- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
So merging into traffic, passing power, etc. isn't relevant, but how it does in sand with knobbies is? You all deserve all the damn poisonous things you have over there.
So merging into traffic, passing power, etc. isn't relevant, but how it does in sand with knobbies is? You all deserve all the damn poisonous things you have over there.
Mid 8s is fineThis is fairly accurate. Or maybe the source is only 1 publication
I would say 7.8 is a good ballpark.
Because there is more chance of taking it off road then going on a track.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.
ExactlyYeah, 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.
It is a mixture for example acceleration figures etc but also driving experience. We take it into account with reading reviews and then we take vehicles on test drives. As I said skid pads has pretty much don't happen here so are irrelevant to hear. By the way we do fine with all these poisonous things that we have here [emoji23]So merging into traffic, passing power, etc. isn't relevant, but how it does in sand with knobbies is? You all deserve all the damn poisonous things you have over there.
"if you get caught up in the hype that the CX-5 is a divine gift of practical performance, you're going to be disappointed. But if you've got a family to lug around, don't have $100,000 to spend on an AMG station wagon and still want to feel like you're driving, not just steering, the CX-5 seems hard to beat."
http://jalopnik.com/the-2017-mazda-cx-5-is-still-the-crossover-for-people-w-1793234420
Interesting that the title of this review is The 2017 Mazda CX-5 Is Still The Crossover For People Who Don't Hate Driving Or Life
Am I abrasive? At times. But I'm usually correct.
Hahaha. I'm sorry, but this made me spit out my water laughing.
Great review!
^^That and maybe MT ran ram's piss in their CX-5..C&D's (FWD one) just put up a respectable 7.8:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-cx-5-fwd-test-review
The factory moly oil plus break-in period for skyactiv engines have a noticeable difference in performance after 2 oil changes that said 0-60 in 7.8 seconds is not bad for the FWD model. Then again peep out their 0-60 tests on their long term test car. It's sometimes faster due to post break-in period.
^^That and maybe MT ran ram's piss in their CX-5..C&D's (FWD one) just put up a respectable 7.8:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-cx-5-fwd-test-review
^^That and maybe MT ran ram's piss in their CX-5?..C&D's (FWD gt) just put up a respectable 7.8:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-cx-5-fwd-test-review
Not near as many comments on this 7.8 0-60 as the 8.4 0-60 with the '17 AWD that started this thread???
Funny, C&D got an observed fuel economy of 32 MPG!!