New 2017 CX-5 Revealed

[Phames11]

Don't forget about the CVT trans.
Mazda should switch to that as well, for better gas mileage?
The gas is really that expensive, that we still care about the mpgs?

Booooo CVT. No more fun if they want that way.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Kaps]

Don't forget about the CVT trans.
Mazda should switch to that as well, for better gas mileage?
The gas is really that expensive, that we still care about the mpgs?

Do you think gas will always remain so cheap?
OPEC signed an agreement to reduce capacity. Though it won't make a huge dent. there are some big oil producers outside OPEC that may or may not cut it. Gas prices can never be predicted so I would say it is good to have a better mpg car and forget about it. If I could replace my 2nd car with a 2015 Leaf my monthly running costs would be $20 + insurance. At that point I mean - I only have to worry about my cX5 and its 24K annual miles + any long trips.
I am not pulling the trigger due to uncertainty about renting and not having a garage to charge.

 

[redturboeclipse]

yes, of course but look at the numbers it puts out. 190hp 180 torque. the torque curve is also smooth and delivery is at a low rpm for everyday and cruising speeds.

 

[redturboeclipse]

Yes, but a turbo 1.5. I think we will end up seeing lots of cars like this in the future. The issue is that they have never achieved the real world MPG that is seen in the lab.

My 2014 AWD GT get ~26.4 MPG (see fuelly data) in real world city driving. A 30% increase would be >30 MPG. That would be a game changer in my mind. The motortrend data is odd in that it is 5 MPG lower in the city and 1.2 MPH higher in the highway. The CX-5 highway MPG is completely dependent upon speed. I can get an easy 30 MPG if I keep my speed at or below 75. Above that, my mileage drops to 27-28.

yea here is the article

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2017...-mpg-city-results-exceeds-epa-highway-rating/

they point out the lower mpg in the city

 

[redturboeclipse]

Don't forget about the CVT trans.
Mazda should switch to that as well, for better gas mileage?
The gas is really that expensive, that we still care about the mpgs?

your in california and you are asking that. the cost of living there is so expensive and many commute so far from where they actually live. MPG is a huge seller in CA, obviously with all the teslas and prius that are sold there. we really need to see if mazda did any tweaks to the current n/a 2.5 to keep up with the mpg on the crv at least highway mileage. if it's going to be the same, believe that mpg will sway more people over the sexy look of the upcoming cx5

 

[CX-5um]

yes, of course but look at the numbers it puts out. 190hp 180 torque. the torque curve is also smooth and delivery is at a low rpm for everyday and cruising speeds.

CVT and turbo are a potentially good combination if done right. If anybody can do it its Honda. That said long term reliability is unkown right now.

 

[tibimakai]

If in other states, people are much closer to their work place, then why it matters that much the MPG?
I work 22 miles away and I drive in heavy traffic(over an hour each way) and my MPG is around 23-24. Before it was worse, when I lived 11 miles away(20-21MPG).
I'm pretty happy with that mileage.
My previous car, 08' VW Rabbit had 20-21 MPGs and that car it was a small hatchback. So, with this bigger car, I'm getting even better MPGs and I'm having a lot of fun driving it, I'm very satisfied.
Mazda, the only way can cut down on MPGs is, if it makes them much lighter(then people are complaining about the noise), use a CVT transmission(then the people, who love to drive will walk away) use smaller engines(then people are complaining that there is not enough power), or go electric(most likely they can't afford to do that.
So what else can they do, to tweak a bit hear and there, which it will be (way)behind a CRV's MPG.

 

[ALafya]

There is a good chance the 2017 will get better EPA/actual highway MPG because it is lowered. However, because 2016.5 was measured using the old EPA guidelines, the 2017 might get hit with the new guidelines (see Mazda 6 2016 vs 2017 for a case in point).

The CR-V's CVT is probably the best in the market right now (compared with other CVTs) and I think most buyers will not care. I would certainly consider vehicles with CVT, as long as they are not annoying to drive.

Mazda is now trying to get ahead in efficiency with SkyActiv 2, but that's not going to be ready for at least 2 years and might slide for even longer.

 

[DannyBoone]

There is a good chance the 2017 will get better EPA/actual highway MPG because it is lowered. However, because 2016.5 was measured using the old EPA guidelines, the 2017 might get hit with the new guidelines (see Mazda 6 2016 vs 2017 for a case in point).

The CR-V's CVT is probably the best in the market right now (compared with other CVTs) and I think most buyers will not care. I would certainly consider vehicles with CVT, as long as they are not annoying to drive.

Mazda is now trying to get ahead in efficiency with SkyActiv 2, but that's not going to be ready for at least 2 years and might slide for even longer.

I haven't ever driven a car with a CVT, but my understanding is that they are, by their nature, annoying to drive. When I say "by their nature" I mean that they always feel different because there are no actual gear shifts, and this is what is annoying to most people.

What makes Honda's the best in the market in your opinion?

