Motor Trend compares SUVs

[Jcanracer]

Good catch, I feel like our car is only "slow" getting up to speed, but once it gets going, its just as good as the others.
Short of Corksport coming up with a supercharger kit, I just don't think any reviewer is going to be satisfied with the torque that the Skyactiv-G offers.

 

[CX-SV]

Look at the very fast exotics the average MT, C&D, R&T road tester gets to enjoy, fun.


CX-5 modest power is always pointed out. And frequently (but not always) they mention that CX-5 gas mileage is better than it's competition, best in class, including CRV, Escape, Rouge, Sportage, Tuscon, Tiguan, Outlander. The CX-5 is engineered for efficiency, no surprise.

 

[ta240]

Look at the very fast exotics the average MT, C&D, R&T road tester gets to enjoy, fun.

True, that has to put a weird perspective on 'normal' cars for them.

 

[CX-SV]

True, that has to put a weird perspective on 'normal' cars for them.

Kinda like the vid of a CX-5 drag racing a CRV, like watching paint dry.

 

[dsonyay62]

When I read two very positive and interesting reviews in TTAC blog, I figured this must be a car worth looking into. I nearly forgot about it until my wife saw it at the dealer while preparing to buy a 3gt.

The CX5 is ranked near the top in this article.. that says a lot. AND it bests the "CRVex."

 

[EricF]

Short of Corksport coming up with a supercharger kit, I just don't think any reviewer is going to be satisfied with the torque that the Skyactiv-G offers.

Supercharging a 13:1 CR engine? That should be fun to watch. LOL

 

[CX-5 Rat]

Supercharging a 13:1 CR engine? That should be fun to watch. LOL

Indeed. Can you say kaboom?

 

[Jcanracer]

I know, I'm crazy.
Buuuut since our car is already tuned for 87 octane, that means the timing is already retarded enough that 6psi or less (centrifugal supercharger perhaps) shouldn't be a problem on 93 octane provided you could tune the fuel delivery. I'm over simplifying, obviously, but its fun to dream while I sit in an office with no windows :-(

 

[Aviboy97]

Since we are on the topic of the Escape, I just read in an Escape forum that an owner of a 2.0L EcoBoost is averaging slightly over 21mpg. Ouch!! Dude shoulda bought a CX-7. Would get the same fuel economy, and would have been more fun to drive and cost less! That kind of economy won't sit well with buyers forking over nearly $37G's. For better hope the 1.6L fairs much better.

BTW, my Ford dealer has not sold one yet. According to the sales manager, people are turned off by the price.

http://www.escape-city.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15624

 

[MadMan2k]

Figured I'd chime in even though I don't even own a Mazda, matter of fact I own 2 Fords...

I test drove the Escape with the 1.6 turbo last weekend, and although I did like the engine, I had the instant fuel economy gauge up and whenever the turbo kicked in the MPG dropped waaaaay down. I think the average mpg counter on that dealer test-drive vehicle was around 12 when I got in it. Shows what to expect if you drive it hard.

I have also driven the CX-5 with the automatic, and the escape does feel faster than the CX-5 to me, might be the fact that the transmission isn't as eager to grab the next gear up which makes it easier to accelerate when you hit the pedal. But overall, I didn't care for it. I'm planning to buy a CX-5 if they release the diesel model here; I'll probably be one of the first on the pre-order list if there is one.

 

[ta240]

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.

If I had to guess I'd say the Escape probably doesn't run out of breath above that range as much as the CX5. I like the CX5 but my wifes 3 with the 2.5 pulls strong right up past 80 and the CX5 gets winded up there. Just about everything in cars is a trade off. The best car for you is the one that has the most things you like. The CX5 is roomier, quieter and gets better mpg than her 3 so I'll keep it.

Typically passing means going a bit faster than 65. Either zipping past cars to get over to the freeway exit or on the back country highways when you are stuck behind the guy doing 50 in the 55 zone that then speeds up to 60 when the road straightens out or he sees you go out to pass.

 

[ta240]

I just read in an Escape forum that an owner of a 2.0L EcoBoost is averaging slightly over 21mpg.

Someone on fuely is getting 23 with a CX5. It is all about driving style.

 

[CX-SV]

I had one tank at 25 mpg in lots of commute traffic, which is the EPA city rating.

I would not expect more than 21 city from a 2.0L Escape that's not bad considering the power.

