Mazda CX-5 vs BMW X3 | TestDrive Showdown

[Xeler8ing]

Isn't 100 KMH roughly 60 MPH, not 96 MPH?

Woops I meant 0-62mph! Corrected it!

I was thinking 0-60mph is equivalent to 0-96km/h

 

[GJ-Molestor]

I notice skyactiv engines are really different (moreso than any other engine I've experienced) post break-in period. In a good way. I suspect that the super low engine tolerances, high moly content of factory oil, and well the fact the thing needs to be broken in all make new skyactiv engines sluggish. The tranny which seems to always be in gear and engine brakes also needs to be broken in. It takes about 3 oil changes to make the engine a bit more responsive. All of this may contribute as to why all of a sudden the skyactiv engines really come to life later.

What do you guys think?

1. the skyactiv engine does not have super tight clearances.

2. all engines and transmissions need to be broken in, not just skyactiv. the 3 oil changes hold true for any engine.

 

[MKF242]

I seem to be alone on this one, but I actually liked this review. Probably because I cross shopped used X3's with the CX-5, and because I came out of an X1. More from an entertainment perspective though, because he didn't even mention some of the best characteristics of these cars: how quiet they are and how they handle.

 

[Xeler8ing]

I actually liked his initial review of the CX-5

 

[xtrailman]

Yes that's for a 2017 175ps AWD auto sport. at over 1740kg

From the Mazda brochure, the spec shows its slower and thirstier I believe than my 2016 car which weighs 1703kg in UK spec.
Its the in gear acceleration times I focus on, 0-62 times are only useful for comparison through the range.

My car is shown as 0-62 in 9.4 secs. Manual version is 8.8 secs.

So only a difference of 0.1 sec between 2016 and 2017 cars.

That's for the diesel I assume?

I know this has been discussed many times, but the '17 2.5 gasser FWD has track results of 7.8 and the AWD has track results of 8.1 and 8.4. There is not a one second difference. See test results here: https://www.0-60specs.com/mazda-cx-5-0-60-times/

And fuel economy is much better. I'm over 10,000 miles now and my combined fuel economy over the last 1600 miles is 30.2 MPG. That is about 75% highway, mostly interstate and about 14% better than I was getting with my 2014.

 

[Xeler8ing]

Yes that's for a 2017 175ps AWD auto sport. at over 1740kg

From the Mazda brochure, the spec shows its slower and thirstier I believe than my 2016 car which weighs 1703kg in UK spec.
Its the in gear acceleration times I focus on, 0-62 times are only useful for comparison through the range.

My car is shown as 0-62 in 9.4 secs. Manual version is 8.8 secs.

So only a difference of 0.1 sec between 2016 and 2017 cars.

Wait for real world testing

 

[Anchorman]

Torque is much more important for daily driving.

Didn't you spend quite a lot of time last week telling me power was more important than torque?

 

[CX-5um]

1. the skyactiv engine does not have super tight clearances.

2. all engines and transmissions need to be broken in, not just skyactiv. the 3 oil changes hold true for any engine.

The 2017 Mazda6 2.5 4 cylinder slayed its competition http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ving-impressions-review-car-and-driver-page-4

0-60 in 7 seconds flat. The Accord 4 cylinder with CVT had 0-60 in 7.6 seconds. The 6 also braked better and had better lateral numbers. Interior and exterior looks better but is subjective. Just slayed the Accord.

The reason I bring this up is there is a discretion for those times compared to 14-16 Mazda6 models previously tested. Same engine. It could be because the 17 model they tested was more broken in? Also if you compare a magazine's 0-60 test of a car (new) vs their long term test (30k miles or more later), the 0-60 times often decreases a tiny bit like 0.1 or 0.2 seconds....on the exact same car.

 

[GJ-Molestor]

I owned a BMW 540iA before. Tons of problems.
They don't call it "Break My Wallet" for no reason.

There is a huge misconception regarding the reliability of BMWs and youre simply continuing to spread incorrect information. All German brands are either hit or miss, you will end up with either a very reliable car or one with full of problems.

