Undecided: CX-5 vs Escape/Edge

[Unobtanium]

It's impressive for a naturally aspirated 4-banger. Not really. It makes almost identical HP/TQ to an early 2000's Sentra Spec V with a 2.5L. I mean yeah, the technology involved is pretty impressive and all that, but the numbers don't get me all hot and bothered by any stretch. Anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't have much driving history with this class of engine/vehicle. But even your "performance" cars were slow and overweight by real performance standards. It depends, I guess. My Z06 (well, one like it), set records on the Nurburgring in the mid 2000's. I'd call that decent. And they burned gas like it was the end of the world if you actually used them to their (rather poor) performance capabilities. Try a modern, sub 500 pound superbike and you will learn what performance is. I guess. You do know that an R1 and a GXR1000 are both slower than a stock Z06 on the track...right? Look up the Nurburgring times... A CUV is a utilitarian people mover, grocery picker-upper, commute to work/school kind of vehicle. EXACTLY, hence why I am okay with it being a dog.No one seriously races them, they drive them in traffic which us why I think those who harp on power deficiencies are utterly ridiculous. Traffic is where you ACTUALLY NEED the power. Where in NW Washington do you live? In a big city, in a rural area? I live in a semi-urban area. It's urban enough that you are merging into traffic in rush hour where EVERYONE wants to get somewhere ASAP, and it's rural enough that you are pulling out of a hidden drive entrance on a mountain road with a speed limit of 65 and a blind curve to your left and your right. IMO, those are times when you NEED power. 184bhp is sufficient in this vehicle, with this driveline, I agree, but I have found myself wishing it had more on several occasions. In fact, I think a CX-5 with 300 HP would be a worse car (in so many ways I won't even list them).

No it wouldn't. The Subaru Forster 2.0XT isn't 300hp, but it's close. Probably is with a tune. It's a great vehicle that gets as good or better REAL WORLD fuel economy as/compared to the CX-5, and it's a blast according to every owner. THey certainly aren't lamenting their driveline, I can tell you that.

I get that if they offered an 80hp version that got 50mpg, you'd probably buy that, but you have to understand that not everyone is like you. To that end, Subaru, Ford, (formerly Toyota with the V6...tear...), and others offer CUV's with more aggressive power delivery. I think that Mazda is missing out on some pie by not following.

 

[CC58]

I looked at the Edge before I bought my 2014 CX-5. What I saw was frightening. The seats were made of super soft foam that you could sink your finger into 3". These seats overlap the plastic side when you get in and out. You'd have to be 6'5' to avoid mashing these seats mercilessly getting in/out. These seats would wear out quickly. The Sport model had a couple of shockingly cheap features. The engine is covered in a lump of foam rubber to keep down engine noise. It would surely disintegrate from engine heat in a couple of years. The infotainment buttons were flat surface buttons under a stick-on sheet of plastic. Very difficult to find and hit properly. Also it has heat/AC functions buried in the infotainment. Not reassuring. Also the transmission had a slip-bang defect. While driving the transmission would feel like it was slipping, only to kick in so hard it felt like a truck hit you in the rear. Fix required disassembly of transmission, drilling a hole and adding a ball into one of the passage ways. I won't even go into the notorious infotainment problems.

Overall the Edge's engineering was shocking and insulting to the buyer.
To offer such a heap for sale was an embarrassment to Ford.

The Escape is a much better vehicle, but suffered from fires from several sources in first year, and real world MPG is much lower than advertised.

 

[MikeM.]

No, 80 HP is not enough for a CX-5, 184 HP, no problem.

The Subaru Forester 2.0XT isn't anywhere near 300 HP, it's optimistically rated at 250 HP and it wastes a much higher percent of that (vs. cx-5) with it's transmission/drivetrain. That's why it's almost as slow as a CX-5. It's heavier and yet it can only tow 1500 pounds (which is not much more than a lot of trailers weigh).

 

[CC58]

One of my friends just leased a 2.0XT. He gets identical mileage to me, in my CX5 2.5L. Mazda "gamed" the EPA ratings, IMO, and set up gearing and all that to maximize return on their specific testing, I bet. This is the only negative I've found from my CX5. Gets about 2-3mpg less than "it should" where every other vehicle I've owned matched EPA ratings.

Your posts infer you have a heavy foot. That is the reason you get 2-3mpg less.
You endlessly whine about CX-5 mileage being low. Its because of you, not the CX-5.

As for the CX-5 being low on power, compare it to the CRV with same 2.5L and same 185HP.
The CX-5 is a FULL second faster from 0-60mph. Its because the CX-5 has a very low torque peak.
I've driven V8 muscle cars most of my life. The CX-5 power is more than adequate for its weight.

