An Interesting Opportunity to Compare

[ColoradoDriver]

OK banjos so imagine you and Mango lined up at your favorite race track..green flag you nail it, you get nailed BACKWARD into the seat so you pull the lever in the same manner..90MPH into turn 1 neck and neck you wait till the last moment to brake (mango now in your rearview because he was nervous and broke too soon before the hairpin, hit the brakes hard and you slide a bit FORWARD in the seat..bonus because that's the same motion you need to downshift..it all works in perfect harmony, requires no thought just feel. My wife's Toyota is the opposite and I don't use it because A) its wrong and B) it shifts bad anyway..

Hilarious and fully agree. The Mazda orientation feels completely natural to me. The other orientation feels wrong.

But hey, YMMV

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[banjos-n-beer]

Sorry, my brain is too analytical to change my opinion. I have since driven manu-mode vehicles with the orientation I prefer. Didn't even need to think about it. And no banging it into first and looking like a tool. Lol.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

Sorry, my brain is too analytical to change my opinion. I have since driven manu-mode vehicles with the orientation I prefer. Didn't even need to think about it. And no banging it into first and looking like a tool. Lol.

Whoever designed the manual modes in the orientation you prefer probably agrees with you.

Different strokes for different folks.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[banjos-n-beer]

Whoever designed the manual modes in the orientation you prefer probably agrees with you.

Different strokes for different folks.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I see it thru engineering/design eyes. Not physics eyes.

The Mazda is bizarro-Seinfeld to me. Lol.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

I see it thru engineering/design eyes. Not physics eyes.

Well I kinda do too, to an extent. A true manual, the very first shift from 1 to 2 is pulling down. Granted the next one would be from down to up, but that very first one is not. And then downshifting back from 2 to 1 would be pushing the stick up.

So Mazda orientation makes sense to me because of this.

But I can understand your approach of down = down and up = up.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[banjos-n-beer]

That's my point. (attn)

A real manual has too many motions, thus relegating a manu-mode to just the first movement of s manual doesn't gel with me. Therefore I look at its movement. It only has two directions. And the orientation of the movement determines its function.

I'm sure most Mazda owners like the orientation, but I'm just trying to explain why I disagree.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

That's my point. (attn)

A real manual has too many motions, thus relegating a manu-mode to just the first movement of s manual doesn't gel with me. Therefore I look at its movement. It only has two directions. And the orientation of the movement determines its function.

I'm sure most Mazda owners like the orientation, but I'm just trying to explain why I disagree.

I got you

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Monterra]

I'm sure most Mazda owners like the orientation, but I'm just trying to explain why I disagree.

Most BMW owners do as well..but its an interesting debate..Porsche fairly recently came around too as it turns out:

http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/street-smarts/porsche-shifts-shifting-gears-article-1.2428386

 

[mangoconchile]

OK banjos so imagine you and Mango lined up at your favorite race track..green flag you nail it, you get nailed BACKWARD into the seat so you pull the lever in the same manner..90MPH into turn 1 neck and neck (because you have the gen1 car) you wait till the last moment to brake (mango now in your rearview because he was nervous and broke too soon before the hairpin, hit the brakes hard and you slide a bit FORWARD in the seat..bonus because that's the same motion you need to downshift..it all works in perfect harmony, requires no thought just feel. My wife's Toyota is the opposite and I don't use it because A) its wrong and B) it shifts bad anyway..

CRV vs CX-5 @ the track has already been done by Motor Trend. CRV won

 

[ColoradoDriver]

CRV vs CX-5 @ the track has already been done by Motor Trend. CRV won

LOL - But seeing as it's a CUV, doesn't really matter does it? Or...that's what you always say. (eyeballs)

Come on man, be consistent.

 

[Monterra]

CRV vs CX-5 @ the track has already been done by Motor Trend. CRV won

Yeah but not new CR-V vs Gen1 CX5..and the pre-lift ones were lighter still plus CX5 driver vs CR-V driver that's where the real difference lie Mango- everyone knows that much like a 15 minute call can save up to 15% on your car insurance. How do you like the manumatic shift orientation on the CRV btw? Oh wait..

 

[Red MC]

Can't stand DSGs especially at initial takeoff hesitation. Mazda's auto gearbox has been lauded here and have stated has none of the DSGs hesitations.

I haven't noticed that. The thing I liked about the DSGs was the immediacy of shifting on command. Most non-DSG automatics with manual controls I've driven seem to take your inputs as recommendations, not commands. The worst were the pre-DSG Audis, which could take up to several seconds to execute a shift after you hit the paddle, especially in the lower gears. My wife's old Subaru that I'm now driving does that too from 1st to 2nd and to some extent from 2nd to 3rd. I hate that. When I press the button, I want it to shift right now, i.e. immediately, otherwise it isn't really a manual control.

Yeah, I've done all that. But the point of manu-mode is to shift for yourself. Not to let the car take over when slowing down. I agree letting it do that on its own makes it more likely one will forget they're using it in the first place.

I agree with Studum on this one. I think those of us who have some degree of mechanical empathy cringe a little bit when forcing an auto trans to downshift from 2 to 1 unless nearly stopped.