Generally, the two most unreliable engines they make are the 4 cylinders (mainstream bought in big numbers) and the v8 which is purchased by richer buyers who dont care to blow money on maintenance. Then, on top of the fact that you can take 10 models with the identical Engine. Roughly half of them will be reliable while the other half wont. Its hit or miss with these cars so just because youve had one problematic bmw doesnt mean the rest of them are.

The inline 6 engines they make, especially the older NA ones are nothing short of fantastic In terms if fuel efficiency, reliability, ease of maintenance and power delivery. Ive driven very high mileage e46 bmws that ran like clockwork. I have 75k miles on mine and have not encountered one single issue.

Didn't you spend quite a lot of time last week telling me power was more important than torque?

Where? What did I say exactly? More power may be necessary for the heavier vehicles, but we can all agree that good torque at a low Rpm is what every driver looks for, correct?

The 2017 Mazda6 2.5 4 cylinder slayed its competition http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ving-impressions-review-car-and-driver-page-4

0-60 in 7 seconds flat. The Accord 4 cylinder with CVT had 0-60 in 7.6 seconds. The 6 also braked better and had better lateral numbers. Interior and exterior looks better but is subjective. Just slayed the Accord.

The reason I bring this up is there is a discretion for those times compared to 14-16 Mazda6 models previously tested. Same engine. It could be because the 17 model they tested was more broken in? Also if you compare a magazine's 0-60 test of a car (new) vs their long term test (30k miles or more later), the 0-60 times often decreases a tiny bit like 0.1 or 0.2 seconds....on the exact same car.

Generally the 0-60 times improve after the first 3000 Miles when the engine breaks in, but then times increasing over the long run can be due to many different factors like worn tires slightly dirtier transmission fluid etc. The drivetrain is still a baby at 30k Miles.

Also notice how some mazdas have had terrible acceleration times with over 7 seconds? Well Im willing to bet that those were driven aggressively when new and never given a chance to break in properly.

Ah and yes, so the Mazda handles steers and accelerates better then all of its competition, looks better, is offered with a manual and does not have a CVT, makes the most torque at the lowest RPM, smokes all of its competitions in a straight line, and is sold once for every 6 Camrys rolling out. What is wrong here? Well I suspect is brand awareness. Ask any random person what they think of Mazda and you just hear some nonsense that they dont like the brand. Ask them specifically why? And no answer...

 

[xtrailman]

In the UK the Mazda 6 isn't highly thought of, winning no group tests, the accord was the same when it was on sale.

The 2017 Mazda6 2.5 4 cylinder slayed its competition http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ving-impressions-review-car-and-driver-page-4

0-60 in 7 seconds flat. The Accord 4 cylinder with CVT had 0-60 in 7.6 seconds. The 6 also braked better and had better lateral numbers. Interior and exterior looks better but is subjective. Just slayed the Accord.

The reason I bring this up is there is a discretion for those times compared to 14-16 Mazda6 models previously tested. Same engine. It could be because the 17 model they tested was more broken in? Also if you compare a magazine's 0-60 test of a car (new) vs their long term test (30k miles or more later), the 0-60 times often decreases a tiny bit like 0.1 or 0.2 seconds....on the exact same car.

 

[Unobtanium]

I notice skyactiv engines are really different (moreso than any other engine I've experienced) post break-in period. In a good way. I suspect that the super low engine tolerances, high moly content of factory oil, and well the fact the thing needs to be broken in all make new skyactiv engines sluggish. The tranny which seems to always be in gear and engine brakes also needs to be broken in. It takes about 3 oil changes to make the engine a bit more responsive. All of this may contribute as to why all of a sudden the skyactiv engines really come to life later.

What do you guys think?

I think it's all in your head, honestly. At least, all the test-data seems to show that it is, when you compare the 0-60 times on long-term test autos magazines get including Skyactives.

