2016 CX5 better "driving machine" over 2017

[Xeler8ing]

Meh. I think that's totally bunk. I've driven cars that were deceptively fast (and some that were deceptively slow...). I want REAL numbers. Not some guy's opinion.

Real numbers that come from tracks are pretty much irrelevant here in Oz because in normal driving situations, you won't be able to replicate what is done there anyway. Most trips are point a to point b in an orderly fashion with the exception of say a longer distance trips that do throw up something different.

The average (and yes there are alot of them) drivers here would not have an understanding of skidpan etc figures. They prefer actual driving reviews because lets face it that is what they themselves will be doing.

NOTE: 0-100km/h figures etc are paid attention to because they relate to actual get up and go which the average driver understands.

There's an old saying "Anything can happen on the street". It's true.

Within the law.

Some people prefer they way 2012/2013-2016 CX-5 drives, other the 2017 CX-5. And this is OK.

But as always each to their own.

 

[Unobtanium]

Real numbers that come from tracks are pretty much irrelevant here in Oz because in normal driving situations, you won't be able to replicate what is done there anyway. Most trips are point a to point b in an orderly fashion with the exception of say a longer distance trips that do throw up something different.

The average (and yes there are alot of them) drivers here would not have an understanding of skidpan etc figures. They prefer actual driving reviews because lets face it that is what they themselves will be doing.

NOTE: 0-100km/h figures etc are paid attention to because they relate to actual get up and go which the average driver understands.



Within the law.

Some people prefer they way 2012/2013-2016 CX-5 drives, other the 2017 CX-5. And this is OK.

But as always each to their own.

I've always been able to replicate things pretty well. I may not get identical numbers, but the gist of it is pretty similar. For example, my 370Z was about equal to a Camaro SS, just a HAIR slower, and the magazine numbers supported this. My Trans Am was equal to every Corvette (C5) I ran, and again, the magazine numbers supported this.

However...if we just go by "feels", the tire-smoking torque of the Camaro SS and all that jazz would make you think it would destroy my 370Z. Not so much in the real world.

Basically, you're saying your reviews are just opinions. I want facts. They can be supplanted by opinion, sure, but I can't base a purchase on "feels". I'm just not that emotional with my money. I'm impulsive. There's a difference!

 

[Xeler8ing]

I've always been able to replicate things pretty well. I may not get identical numbers, but the gist of it is pretty similar. For example, my 370Z was about equal to a Camaro SS, just a HAIR slower, and the magazine numbers supported this. My Trans Am was equal to every Corvette (C5) I ran, and again, the magazine numbers supported this.

However...if we just go by "feels", the tire-smoking torque of the Camaro SS and all that jazz would make you think it would destroy my 370Z. Not so much in the real world.

Basically, you're saying your reviews are just opinions. I want facts. They can be supplanted by opinion, sure, but I can't base a purchase on "feels". I'm just not that emotional with my money. I'm impulsive. There's a difference!

Facts are fine. I am not arguing with you and they have their place. But as I said pretty much all reviews here are opinions and that is what people go off by.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

 

[joe6864]

Not some guy's opinion.

That's why you test drive... to get *your* opinion, not "some guy's" opinion. If you're concerned with track stats then buy for that... if someone else is concerned about "feel" they'll buy for that... there's no one set of stats, features, or "feel" that will appeal to everyone.

 

[Kaps]

I know, but what I am saying is that the article that started this thread mentioned that they could not turn off the traction control on the '17, and got an 8.4 time. This Edmond's test shows an 8.3 time with traction on. So the cars are pretty damn close when set up the same and their is no big mystery as to what is causing it.

This is fairly accurate. Or maybe the source is only 1 publication
I would say 7.8 is a good ballpark.

 

[shaendra]

Facts are fine. I am not arguing with you and they have their place. But as I said pretty much all reviews here are opinions and that is what people go off by.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

Yup. What's the saying about a bumblebee. By design, it shouldn't be able to fly, and yet...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bigtex]

So basically nvh and fuel economy only.

I think road tests in OZ can involve more than nvh and fuel economy.

 

[Unobtanium]

I think road tests in OZ can involve more than nvh and fuel economy.

If they can take a car offroad like that, I have no idea why they won't track it. It's not "meant" for either.

 

[NelsonLewis]

If they can take a car offroad like that, I have no idea why they won't track it. It's not "meant" for either.

And look at the tires on that thing. Knobbies, far from stock.

 

[bigtex]

If they can take a car offroad like that, I have no idea why they won't track it. It's not "meant" for either.

Yeah, in the review they call it a "softroader". But I was just saying reviews like this may be more important to them than 0-60 or skid pad. Same can be said in the US for most buyers, but it is other characteristics than offroad ability, such as NVH, fuel economy, appearance, versatility, etc.

 

[bigtex]

And look at the tires on that thing. Knobbies, far from stock.

What does that have to do with anything? Do they need to test its offroad ability with stock tires to mean anything, because I think most people could figure out those were not factory tires.

 

[NelsonLewis]

What does that have to do with anything? Do they need to test its offroad ability with stock tires to mean anything, because I think most people could figure out those were not factory tires.

No, but what's that have to do with tracking the damn thing? I wouldn't expect them to put race tires on it to perform that test either.

 

[bigtex]

I'm pretty sure factory tires are fine for determining 0-60, quarter mile and skidpad on a CUV. Not sure racing slicks are going to improve numbers that much and who is going to put racing slicks on a CX5.
Factory tires would not even allow the offroad tests they were doing on the CX5 and some people in OZ might use all terrain tires depending on where they lived.

 

[NelsonLewis]

I'm pretty sure factory tires are fine for determining 0-60, quarter mile and skidpad on a CUV. Not sure racing slicks are going to improve numbers that much and who is going to put racing slicks on a CX5.
Factory tires would not even allow the offroad tests they were doing on the CX5 and some people in OZ might use all terrain tires depending on where they lived.

Factory tires wouldn't allow it to do what it's doing in that photo? It easily would...

Nobody said anything about 0-60 etc with racing slicks. You can get aggressive tires that aren't slicks, I know bc unfortunately I pay that bill a lot, and it would be no different than adding the tires they did to go off road. Hell, the stock tires are all-season, but they're decently aggressive to begin with anyways for that type of tire...

 

[bigtex]

In that photo it is sitting still, so you are correct. But I'm pretty sure they moved eventually.

 

[NelsonLewis]

The first photo it would struggle or fail, I agree (blue car), the second, it would climb that upgrade easily...anyways, what about the rest, lol. Putting those tires on is no different than putting an aggressive treaded tire on, and folks do that here...

 

[bigtex]

The first photo it would struggle or fail, I agree

Well, as long as you agree.

 

[NelsonLewis]

Well, as long as you agree.

Well as long as you avoid the rest. Typical.

 

[bigtex]

Bingo. Smart man. lol.

 

[NelsonLewis]

Bingo. Smart man. lol.

Oh how original of you.