0-60 MPH in 8.44 seconds

[V8toilet]

So I wanted to test my CX-5 acceleration with my G-tech to see how well it can do. I have over 4000 miles on the odo. Previously with my modified Toyota Tundra I could get a consistent 6.9 seconds with a best of 6.88 sec. I took it to the same level road as before and ran it both ways just like I did with the Tundra. I did three runs and the temperature was 78 degrees out + I had a full tank of gas. The runs were 0-60 in 8.45 seconds, 8.66 seconds, and 8.44 seconds with an average of 8.52 seconds. I know the G-tech is accurate because I used it at a drag strip and it actually was reading slightly higher 1/4 miles times than what the vehicle I had was doing consistently. This is no race engine by any means but certainly not slow especially for the mileage this thing is capable of.

Update-I ran another test today 4/14/20 with over 16k miles on the odo. This time I had 93 octane in the fuel tank and ran three tests. The first one I had a bit of wheel spin so I didn't count it in the test but I still tan a 0-60 in 9.11 seconds. The other two I ran 8.37 and 8.64 for an average of 8.56 seconds or about the same as before. The temperature was 45-degrees out so I thought for that alone it would have run faster.

 

[bcooper]

Thank you for sharing this with us. I have a an AT. However, if I am shifting the gears manually, boy this CUV moves pretty well. I am more then satisfied.

So I wanted to test my CX-5 acceleration with my G-tech to see how well it can do. I have over 4000 miles on the odo. Previously with my modified Toyota Tundra I could get a consistent 6.9 seconds with a best of 6.88 sec. I took it to the same level road as before and ran it both ways just like I did with the Tundra. I did three runs and the temperature was 78 degrees out + I had a full tank of gas. The runs were 0-60 in 8.45 seconds, 8.66 seconds, and 8.44 seconds with an average of 8.52 seconds. I know the G-tech is accurate because I used it at a drag strip and it actually was reading slightly higher 1/4 miles times than what the vehicle I had was doing consistently. This is no race engine by any means but certainly not slow especially for the mileage this thing is capable of.

 

[Nodnerb]

I agree. Not as slow as some people make it out to be. Peppy even. Until you get into 4th to 6th at least. Then things really bog down.

 

[CX-5um]

Thanks V8!! Looks like after 4000 miles our engines would've been broken in by then so thats when the fun starts lol. Hey did you change the oil before you recorded those test runs? Like around 3000 miles?

Anyways those are great numbers given the variables.

 

[CX-SV]

Wow, not bad.
Auto mode or manual mode? (Car and Driver magazine made a note about manual mode making shifts closer to redline for slightly quicker times. )

 

[V8toilet]

It was done in auto mode (computer controlled shifts) because I wanted to replicate what 90% of the people would experience. I have a Mazda 3 that if I get a chance I'd like to run through the same test for comparison, its got the base non-sky 2.0 liter engine. I agree, gears 1-3 are acceleration gears and 4-6 are economy. I'd say a good compromise. Didn't change the oil yet but its getting changed tomorrow.

 

[ManMachine]

Nice to know.

It would be good to know the 50-70 time, as that's the typical use of such vehicles (on the highway, passing situation). From what I read in reviews, it has been a bit slower in this situation.

 

[Jcanracer]

ok, somebody with a manual transmission, go and do the same test now.
I would, but I don't have a G-tech...

 

[V8toilet]

I've got one in the MA area if someone wants to test their CX5 manual.

 

[ta240]

my butt dyno says mine doesn't get too close to that. the wifes 2.5 Mazda3 feels much faster but it pulls from lower rpms stronger too. On full throttle passes her car is too easy to close in on 90 whereas the CX5 is at 80 in about the same time. Like all small 4cyl I find it depends on catching it in the right rpm range and gear when you step on it.

 

[nation845]

my butt dyno says mine doesn't get too close to that. the wifes 2.5 Mazda3 feels much faster but it pulls from lower rpms stronger too. On full throttle passes her car is too easy to close in on 90 whereas the CX5 is at 80 in about the same time. Like all small 4cyl I find it depends on catching it in the right rpm range and gear when you step on it.

Maybe I'm just broken but I can never trust how fast a car feels anymore, because to me the VW 2.0T (~200hp turbo) feels faster then the Audi 3.0L v-6 supercharged 333hp even though #-wise the 2.0T is seconds slower. I guess to me how fast a car feels is about the sound and the initial push and some other things I don't know, more than just the numbers.