 

[Ride92]

It's all good and great that some people are perfectly happy with the standard 2.5 in the CX-5 and the 187hp 184ft-lbs specs. I like my 2016 just fine and plan on keeping it for now. Nothing about the 2017 really stands out as a must have for me to race to the dealership and get a trade going for a 2017. Sure I like the new interior but could do with out the tablet style dash. The memory seats, heated steering wheel and better armrests and seats all appeal to me. But I like faster cars. problem is my wallet doesn't. If one looks at other luxury small cross overs, BMW X3, Audi Q5, MB GLC300, Volvo XC60 they all have roughly the same specs for their base engines, around 250hp and about 260-270 ft-lb of torque. Now if you look at the specs for the cx-9 with the 2.5 they list it as 250 hp with 310 ft-lbs of torque. If mazda truly wants to be compared to the luxury segment in fit and finish and styling then they should offer something that competes with them in engine performance. They already have a great handling chassis that is fun to drive. A 227-250hp 2.5T in the CX-5 would be a very smart purchase for anyone considering any of the german crossovers, but it would cost much less. When I first drove the CX-5 I had just driven an X3 and I felt like the CX-5 was very similar in driving dynamics it just didn't have the same pick up as the more powerful X3 but was about 20K less.

 

[Xeler8ing]

In the UK the Mazda 6 isn't highly thought of, winning no group tests, the accord was the same when it was on sale.

Each country's reviewers are biased a different way - UK/Europe are mostly towards European vehicles.. at least that is my impression from reading numerous reviews. USA reviewers praise in most cases USA vehicles. We were the same here but since in less than a years time no cars will be made here, this will change.

So no surprise the CX-5 doesn't win

 

[xtrailman]

Cx-5 wins every one, Mazda 6 wins none.

So I don't see any bias to other makes.

Each country's reviewers are biased a different way - UK/Europe are mostly towards European vehicles.. at least that is my impression from reading numerous reviews. USA reviewers praise in most cases USA vehicles. We were the same here but since in less than a years time no cars will be made here, this will change.

So no surprise the CX-5 doesn't win

 

[NelsonLewis]

It's all good and great that some people are perfectly happy with the standard 2.5 in the CX-5 and the 187hp 184ft-lbs specs. I like my 2016 just fine and plan on keeping it for now. Nothing about the 2017 really stands out as a must have for me to race to the dealership and get a trade going for a 2017. Sure I like the new interior but could do with out the tablet style dash. The memory seats, heated steering wheel and better armrests and seats all appeal to me. But I like faster cars. problem is my wallet doesn't. If one looks at other luxury small cross overs, BMW X3, Audi Q5, MB GLC300, Volvo XC60 they all have roughly the same specs for their base engines, around 250hp and about 260-270 ft-lb of torque. Now if you look at the specs for the cx-9 with the 2.5 they list it as 250 hp with 310 ft-lbs of torque. If mazda truly wants to be compared to the luxury segment in fit and finish and styling then they should offer something that competes with them in engine performance. They already have a great handling chassis that is fun to drive. A 227-250hp 2.5T in the CX-5 would be a very smart purchase for anyone considering any of the german crossovers, but it would cost much less. When I first drove the CX-5 I had just driven an X3 and I felt like the CX-5 was very similar in driving dynamics it just didn't have the same pick up as the more powerful X3 but was about 20K less.

Damn right!

 

[xtrailman]

plus 1.

 

[GJ-Molestor]

Cx-5 wins every one, Mazda 6 wins none.

So I don't see any bias to other makes.

The Mazda 6 has been widely appraised and slaughtered its competition with both numbers and praise over at car and driver. Its not selling because its brand image is lacking.

the 6 bests all of its competition just as well as the CX-5 does, only the CX-5 makes it more apparent because of the even more dull competition.

 

[GJ-Molestor]

I think it's all in your head, honestly. At least, all the test-data seems to show that it is, when you compare the 0-60 times on long-term test autos magazines get including Skyactives.

0-60 dont mean anything to anyone for the vast majority of daily drivers. This engine is impressive in third gear at 3000RPM

 

[Xeler8ing]

Cx-5 wins every one, Mazda 6 wins none.

So I don't see any bias to other makes.

Mazda 6 has won here

 

[xtrailman]

Can't agree with that, its the other way round in the UK, every manufacturer now products an SUV, sales of normal cars are in decline.
Mags in the UK have to my knowledge never given the Mazda 6 1st place, nor has it ever won a towing group sector.

The CX-5 has.

The Mazda 6 has been widely appraised and slaughtered its competition with both numbers and praise over at car and driver. It’s not selling because it’s brand image is lacking.

the 6 bests all of its competition just as well as the CX-5 does, only the CX-5 makes it more apparent because of the even more dull competition.