 

[Unobtanium]

Your posts infer you have a heavy foot. That is the reason you get 2-3mpg less.
You endlessly whine about CX-5 mileage being low. Its because of you, not the CX-5.

As for the CX-5 being low on power, compare it to the CRV with same 2.5L and same 185HP.
The CX-5 is a FULL second faster from 0-60mph. Its because the CX-5 has a very low torque peak.
I've driven V8 muscle cars most of my life. The CX-5 power is more than adequate for its weight.

How, exactly, does one have a heavy foot with cruise control?
Also, interestingly, my fuel mileage is IDENTICAL to CR, C&D, Edmunds, AW, and others. I think mine isj ust fine.

It also doesn't explain how I am the problem if half a dozen of my last cars had NO PROBLEM meeting their EPA ratings...but now I'm the problem. Okay...riiiiighttt....

The CX-5 is about half a second faster than the RAV4 and CRV. Where did you find a full second? Anyway, I feel that it's adequate for it's purpose and all that. I am just frustrated that even consumer reports, a typically very conservative testing group, as well as Edmunds, both fail miserably to meet EPA mileage, as have I. Oh, well. In fact, NOONE who has tested it has come close to EPA rated performance. They all get about what I do, especially on road-trips.

 

[Unobtanium]

No, 80 HP is not enough for a CX-5, 184 HP, no problem.

The Subaru Forster 2.0XT isn't anywhere near 300 HP, it's optimistically rated at 250 HP and it wastes a much higher percent of that (vs. cx-5) with it's transmission/drivetrain. That's why it's almost as slow as a CX-5. It's heavier and yet it can only tow 1500 pounds (which is not much more than a lot of trailers weigh).

I guess 6.3 seconds 0-60 is almost as slow as 7.8 seconds 0-60...

Now I see why the 2.0 feels sporty to you, lol

The dismal towing is probably a reflection of the CVT. If one wants to tow, the 2.0XT just isn't the vehicle, I agree. The old V6 RAV 4 was KING, here, IMO

 

[MikeM.]

I guess 6.3 seconds 0-60 is almost as slow as 7.8 seconds 0-60...

Well, neither one will win any performance awards but it's a rare day in the real world where the extra second and change would be material.

My motorcycles will do it in less than half that - the limiting factor is not engine power but the necessity of keeping the front tire on the ground. Unless you want to hit 60 with the rear tire leading the show.

 

[gettinlm]

I looked at the Edge before I bought my 2014 CX-5. What I saw was frightening.

Did you look at the 2014 or 2015 Ford Edge? Quite the difference there. I wouldn't buy an Edge from the previous generation, either. However, what they've done with the 2015 is quite attractive, in my opinion. Reminds me a little of the Lexus RX, and I mean that to be a compliment. Enter the 2016 Ford Edge with Sync3 (Apple CarPlay, Hands-Free Siri, and Downloadable updates from your home Wifi), and suddenly there might be a reason to spend a few more (thousand) dollars on the Edge.

 

[boandlkramer]

We're really debating a CUV and 0-60 times? Really?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Unobtanium]

We're really debating a CUV and 0-60 times? Really?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a selling point. It makes life better. It's far down on the list of "attributes of a CUV", but it is high up enough that Mazda makes a motor specifically because of complaints about the lack of it with the 2.0.

 

[MikeM.]

It's a selling point. It makes life better. It's far down on the list of "attributes of a CUV", but it is high up enough that Mazda makes a motor specifically because of complaints about the lack of it with the 2.0.

LOL! Actually, the 2.5L engine was already designed and engineered before they put the 2.0L into production. They didn't make the 2.5L because of complaints. Both engines are in high demand worldwide and each has it's strengths.


The 2.0L is lighter and provides better handling and fuel economy and the 2.5L has more power.

 

[MikeM.]

We're really debating a CUV and 0-60 times? Really?

I know. I was shocked to learn how focused some buyers are on published specs or add on options.

I always recommend potential buyers go drive a bunch of different cars, put them through their paces, how YOU intend to use your car, and see which one you like best. Don't worry what the 0-60 times are. You will know when you drive it if it's going to satisfy you. Choosing the best car based on published specs is like choosing the best wife based on her measurements. (RTM)

 

[KCSam]

I know. I was shocked to learn how focused some buyers are on published specs or add on options.

I always recommend potential buyers go drive a bunch of different cars, put them through their paces, how YOU intend to use your car, and see which one you like best. Don't worry what the 0-60 times are. You will know when you drive it if it's going to satisfy you. Choosing the best car based on published specs is like choosing the best wife based on her measurements. (RTM)

What??? So you're saying I should retire my wife requirement measurements of 36-24-36? (boobs) (can't stop laughing at that picture!)

