An Interesting Opportunity to Compare

[dougal]

Geeze, can this please not turn into another CX-5 vs the world thread?

It was meant as an opinion and extended comparison between gen 1 and 2, and to a further extent my Mazda3.

Isn't there a CX-5 vs CRV thread already that those preachers can hang out in? I have no interest in that fight, my money has already been (well) spent.

Amen! And I apologize for my contribution to thread derailment!

 

[jhu8]

0-60 times are the roughly the same in gen 1 and gen 2 CX5 as would be expected because they have the same engine and transmission with a few tweaks on the '17. There is no "one second" difference that you mention. Car & Driver tested the '17 again last month and got 7.8 seconds in the FWD and everyone says the AWD should be faster as has already been discussed here. When they tested the '16 they got 7.7 seconds. The CRV did get 7.6 seconds. For all practical purposes, performance-wise, all 3 vehicles perform nearly identical. Maybe you should actually drive a '17 before you decide all they did was add "techy items" to cover up a vehicle that got worse, lol. Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, the MSRP increased $40 from a loaded '16 to loaded '17. Not bad considering all that was added.


C/D TEST RESULTS: 2016 CX5, 2017 CX5, 2017 CRV

Zero to 60 mph: 7.7 sec, 7.8 sec, 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 23.0 sec, 23.8 sec, 21.5 sec
Zero to 110 mph: 31.0 sec, 32.5 sec, 28.8 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 8.0 sec, 7.9 sec, 8.1 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.8 sec, 3.8 sec, 4.2 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.2 sec, 5.3 sec, 5.3 sec
Standing -mile: 16.0 sec @ 86 mph, 16.2 sec @ 86 mph, 16.0 sec @ 89 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 120 mph, 130 mph, 124 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 175 ft, 177 ft, 166 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad*: 0.81 g, 0.82 g, 0.82 g

FUEL ECONOMY:

EPA city/highway driving: 24/30 mpg, 24/31 mpg, 27/33 mpg
C/D observed: 23 mpg, 32 mpg, 25 mpg

Your data seems a little off. Or maybe CarandDriver is just wrong with their estimates. Yes I said estimates, as that is what is noted on their site. Actual tested AWD CX5 0-60 is 8.4. Either way, it doesn't matter too much. Lets just say it didn't improve at all and potentially got slightly worse.

Oh and just to note regarding your fuel economy numbers, they did not observe 32mg in the 17 lol Apparently from doing some research it seems like MT is the only one who actually tests the cars. C&D seems to just include estimates. In real testing, the 16 resultin a 25.1mpg average. The 17 averaged 22.3mpg.

 

[bigtex]

Your data is wrong. Or maybe CarandDriver is just wrong with their estimates. Yes I said estimates, as that is what is noted on their site. Actual tested AWD CX5 0-60 is 8.4. Either way, it doesn't matter too much. Lets just say it didn't improve at all and potentially got slightly worse.

Oh and just to note regarding your fuel economy numbers, they did not observe 32mg in the 17 lol Apparently from doing some research it seems like MT is the only one who actually tests the cars. C&D seems to just include estimates. In real testing, the 16 resultin a 25.1mpg average. The 17 averaged 22.3mpg.

Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not "my data", but instrumented test results from a respected automotive enthusiast magazine. You can download the actual test sheets with the handwritten information recorded at time of testing at the bottom of the links I provided. The first link will show that they did observe, not estimate, 32 mpg, albeit with mostly highway miles driven.

"Still, the CX-5s fuel economy is better than average, and ours exceeded its EPA estimates with a 32-mpg average in mostly highway driving." -C&D

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-cx-5-fwd-test-review
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-mazda-cx-5-25l-awd-test-review
http://www.caranddriver.com/honda/cr-v

 

[jhu8]

Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not "my data", but instrumented test results from a respected automotive enthusiast magazine. You can download the actual test sheets with the handwritten information recorded at time of testing at the bottom of the links I provided. The first link will show that they did observe, not estimate, 32 mpg, albeit with mostly highway miles driven.

"Still, the CX-5s fuel economy is better than average, and ours exceeded its EPA estimates with a 32-mpg average in mostly highway driving." -C&D

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-cx-5-fwd-test-review
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-mazda-cx-5-25l-awd-test-review
http://www.caranddriver.com/honda/cr-v

F.W.D. That is all.

 

[Red MC]

So what? You were wrong.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-cx-5-fwd-test-review

 

[bigtex]

Well, he also said that from his research Motor Trend is the only company that actually tests cars, lol.

 

[Red MC]

It makes no sense that the 17 would be significantly slower given the same horsepower (184 vs. 187 anyway), same torque, same ratios, same final drive, same tires, and only about 70 lbs. difference in weight.

 

[yrwei52]

It's really quite simple yrwei: You pull on the door handle, the cars asks "is the fob nearby", fob checks in "here I am" and the car says "Ok door, open". Seriously. This is how mine works. When you first tug on the handle you can hear it hesitate for like a micro second ("Are you there, fob?") and then it releases the lock. Volvo, man. Volvo don't **** around.

Without the touch sensor, nobody is going to like that half second delay when you pull the handle to open the door!

 

[mazdadude]

Also, let MBenz,GM,and VW bring that HCCI to the table first. I guess Maybe Mazda thinks being first will be the golden ticket to propel their little car company. I say it won't...

I welcome the idea of HCCI technology as well as cam-less pneumatic / electric valve technology, and electric superchargers.

