Trim or option regrets after purchasing

That's the problem, it really doesn't get up and move. It sort of levers itself out of the chair and shuffles along until it gets some momentum, and then it does OK. I'm gonna go against the grain here and say that the normally aspirated 2.5 is a dog when taking off, and pretty sluggish when merging....
I disagree with this.
The OP is asking about adequate power for merging into traffic, which it has.
Its real-world performance is comparable to the vast majority of other compact cars/SUVs.
He's not drag racing this vehicle or taking it to autocross events.

If you want better performance without upgrading to the turbo model...
then get the FWD version instead of the AWD version.

Car & Driver tested both, and the FWD version was quicker than the AWD in all acceleration tests:
0-60 MPH, 0-100 MPH, 5-60 MPH rolling start, 30-50 MPH, 50-70 MPH, 1/4 Mile

As a bonus, the FWD also has shorter 70-0 MPH braking distances, costs ~$1500 less, and lower maintenance/repair costs.
 
:
Phoenix
:
2020 CX5 signature
This is a generalization, so nobody's screaming me. I have found that most people who are happy with the non turbo model have never driven the turbo model. Yes the non-turbo is fine. However, those who have test-driven both usually find a way to make the turbo happen. It's like a completely different car.
 
:
2019 CX-5 Signature
This is a generalization, so nobody's screaming me. I have found that most people who are happy with the non turbo model have never driven the turbo model. Yes the non-turbo is fine. However, those who have test-driven both usually find a way to make the turbo happen. It's like a completely different car.

We first drove the non-turbo CX-5 and said "nope!". We were coming from a 2010 CR-V and were tired of trying to get out of our own way.
 
This is a generalization, so nobody's screaming me. I have found that most people who are happy with the non turbo model have never driven the turbo model. Yes the non-turbo is fine. However, those who have test-driven both usually find a way to make the turbo happen. It's like a completely different car.
Isn't this true of every vehicle made? Everything is a trade-off...
If cost/longevity/maintenance/fuel efficiency were not a consideration, then of course everyone would pick the higher performance version.

The Honda Civic is nice, but the Si is even better, and the Type R much better.
The Honda Accord Sport is nice, but the 2.0T is better.
But there is a reason that people buy the lower trim levels with the base engines.

Would I be happier with the performance of the turbo version? Yes, of course.
Did I want to spend $5K more out of pocket, have notably worse fuel economy, higher levels of maintenance, and potential longevity repair concerns? No.

I pay cash for vehicles and keep them for 11-15 years.
It is a lot easier for a payment buyer who switches vehicles every few years to justify.
 
Last edited:
Top