 

[V8toilet]

My 2012 Mazda 5 with the older design non skyactiv 2.5 liter engine feels peppy and just as quick as my CX5 in every day driving. When I measured it with my G-Tech I got 0-60 in something (can't remember exactly) like 9 seconds. When I measured my CX5 on the same road with the same instrument I got a traction limited 7.5 seconds. My but-O-meter tells me they are closer than that. I have never felt like my Mazda 5 has had insufficient acceleration, which tells me that 0-60 times for an every day family, commuting, or recreational vehicle doesn't tell you much about its real world acceleration and feel. The Toyota Prius does 0-60 in a lazy 10.5 seconds yet I've been behind one that easily pulls away from me in my CX5 at certain situations. 0-60 times just don't tell the whole story and so one really should test drive as many vehicles as possible and put less emphasis on 0-60 times.

 

[littlebear]

I decided that I will get the CX-5. I love my Mazda's and while the CX-5 is not as "fast" as the Ford Edge with turbo. The CX-5 gets great reviews and places #1 on most CUV reviews. The Ford may be faster but I don't want to be dealing with turbo problems later on. Naturally aspirated engines always tend to be more trouble free.

 

[Unobtanium]

I know. I was shocked to learn how focused some buyers are on published specs or add on options.

I always recommend potential buyers go drive a bunch of different cars, put them through their paces, how YOU intend to use your car, and see which one you like best. Don't worry what the 0-60 times are. You will know when you drive it if it's going to satisfy you. Choosing the best car based on published specs is like choosing the best wife based on her measurements. (RTM)

One thing that cannot be stated enough is the torque curve of the 2.5L. It makes my CX-5 VERY usable in the Ozarks. That is one thing I still marvel at.

Also, life is too short for ugly women. I don't carry a tape measure with me, but I can still somehow manage to avoid the dogs. 7.6 vs. 8.0 seconds doesn't matter, but like you say...drive it and you will know. For the rest of you guys who just don't care, slap the rolls and ride the waves for all I care. Life's too short for that mess, in my book, though!

 

[Unobtanium]

I decided that I will get the CX-5. I love my Mazda's and while the CX-5 is not as "fast" as the Ford Edge with turbo. The CX-5 gets great reviews and places #1 on most CUV reviews. The Ford may be faster but I don't want to be dealing with turbo problems later on. Naturally aspirated engines always tend to be more trouble free.

I highly doubt you regret that decision.

 

[Unobtanium]

My 2012 Mazda 5 with the older design non skyactiv 2.5 liter engine feels peppy and just as quick as my CX5 in every day driving. When I measured it with my G-Tech I got 0-60 in something (can't remember exactly) like 9 seconds. When I measured my CX5 on the same road with the same instrument I got a traction limited 7.5 seconds. My but-O-meter tells me they are closer than that. I have never felt like my Mazda 5 has had insufficient acceleration, which tells me that 0-60 times for an every day family, commuting, or recreational vehicle doesn't tell you much about its real world acceleration and feel. The Toyota Prius does 0-60 in a lazy 10.5 seconds yet I've been behind one that easily pulls away from me in my CX5 at certain situations. 0-60 times just don't tell the whole story and so one really should test drive as many vehicles as possible and put less emphasis on 0-60 times.

That's because the Prius has a MAD 0-20 time. Electric motors are like Charlie Sheen. ONE SPEED GOOO!!!!!

Also, yeah, I know what you mean. I had an LT1 powered Trans Am, and an LS1 powered Trans Am. The LT1 just felt like it hit harder. Felt way faster. But then I raced an LS1 car and 0-50 it was close, but after that? Fail city.

Vehicles with low-end torque feel a LOT faster than they really are until you line it up against or try to pass or prevent someone pulling a ghetto lane on you in a vehicle that just flat out-powers you. Then you realize...not so much.

 

[MikeM.]

What??? So you're saying I should retire my wife requirement measurements of 36-24-36? (boobs) (can't stop laughing at that picture!)

Yes definitely! Test drive all the ones you find that you are interested in without regard to the specifications. You will know when you've found the right one. Don't worry if it takes a while because the testing is fun too. (lol2)

 

[yrwei52]

Choosing the best car based on published specs is like choosing the best wife based on her measurements. (RTM)

What??? So you're saying I should retire my wife requirement measurements of 36-24-36? (boobs) (can't stop laughing at that picture!)

Yes definitely! Test drive all the ones you find that you are interested in without regard to the specifications. You will know when you've found the right one. Don't worry if it takes a while because the testing is fun too. (lol2)

How many cars can you find with perfect spec and we can do the test drive? (whistle)