 

[Aviboy97]

Someone on fuely is getting 23 with a CX5. It is all about driving style.

That was my car on the first tank of gas at 100% city driving, in fact as of my 3rd fill up, I am averaging just under city economy with it going up with each fill up. My wife and I do virtually no highway what so ever. The Escape owner said he was mostly highway. That's the difference.

 

[ta240]

I do about 85% highway and I could drop my mpg by 5 easily by just driving slightly more aggressively. And could probably completely kill the mpg if I drove like some people I see on the freeway.

personally I don't care what the Escape gets. I don't need it to do poorly to make me feel good about my decision. I'm sure for plenty of people the Escape will be a better choice.
In all reality the better it gets the better the next CX5 will have to be. As more companies make excellent cars everyone has to make their next car that much better. For years the new cars didn't interest me because they just weren't that much better than what I was currently driving. When the gas prices skyrocketed and everyone started hating their car and then the economy died car makers were left wondering why people weren't buying their latest, slightly better than 5 years ago, offering. Now they've woken up and realized they have to make better cars. Also I give a big thanks to the South Koreans for kicking all the other car companies in the nuts.
No longer can they run an ad campaign that says "it's a Honda" and have that be enough for it to sell hundreds of thousands of cars. No longer can American car companies turn out crap and sell it cheap after a pile of discounts to people that feel patriotic for buying it. Remember back when you could choose from maybe 2 or 3 small cars that weren't junk? Now I can't even list all the small cars that would be decent ones to own. So I say, go Ford, make a great new Escape that will make Mazda work even harder on the next CX5. And fill parking lots with the Escape, just as long as Mazda gets profitable with their new offerings so they continue to offer them I'm happy to be able to spot my car in the crowded lot.

 

[Aviboy97]

Simply stating an Escape owners observed economy. Not Ford bashing or wishes of ill will. I think you took my post out of context. I have always been a supporter of competition because it only improves the breed.

 

[CX-SV]

Simply stated, the only place I go for apples to apples comparisons of fuel economy is US EPA website (post 2008 ratings are the meaningful ones). I don't care about user-posted/suspect data on a some fuelly website.

 

[EricF]

Simply stated, the only place I go for apples to apples comparisons of fuel economy is US EPA website (post 2008 ratings are the meaningful ones). I don't care about user-posted/suspect data on a some fuelly website.

"While the public mistakenly presumes that this federal agency is hard at work conducting complicated tests on every new model of truck, van, car, and SUV, in reality, just 18 of the EPAs 17,000 employees work in the automobile-testing department in Ann Arbor, Michigan, examining 200 to 250 vehicles a year, or roughly 15 percent of new models. As to that other 85 percent, the EPA takes automakers at their wordwithout any testingaccepting submitted results as accurate."

If you want a apples to apples comparison, I wouldn't put too much stock in what the EPA posts.

 

[CX-SV]

"While the public mistakenly presumes that this federal agency is hard at work conducting complicated tests on every new model of truck, van, car, and SUV, in reality, just 18 of the EPA’s 17,000 employees work in the automobile-testing department in Ann Arbor, Michigan, examining 200 to 250 vehicles a year, or roughly 15 percent of new models. As to that other 85 percent, the EPA takes automakers at their word—without any testing—accepting submitted results as accurate."

If you want a apples to apples comparison, I wouldn't put too much stock in what the EPA posts.

I would for several reasons, until a better source is established.

That's old news and typical hyperbole.

Guess who does testing for your HP and torque ratings btw... Maybe we can hype that up too.

Again for comparison purposes EPA website (post 2007 ONLY) has some value. Certainly more apples to apples than some website with random postings under completely random driving conditions by who knows who.

For example the 3 late model vehicles I currently own easily achieve mileage reasonably close to post 2007 EPA city/highway ratings (post 2007 ratings are very different than prevous ratings of earlier years, it's important to make that distinction if you want useful data.).

 

[EricF]

I would for several reasons, until a better source is established.

That's old news and typical hyperbole.

That was taken out of a publication from a month ago LOL.

Guess who does testing for your HP and torque ratings btw... Maybe we can hype that up too.

Exactly.

for comparison purposes EPA website (post 2007 ONLY) has some value. Certainly more apples to apples than some website with random postings under completely random driving conditions by who knows who.

If the EPA tested every car on the same course at the same speed, then yeah, it would be a good gauge to compare one car to another. But they don't do that. Sure some are close, but some are way off.