be really hard to find my car in a parking lot if everyone drove the same thing.

I was amazed back when Motorweek did their comparison test (before the CX5) and they referred to a couple of the ones they tested as being so harsh on the road that they almost didn't recommend them. And yet those models ended up in the top half of the pack. How can it be so close to not being recommended at all yet still rate better than others?

 

[Kelme]

I just read the whole review and I find it funny that on the first paragraph they made the following comment: The CX-5 is really slow, especially in passing situations. And the ford review says: More important, unlike with the Mazda, nobody felt the Ford was low on power or struggled to accelerate.

But in their final numbers they have the following:

Passing 45-65 mph:
Ford Escape 5.2 secs.
Mazda CX-5 5.2 secs.

(uhm)(uhm)(uhm)(uhm)

 

[Vorret]

I just read the whole review and I find it funny that on the first paragraph they made the following comment: “The CX-5 is really slow, especially in passing situations.” And the ford review says: “More important, unlike with the Mazda, nobody felt the Ford was low on power or struggled to accelerate.”

But in their final numbers they have the following:

Passing 45-65 mph:
Ford Escape – 5.2 secs.
Mazda CX-5 – 5.2 secs.

(uhm)(uhm)(uhm)(uhm)

lol... good find I didn't catch that.