Search results

Different vehicles for different purposes works for me. In traffic, the extra height of SUV adds value and safety via extra visibility, yep even as SUVs continue to grow in popularity.

Nice upgrade. A good turbo 4 can be sweet. I have MB C250 with 1.8L turbo 4, plenty of power, super smooth up to redline, decent MPG (actual 22 city/30 hwy). I sold my 2013 CX-5 2.0L last summer to a family member, she's enjoying it.

Yes, Kampfires observations are nearly identical to mine after putting 30K miles on a Feb 2012 build 2013 GT. Thankfully in my case a IS350 and C250 provide a more satisfying power plant / drivability experience. Edit: no console creaking.

I agree with Deepfriedsushi's comments, the CX-5 would never be my choice of an only car. Sure the 2.0 has only adequate power, but the efficiency was best in class. But the trait I did not enjoy was the sound and coarseness in upper rev range which was not especially sporty to me.

Please shift properly, (like that's the solution).

Great annual report. I sold my CX-5 to a family member last summer with 30K miles, same kind of results with ownership experience.

Not my last Mazda, but 0 will be the number of K&N's I buy today or tomorrow.

I think he means ride quality difference versus stock springs. Looks good btw.

Yes, it's "worth" it (key word "worth, as it relates to net cost). Higher resale value/lower depreciation at the end of normal ownership period in CA makes it worth it for mountain travelers here. Depreciation being the largest single automotive cost factor sb considered.

I think I saw some acceleration times (from Australia since they seem to be first to drive and report) for the 2.0L CX-3 and it was slightly quicker than the CX-5 2.5L acceleration times reported in the US. But yes, in short removing hundreds of pounds of weight and improving aero by...

Yes or just buy the CX-3 (very likely nicely engineered by Mazda) which is lighter than the CX-5 garage-engineered strippo CX-5, lol. You still get to enjoy moonroof and infotainment too...

Yes, or you can just wait for CX-3, it will have much better performance with same 2.0L because vehicle is lighter and smaller. I suspect the CX-3 2.0L will even be quicker than CX-5 2.5L.

Agreed, the 2.0 with its current SUV tune would hardly be my first choice for a sporty free reving engine for a sports car.

Yes, considerable cost for a small improvement in weight distribution. The trunk location was pre-2006 Miatas.

I must of been thinking of older Miatas, but trunk space then was super small.

I think you are right. Isn't it already there?

Battery is already in optimal and most cost effective location (when compared to other SUVS), near firewall.

Despite the many significant changes (mostly to interior), it's still just a refresh and not a redesign or new gen of CX-5.

Jeeezzz, FM, this thread went downhill fast, lol....(at least we know what's better suited for lazy and noninvolved, and have a 1.5 vs. 2.0 comparison when 2.5L vs. 2.0L was being discussed originally regarding balance of car)... Note: The Miata has a long history of near 50/50 weight...

Over-styled mess, at least per pics. 6 and Fusion look way better.