 

[MrPerception]

Honda's CVTs are good in that they mimic a traditional automatic transmission, thereby elimination the high droning usually associated with CVTs. The problem is reliability though. Even Honda hasn't figured this out. I know of at least 3 that have been replaced at my local dealership on new CR-V's (my city is only 20,000 people) and my dad's 2016 Honda Accord has had 3 programming resets and still won't engage at times when putting into reverse from a standstill or drive after reversing. He's even had a couple of times where he got to the end of the driveway, waited for traffic to clear, then pressed the gas to hear the engine rev and little to no movement. He's quite thankful it's only a 2 year lease as he plans on handing it right back to the dealership.

 

[dougal]

You know, why is motortrend so amazed that the CR-V went 7.5 in the 60? The CX-5 has done anywhere from 7.2 to 7.8.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

You know, why is motortrend so amazed that the CR-V went 7.5 in the 60? The CX-5 has done anywhere from 7.2 to 7.8.

I wonder if Honda has done anything with their impaired AWD system? It seems to be the least capable of the current CUVs out there. That alone for my needs would exclude it for consideration.

 

[piotrek91]

well unless mazda is doing something or any tweaks to the upcoming cx5 to get better gas mileage, it will be beat by the new 17 crv.

since it is using same powertrain as the current, i dont see much improvement on the mileage for the upcoming cx5.

The current latest CX5 Rated by the Feds at 24/30/26 mpg, the CX-5 actually got 23.4/27.7/25.1 Real MPG.

as for the upcoming 17 CRV, EPA-rated fuel economy for the turbocharged CR-Vs is 27/33 mpg city/highway with all-wheel drive and 28/34 mpg with front-wheel drive. Our test vehicle was a loaded CR-V Touring AWD, so compare its 27/33 mpg EPA result with the Real MPG of 21.9 and 34.2.

(source---motortrend)

that real world highway MPG is music to my ears since i do a lot of highway driving. and all the feature set on the crv its a clear winner.

the new cx5 has its looks though, nothing can beat how the upcoming cx5 exterior design.

I agree, that the real MPG is a good data point, but..

it's silly to trust motor trends "real MPG" over EPA. Their tests are not proven in any way shape or form. The make no mention of temperature, wind, traffic density correction. The only correction they make is if their drive speed/acceleration differed from their target, but they make no corrections for, for example following behind a semi truck.

The only thing the "real MPG" tests have going for them, is that automakers as far as we know, have not optimized their transmission shift logic to those tests.

I wonder if Honda has done anything with their impaired AWD system? It seems to be the least capable of the current CUVs out there. That alone for my needs would exclude it for consideration.

I doubt it. Their AWD really isn't as bad as the synthetic tests make it out to be.

Of course, looks is subjective and I would not call the new CR-V pretty. Honda now is in its over-styled period, though I think the new CR-V is much less so than the Civic.
From what I've read so far, Honda did an excellent job with every aspect, from much better NVH, excellent passenger and cargo volume, great engine, an improved CVT, brought back the volume button to its Andorid Auto equipped infotainment.

I suspect the new CX-5, which I consider a tad less attractive from the outside compared with previous gen, will get better highway fuel economy, mostly from being lowered. However, I don't think they'll be able to match the CR-V's fuel economy with current gen SkyActiv.

It would be my guess that the CX-5 will still be more fun to drive, but in terms of overall package, the CR-V might be a better choice.

I really hope that it's not lowerd. The 8.5" of ground clearance was a big selling point for me vs the second choice 2013 subaru impreza with 5.9".
All I saw in the mazda materials is that the center of gravity is lower. That can be accomplished simply by using more high strength steel in the pillars and the roof area.

Can you provide the BSFC/rpm chart to support this statement?

No. Just talking out of my ass.
I've also observed that when driving up a specific hill durimg my commute at say 45MPH I get good fuel economy (~20MPG) no matter if I'm in 3rd or in 5th

 

[Kaps]

I really hope that it's not lowerd. The 8.5" of ground clearance was a big selling point for me vs the second choice 2013 subaru impreza with 5.9".

It seems lowered. Ground clearance for city folks matters little; it is the heightened stance and better visibility + ease of getting in an out that makes a huge difference. A lot of CX-5 owners will take one inch less Ground clear for an extra mpg or 2.
Same is the case with 2.5T. Mass audiences don't care. Few enthusiasts do and that is what gets discussed. I think selling a production slot for 2.5T makes more sense for Mazda. If you want one, purchase a slot and take delivery in 2 months with your trim + color options.

 

[tibimakai]

You know, why is motortrend so amazed that the CR-V went 7.5 in the 60? The CX-5 has done anywhere from 7.2 to 7.8.

...most likely, because it used to be probably 9 seconds.

 

[Kaps]

...most likely, because it used to be probably 9 seconds.

I remember a youtube vide where 3 guys in Indonesia or Singapore somewhere compared the Ford Kuga (Escape) CX5 and CRV. They did a small race and CRV lost - bigly!

 

[ALafya]

I haven't ever driven a car with a CVT, but my understanding is that they are, by their nature, annoying to drive. When I say "by their nature" I mean that they always feel different because there are no actual gear shifts, and this is what is annoying to most people.