Same for a manual. The only time I downshift from 2nd to 1st in a manual transmission car is in stop and go traffic. One of the nice things about a manual transmission is that when you are braking for a stop light or stop sign, you can skip downshifts when appropriate, and if you know you're not going to need to suddenly accelerate you can roll from 30 to 0 (or whatever) in neutral. Similarly, if I need to make a pass on a two-lane road I can skip a gear downshifting and skip a gear upshifting afterward. An automatic in manual mode forces you into sequential shifting which isn't as flexible.

 

[finch204]

Mazdas with manual transmissions won't even allow you go into 1st gear unless you are at a very low speed, like maybe less than 10 mph or less. You can try forcing it but it will be very cringe worthy if you do.

I think Monterra presented the best analogy, with getting pushed back to the seat when accelerating, so you pull down to upshift to the next gear. Then when you're slowing down like under braking and your body is moving forward, you push forward to downshift. I totally understand how this way of shifting can be confusing to others, because of the terms used, upshift and downshift. Even I got confused in my analogy earlier and I prefer the way Mazda does it LOL.

 

[bigtex]

"tuned for 93"?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

93 octane.

 

[mangoconchile]

Yeah but not new CR-V vs Gen1 CX5..and the pre-lift ones were lighter still plus CX5 driver vs CR-V driver that's where the real difference lie Mango- everyone knows that much like a 15 minute call can save up to 15% on your car insurance. How do you like the manumatic shift orientation on the CRV btw? Oh wait..

Bro my CRV AWD(with its fake wood trim and bulging rear ass) is still faster than any CX-5 regardless of generation, or whether it's FWD or AWD. A better question would be why Mazda's Gen1 CX-5 performs better than the Gen2? Aren't these vehicles supposed to improve performance over time? And why would I want a manumatic shift? I had one in my 2005 Mazda3 and it was completely useless. Plus, why would I want to shift in this car anyway? These aren't sports cars. I can just floor it and the CVT will keep the car in the meat of its power band the entire way thru, no loss in power like with shifting, no gear hunting either.

 

[mangoconchile]

LOL - But seeing as it's a CUV, doesn't really matter does it? Or...that's what you always say. (eyeballs)

Come on man, be consistent.

It really doesn't I was just responding to someone else's comment. Besides, it's performance IMO is just a bonus on top of everything else it offers.

 

[Monterra]

Don't lie bro, your car's hips don't: Here's CRs test results for
2014 AWD CX5 (L) and 2017 AWD CRV (R)..seems old CX5s still whoopin that ass- just so you know:
0-30: 2.8 / 3.4
0-60: 8.0 / 8.2
45-65: 5.0 / 5.3
QM: 16.2 / 16.5
60-0D 133 / 137
60-0W 142 / 146
Avoidance max speed 53 / 52

 

[mangoconchile]

Don't lie bro, your car's hips don't: Here's CRs test results for
2014 AWD CX5 (L) and 2017 AWD CRV (R)..seems old CX5s still whoopin that ass- just so you know:
0-30: 2.8 / 3.4
0-60: 8.0 / 8.2
45-65: 5.0 / 5.3
QM: 16.2 / 16.5
60-0D 133 / 137
60-0W 142 / 146
Avoidance max speed 53 / 52

Per MotorTrend

Seems like they're numbers are better than yours right? They also include braking numbers and track time in case you wanted to know about that too. But again, why do we need to test the latest CRV vs the CX-5 that's a generation behind? Shouldn't performance improve over the previous generation? The CRV certainly improved its numbers vs the previous generation CRV, like by a mile. And why do the numbers even matter? If ya want a sports car, go get one. The CX-5 is nothing more than an economy car packaged in an SUV, same thing with the CRV.

 

[Monterra]

Haha not really, did you send Honda a thank you card for successfully benchmarking and finally just catching up to a 5yr old Mazda?
Problem- like you say but consistently contradict yourself when you gloat about your sh*tbox's mt results.. numbers are just numbers esp in this class- feel is where Honda still has plenty of ground to make up...sad
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-mazda-cx-5-25-awd-test-review

DISPLACEMENT: 152 cu in, 2488 cc
POWER: 184 hp @ 5700 rpm
TORQUE: 185 lb-ft @ 3250 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic with manual shifting mode

DIMENSIONS:
WHEELBASE: 106.3 in
LENGTH: 178.7 in
WIDTH: 72.4 in HEIGHT: 67.3 in
CURB WEIGHT: 3507 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 22.3 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 7.9 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 3.7 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 5.3 sec
Standing -mile: 15.8 sec @ 87 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 123 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 166 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.81 g*

RE: the 2017 CX5 I guess they (as you) thought numbers really don't matter so if she loses a half step but gains refinement and quietness in spades that's a win for the majority of customers..they're probably right although I'm not enamored with it to be honest. Which is why its made it an easy choice for me for now to keep and enjoy my 14 that still runs like a clock @70k.

Still, knowing the numbers, spending time with each behind the wheel if I had to replace my car tomorrow- I'd probably check the deals on leftover 16.5s and decide between it and the 2017 CX-5 GT. CR-V didn't earn a second drive or thought in my mind because it doesn't feel like something I want to drive- ever.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

RE: the 2017 CX5 I guess they (as you) thought numbers really don't matter so if she loses a half step but gains refinement and quietness in spades that's a win for the majority of owners..they're probably right although I'm not enamored with it, no. Which is why its made it an easy choice for me for now to keep and enjoy my 14 that still runs like a clock @70k

Hear, hear! About to hit 52k miles on mine. Needs some new rear brake pads, and AC needs a tune-up, but otherwise, runs like the day I bought it.