CX-5 just keeps getting faster with age...

:
RDX Aspec Adv.
0-60 in 5.8. Nice! I've sure enjoyed mine this last 54K miles!

Screenshot_20201119-214639_Chrome.jpg
 
Interesting. Wonder how they were able to improve the 0-60 time.
 
Looks like more than half of the long term cars C&D test are faster at 40,000 miles.
 
Yeah and that's with stock tires. Getting some summer or ultra performance all-seasons would improve braking/cornering/straight line grip.
 
Looks like more than half of the long term cars C&D test are faster at 40,000 miles.

And half are slower, which probably says that random factors associated with the before and after test conditions (wind, temperature, tire wear, driver technique, measurement error, etc.) are probably overriding any actual change in engine performance.

- Mark
 
And half are slower, which probably says that random factors associated with the before and after test conditions (wind, temperature, tire wear, driver technique, measurement error, etc.) are probably overriding any actual change in engine performance.

- Mark
The CX9 was faster, also, FWIW.

With DI engines, especially turbo, I think these trends matter. It points to Mazda's design working very well in preventing any kind of performance degradation from carbon.

Also, it wasn't just the 0-60, but the 0-120/130, the trap speed, the quarter mile time, the passing times. ALL of it. If it were just the 0-60 but the trap speed dropped, I'd agree, it's a big "whatever", but it wasn't. EVERYTHING improved except handling and braking by any notable margin. This indicates more than just environment, IMO. You don't get 2mph trap speed because a cloud was in the right place, unless the condition differences between the two tests are very extreme.
 
Something doesn't add up. According to that, the 5-60 rolling start is longer than that at 6.4 seconds. My guess is they've inadvertently swapped the two numbers. The CX-5 is reported 0-60 at 6.4 seconds elsewhere.
 
Rolling starts are always slower. C&D does whatever it takes (revs engine and stands on the brakes, basically) to get the best off the line start for the 0 to 60 numbers. This puts the engine in the heart of the powerband. The rolling start forces the engine to be near idle, which adds a delay until the engine revs build.

On another note, C&D's 0 to 60 numbers include "rollout" which is a nice way of saying they are overstated. You have to add 0.3 second to the numbers to get the real 0 to 60 time of 6.1....
 
Rolling starts are always slower. C&D does whatever it takes (revs engine and stands on the brakes, basically) to get the best off the line start for the 0 to 60 numbers. This puts the engine in the heart of the powerband. The rolling start forces the engine to be near idle, which adds a delay until the engine revs build.

On another note, C&D's 0 to 60 numbers include "rollout" which is a nice way of saying they are overstated. You have to add 0.3 second to the numbers to get the real 0 to 60 time of 6.1....
Its standard. Every drag strip eliminates 1ft rollout.
 
0-60 in 5.8. Nice! I've sure enjoyed mine this last 54K miles!
Whatever happened to the cold weather power loss problem you posted about last year?
Has it been solved, or is it still a dog in cold weather? Just curious.
 
Whatever happened to the cold weather power loss problem you posted about last year?
Has it been solved, or is it still a dog in cold weather? Just curious.

The cold weather isn't here yet, but it's coming...
 
Its standard. Every drag strip eliminates 1ft rollout.

Sure, and I always shallow stage on the street.

This is the reason why Car and Driver always has quicker 0-60 times than say Edmunds or Consumer Reports because those sources don't report rollout adjusted times. Rollout is appropriate for quoting quarter mile dragstrip times but it is misleading for what happens in the real world.
 
Question, do I not get the 250hp is I don't use 93 octane gasoline? Meaning if I'm using 92 octane, I stay on 227hp?
 
I am not sure anyone knows for certain how Mazda tuned the car. I've never seen ratings for octane values other than 87 and 93. I'd be curious to know what the "official" output on California 91 measures. There was a post on here somewhere where someone called Mazda and they said the output was linear with the Octane rating, so you would get 246 hp on 92 octane.
 
Back