What makes Honda's the best in the market in your opinion?

My wife had a Prius with CVT as her daily driver. Even though it is a different type of CVT, without pulleys, it was annoying to drive.
Engine droning is when the CVT keeps the engine at very high RPM while it accelerates. Not liking it is subjective mostly, though tied also to the kind of sound the engine makes at WOT. The Prius WOT sounds was pretty bad... Some people complain because they are not used to it, not because of any other reason. Even with the Prius, a typical drive does not involve many times of high RPM. On the other hand, a traditional 5AT in a Civic also makes somewhat busy sounds when you need to push it hard.

Some CVTs keep the engine at high RPM when you floor it because that's where max acceleration is. Honda and Subaru mimic gears to quell these complains, at the expense of losing some acceleration. IMHO, I'd rather accelerate more quickly when my foot is all the way down.

However, Honda CVTs are also pretty responsive, unlike the Prius, where there was a feeling of 'slippage', where the ratio slides gradually down, which provided the feel of a indirectness. In a Honda, the transmission shifts quickly, without this gradual sliding.

In normal driving, however, CVT gives a sense of smoothness that a traditional AT can never have. Especially when driving slow in a parking lot, where a traditional AT will either rev a bit high on 1st then you'd feel a little shift shock to 2nd etc.

 

[PatrickGSR94]

My office has a 2nd gen Ford Fusion hybrid company car. It's a little odd going up on-ramps and such. It's like the engine stays at a constant RPM while it accelerates.

 

[sillyxone]

My wife had a Prius with CVT as her daily driver. Even though it is a different type of CVT, without pulleys, it was annoying to drive.
Engine droning is when the CVT keeps the engine at very high RPM while it accelerates. Not liking it is subjective mostly, though tied also to the kind of sound the engine makes at WOT. The Prius WOT sounds was pretty bad... Some people complain because they are not used to it, not because of any other reason. Even with the Prius, a typical drive does not involve many times of high RPM. On the other hand, a traditional 5AT in a Civic also makes somewhat busy sounds when you need to push it hard.

Some CVTs keep the engine at high RPM when you floor it because that's where max acceleration is. Honda and Subaru mimic gears to quell these complains, at the expense of losing some acceleration. IMHO, I'd rather accelerate more quickly when my foot is all the way down.

However, Honda CVTs are also pretty responsive, unlike the Prius, where there was a feeling of 'slippage', where the ratio slides gradually down, which provided the feel of a indirectness. In a Honda, the transmission shifts quickly, without this gradual sliding.

In normal driving, however, CVT gives a sense of smoothness that a traditional AT can never have. Especially when driving slow in a parking lot, where a traditional AT will either rev a bit high on 1st then you'd feel a little shift shock to 2nd etc.

I switch frequently between my CX-5 and my wife's 2014 Accord (CVT), and they're very different. The Accord is very jerky to start from stop, perhaps Honda tuned the idling a bit high, just getting my foot off the brake and it'll jump forward. Comparing to the CX-5 that would just crawl slowly up my driveway when not applying brake/gas, the Accord moves forward on it own quickly so there's a little more braking in slow traffic. Once moved, the Accord is no longer as jumpy, pressing on the gas pedal, hearing the engine revs up, a little delay later and the car accelerates, and that's annoying even comparing to my 1999 Civic with AT. Thus, the gearbox is one of my love for the Mazda, it doesn't jerk off at start, I can totally control how I want the car to behave, no delay. The car starts moving quickly as the engine revs up, I can feel it locks up faster/earlier than the Accord and the Civic. The gears shift quickly and smoothly, down-shifting is also smooth when stabbing the gas pedal. The only complain is accelerating up a ramp (going uphill at same speed is fine), the CX-5 shifts to higher gear (4->5) a little too early, but it does so consistently so I have my work-around with either semi-manual or Sport mode.

Note that I'm a long-time Honda fan, been mostly Accords and Civic, with relatives on Pilot and CR-Vs, my trusty lawn mower is also a Honda. I was ready to get the CR-V but one test drive with the CX-5 totally won me over, for the first time ever I get to know how fun and excited it is to drive

 

[CX-5um]

It seems lowered. Ground clearance for city folks matters little; it is the heightened stance and better visibility + ease of getting in an out that makes a huge difference. A lot of CX-5 owners will take one inch less Ground clear for an extra mpg or 2.
Same is the case with 2.5T. Mass audiences don't care. Few enthusiasts do and that is what gets discussed. I think selling a production slot for 2.5T makes more sense for Mazda. If you want one, purchase a slot and take delivery in 2 months with your trim + color options.

I believe it is slightly lowered but more importantly for me is its now tracked wider. Also uses more high strength steel which the original CX-5 already used a lot of. Combined with G-vector control I expect this CX-5 to handle better than the previous version and with better cross wind road handling. Ironically the 2016 Mazda 6 was raised slightly higher vs the 2014-2015 models. I test drove both and the 2014-2016 model version had better handling while the 2016 Mazda 6 felt "softer". Interesting to see if the 2017 CX-5 lower stance ride uses different dampening rates.