Oh isn't there also some weirdness w/peak torque happening later in awd vs fwd version now? Otherwise I'd say driveline diff wouldn't matter but maybe for a 10th or so (many times in favor of awd due to no spin hook up but the torque thing, and the unsprung weight thing are probably the main culprits at play but let's be honest in the end it doesn't even matter...may this issue and CB RIP.
An Interesting Opportunity to Compare
- Thread starter Studum
- Start date
You are still confused. Car & Driver tests the vehicles on a track, with an actual person driving, and uses real life testing equipment. Motor Trend also does this as well as others. Not sure where you keep getting the idea that Car & Driver "just posts estimates regarding numerical data."????
Exact quote from the review I posted earlier, "At the test track, our front-wheel-drive test vehicle ran from zero to 60 mph in 7.8 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 16.2 at 86 mph."
Here are some track sheets from Car & Driver I mentioned earlier, but the '17 FWD has not been posted yet, just the AWD. No "estimates" are listed.
http://media.caranddriver.com/files...2016-mazda-cx-5-25l-awd-instrumented-test.pdf
http://media.caranddriver.com/files...ar-and-drivermazdacx-5awdgrandtouring2017.pdf
- :
- Denver, CO
I'll agree partially on this point for the CX-5 at least, but for different reasons. I like my sporty-ish sharp looking gen1 CX-5, after sitting in a 2017 CX-5, it just did not do it for me. It's nicer for sure, but the upscale vibe was not what I wanted out of it to begin with personally. And from an external style design, it went way down in my books. Too much chrome and no swoop
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
I'll agree partially on this point for the CX-5 at least, but for different reasons. I like my sporty-ish sharp looking gen1 CX-5, after sitting in a 2017 CX-5, it just did not do it for me. It's nicer for sure, but the upscale vibe was not what I wanted out of it to begin with personally. And from an external style design, it went way down in my books. Too much chrome and no swoop
All this is definitely part of my blanket statement...
I stand corrected. I must have been interpreting the "CD Est" as just that, estimates. But its estimates based on their testing. Sorry about that. But in that article that states the CX5 has a 0-60 of 7.6-7.8, where does it mention that it is a AWD vehicle? I am not seeing it.
I'll agree partially on this point for the CX-5 at least, but for different reasons. I like my sporty-ish sharp looking gen1 CX-5, after sitting in a 2017 CX-5, it just did not do it for me. It's nicer for sure, but the upscale vibe was not what I wanted out of it to begin with personally. And from an external style design, it went way down in my books. Too much chrome and no swoop
+1 on this. Main thing being the external design. That imo, is one of the things that really set the CX5 apart from the crowd. Now the front end just rivals the obnoxiousness of the Lexus line. Not quite all the way though as the Lexus front is rough to look at. All in all, very excited to see the direction they're headed. I think they'll bring those sexy curves back or at least some of it.
So you're coming around. Ok. Here's a link that shows what both Motor Trend and Car & Driver have published as test results for the CX5 since 2013. https://www.0-60specs.com/mazda-cx-5-0-60-times/ Not sure why the '17 AWD is 3 to 4 tenths slower, but the '17 FWD appears to be as fast or faster than previous FWD test results so the AWD probably is as well, but maybe not. I am sure there is some small amount of error in each test.
Either way, as I posted earlier, performance wise, there is really no difference in the '16 CX5, '17 CX5, or '17 CRV. Also not much difference in price. It just comes down to which one looks best to you inside and out and has the features you want or need.(boom05)
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
It's true that MT started posting the long-term "Real World MPG" consistently several years ago with its own calculation not only to a one-time test or comparison, but also for its long-term test fleet. C&D on the other hand most of time uses only EPA fuel economy ratings for its one-time test or comparison. C&D doesn't post long-term real-world MPG like MT does other than, until recently, a one-time calculation on real MPG during a test or comparison.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Agreed. Don't like the new front and missing swoop!
If I'm not mistaken, I have never seen a test, from the same publication, that showed the AWD faster than the FWD version. This is because the FWD CX-5 is not traction limited from a stop on good dry pavement. Yeah it might spin a tiny bit when launching, but then it hooks. My guess is, the lighter weight and less drivetrain loss propels it to 60 faster. Do the same 0-60 test on wet roads and I'm sure the AWD version will be a lot faster.
- :
- 2014 QX70 AWD
C&D usually provides estimates before they get to test a vehicle. After that they update with actual/observed values.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
New technology doesn't necessary mean it's better. Beside those notable power plants with "new" technology by Mazda are not new. The designs on those power plants were there at beginning of 20th century, but Mazda put those in mass production with mixed results.
Rotary engine is nice in theory, but failed on fuel economy and reliability categories. A traditional 4-stroke engine can easily out-perform a rotary engine with better fuel efficiency. Not to mention rotary engine can never overcome oil-consumption and emission issues.
Miller-Cycle engine was also failed due to reliability and efficiency issues.
SkyActiv-G engine is gradually losing his edge to other ICEs.
HCCI is not invented by Mazda either. While others can't make HCCI work for mass production, I do have doubt if Mazda can do it at this time. it would be a break through if Mazda can do it and definitely would help Mazda to be a leading edge on power plant performance and efficiency!
mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
LOL, no those are only just the MAZDA's I have had. I have had many other vehicles and makes... (naughty)
mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
I was not trying to prove success, if anything it is the contrary, as only the last 2 are still in production at the moment. I was simply suggesting that they are eager to try unusual power plant ideas.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
And sometimes that's a dangerous move, especially for a small car company like Mazda. GM can afford giving up its Chevy Volt, but not Mazda.
Last edited:
It's just not Mazda's style or philosophy to do it like everyone else does. They've never been a company that follows trends. They prefer to blaze their own trail. Whether or not this is good for their business, totally depends on whether their products sell or not. Remember, one of Mazda's old mottos were "Never give up" or "Never stop challenging". They are simply not a cookie cutter company; they like to do things differently. It is very evident with their love for rotary engines and with the new MX-5 debuting with less horsepower than before.
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
Comparing the 17 to the 14, I found a huge difference. My 14 feels lazy from the start and really requires some peddle mashing to get it to move fast. The 17 feels much better in this regard. Much more responsive.
- :
- Denver, CO
I don't really think of Mazda as a trail blazer.
I'm old enough to remember Mazda's B2000 commercials in the 80s, "Sakes alive! Only Mazda's got a truck for just $5795..." Their mini-pickup was just like everyone else's except cheaper. The 323, 626, and 929 were Universal Japanese Sedans (tm), just like the Toyota Corolla/Camry/Cressida, Nissan Sentra/Stanza/Maxima, Honda Civic/Accord. The RX-7 was something different, and the MX-5 too I suppose. But other than those two vehicles, Mazda have mostly just plugged their offerings into tried and true market segments. That's how we got the CX-5.
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Agreed...