Mazda has always been open to trying new technology for its power plants.

here are a few notable ones**
Rotary engine
Miller-Cycle engine
1.8L V-6 engine
14:1 HIGH Compression Skyactiv Gas engine
14:1 LOW Compression Skyactiv Diesel engine

I know you say you like your engines with spark plugs that is your prerogative, just as I am sure there were also those who shunned the new 1912 Cadillac with electric start because they liked their cars with starting cranks.

 

[finch204]

LOL at the nitpicking complaints. Good entertainment.

Question for the OP. How does the fuel mileage differ between the 2016 and 2017 CX-5?

Btw, OP might be the 2nd or 3rd person to mention how Mazda has improved the throttle sensitivity on the 2017 CX-5. That's a good improvement. I shouldn't have to press so much of the gas pedal to get a reaction from the engine/transmission.

 

[7eregrine]

Without the touch sensor, nobody is going to like that half second delay when you pull the handle to open the door!

I said "micro" second. Not half. Literaly a nanasecond. Trust me, it's not a delay. Touch sensor = horrible. Sorry, Texan...we wear gloves up here.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Monterra]

It makes no sense that the 17 would be significantly slower given the same horsepower (184 vs. 187 anyway), same torque, same ratios, same final drive, same tires, and only about 70 lbs. difference in weight.

While I generally agree I'll just add that since pre-facelift the weight gain is more significant (not sure of the exact # nor do I care enough to dig it up) but also not the same wheels or tires on the GT anyway. A23-->A36 and the A36 is +1lb per TR. If there was additional weight added (or not offset) in the wheels its an additional hindrance to acceleration beyond nominal overall weight gain, no question.

 

[mangoconchile]

Ahh yes, another CX-5 vs CRV thread. Well at least we know who the top dog in this segment is right? And yeah I agree with a few of you, it's quite interesting how the CRV(with it's fake wood and all) is lighter, faster, has better braking performance and faster around the track than the 'Zoom Zoom' CX-5, all with better fuel economy to boot. The comparison between these 2 vehicles has already been done by the automotive publications, and they already picked a winner(guess which one won?) So there is no sense in arguing/debating this anymore IMO.

 

[jhu8]

So what? You were wrong.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-cx-5-fwd-test-review

That is FWD. Most people have the AWD version so that's generally the version we care about for results. Especially given that the CX5 is notorious for having a decent difference between AWD and FWD models .

Well, he also said that from his research Motor Trend is the only company that actually tests cars, lol.

I apologize I wasn't clear enough for you to understand what I was saying. I did portray my thoughts poorly. What I was saying was that comparing MT to C&D, MT posts actual tested data whereas C&D just posts estimates regarding numerical data. I will specify next time.

 

[mangoconchile]

That is FWD. Most people have the AWD version so that's generally the version we care about for results. Especially given that the CX5 is notorious for having a decent difference between AWD and FWD models .

Great point. There are significant differences between numbers when comparing AWD and FWD.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

Ahh yes, another CX-5 vs CRV thread. Well at least we know who the top dog in this segment is right? And yeah I agree with a few of you, it's quite interesting how the CRV(with it's fake wood and all) is lighter, faster, has better braking performance and faster around the track than the 'Zoom Zoom' CX-5, all with better fuel economy to boot. The comparison between these 2 vehicles has already been done by the automotive publications, and they already picked a winner(guess which one won?) So there is no sense in arguing/debating this anymore IMO.

And yet here you are once again. Hmmm

Whatever you have to do to help you sleep at night, Mango.

(deadhorse

 

[Red MC]

While I generally agree I'll just add that since pre-facelift the weight gain is more significant (not sure of the exact # nor do I care enough to dig it up) but also not the same wheels or tires on the GT anyway. A23-->A36 and the A36 is +1lb per TR. If there was additional weight added (or not offset) in the wheels its an additional hindrance to acceleration beyond nominal overall weight gain, no question.

66 lbs. difference between the '16 (3589) and '17 AWD (3655), a difference of 1.8%, which in theory would be partially offset by the 1% increase in HP. I agree that any difference in wheel + tire weight would have a greater effect, although a pound isn't much. I just can't see how the rather small differences between these two model years could add up to one second (~13%) difference in 0-60 time. It's got to be due to differences in the test conditions, the driver, rollout, measuring equipment, and/or corrections applied. It's always been hard to compare numbers from different sources.

 

[paging_drburgos]

what more can you ask for at this price point? How much more would you need to spend to get an identically equipped Audi or BMW ? I think those that are so critical really need to take a step back and consider that.....Just my very humble opinion, respectfully sumitted for consideration.

Yeah, what he said ^^^

 

[paging_drburgos]

Ahh yes, another CX-5 vs CRV thread.

Nope. This is not a CX-5 vs CRV thread. Go home, you're drunk.

 

[NelsonLewis]

I welcome the idea of HCCI technology as well as cam-less pneumatic / electric valve technology, and electric superchargers.

Mazda has always been open to trying new technology for its power plants.

here are a few notable ones**
Rotary engine
Miller-Cycle engine
1.8L V-6 engine
14:1 HIGH Compression Skyactiv Gas engine
14:1 LOW Compression Skyactiv Diesel engine

I know you say you like your engines with spark plugs that is your prerogative, just as I am sure there were also those who shunned the new 1912 Cadillac with electric start because they liked their cars with starting cranks.

Understandable. It's quite obvious from your siggy you'd buy a Mazda if they put a mule under the hood and told you it would never get tired...
Don't really like the direction Mazda is heading, and this will most likely be my one and only. All good,you can continue to buy them and be a lifer,but I'm just not a fanboy of any company entirely. Overall,I do like my CX-5 though...