 

[V8toilet]

Okay so I wanted to test a vehicle that is comparable to the CX-5 and I happen to have one; my wifes 2009 Kia Ronda LX base with 60,000 miles. The Kia is almost exactly the same size as the Mazda in every dimension. Here's how they compare,

2009 Kia Rondo base FWD,
Curb weight 3333 lbs.
2.4L 4 cylinder with 4 speed automatic transmission.
175 HP @ 6000 RPM
169 ft Lbs. @ 4000 RPM

Width: 72 in.
Height: 65.0 in.
Length: 179.0 in.
Ground clearance: 5 in.
Front track: 62.0 in.
Rear track: 61.8 in.
Wheel base: 106.3 in.
Cargo capacity, 33 cu.ft.


2013 Mazda CX-5 Sport FWD,
Curb weight 3272 lbs.
2.0 L 4 cylinder engine with 6 speed automatic transmission.
155 HP @ 6000 RPM
150 ft. Lbs. @ 4000 RPM.

Width: 72 in.
Height: 66.0 in.
Length: 179.0 in.
Ground clearance: 7 in.
Front track: 62.4 in.
Rear track: 62.5 in.
Wheel base: 106.3 in.
Cargo capacity, 33 cu.ft.

During everyday driving the Kia Ronda feels faster especially when merging onto the highway with little throttle input. The 4 speed automatic holds 2 gear up past 60 MPH. The 2.4 L 4 cylinder engine also feels slightly more refined than the Mazda 2.0 L engine. There are some situations though where the Mazda does feel as quick like in some city driving situations depending on gear and speed. The Kia has the advantage of more low end torque but the transmission with its slush box feel can't compare to the Mazda's more direct feeling 6 speed transmission. I love this transmission and trust me I don't like many automatics.

So I took the Kia to the same road where I tested my Mazda with the G-tech and to my surprise the Kia could only muster a 8.82 second 0-60 time. It was slightly warmer outside so maybe this was a factor but even if it were the same exact conditions I don't think it would make more than a few tenths difference based on my experience. So once again real hard data proves how inaccurate the but-o-meter is. I think Mazda is correct when they say the 2.0 L Skyactiv powertrain is comparable to the competition. It may not be the quickest but it sure is fun to drive for a CUV. Also filled the tank on the Kia and got 23.75 MPG today before I tested it.

 

[IHeartGroceries]

Not bad? That is anemic! Don't sugar coat. lol!

I do find that it is a tad slow out of the hole, but from a slow roll, or a few grand into first, it will start to pull rather well.
I find that it is perfectly adequate power. Passing power leaves much to be desired, but as far as merging and such it does well enough.

For the enjoyment of acceleration, I mash it in the Speed 6.

 

[CX-SV]

For a AWD compact SUV, the acceleration is pretty much what I expected given best in class fuel economy. So far no other competitor can beat the CX-5 for fuel efficiency.

For enjoyment of acceleration, I mash it in my IS.

 

[CX-SV]

V8toilet - Was acceleration measurably slower when new (before you racked up 4K miles).

 

[V8toilet]

V8toilet - Was acceleration measurably slower when new (before you racked up 4K miles).

I didn't measure it because I wanted to let the engine break in properly. It did seem more lively though after that break in period.

 

[CX-SV]

I didn't measure it because I wanted to let the engine break in properly. It did seem more lively though after that break in period.

Thanks for the report and instrumented test.

 

[V8toilet]

So I wanted to test my CX-5 acceleration with my G-tech to see how well it can do. I have over 4000 miles on the odo. Previously with my modified Toyota Tundra I could get a consistent 6.9 seconds with a best of 6.88 sec. I took it to the same level road as before and ran it both ways just like I did with the Tundra. I did three runs and the temperature was 78 degrees out + I had a full tank of gas. The runs were 0-60 in 8.45 seconds, 8.66 seconds, and 8.44 seconds with an average of 8.52 seconds. I know the G-tech is accurate because I used it at a drag strip and it actually was reading slightly higher 1/4 miles times than what the vehicle I had was doing consistently. This is no race engine by any means but certainly not slow especially for the mileage this thing is capable of.

Update-I ran another test today 4/14/20 with over 16k miles on the odo. This time I had 93 octane in the fuel tank and ran three tests. The first one I had a bit of wheel spin so I didn't count it in the test but I still tan a 0-60 in 9.11 seconds. The other two I ran 8.37 and 8.64 for an average of 8.56 seconds or about the same as before. The temperature was 45-degrees out so I thought for that alone it would have run faster.

Bump

 

[CX-SV]

V8toilet - Thanks for the update and latest instrumented test of 0-60 times.

Again we confirm the only significant and measureable difference when using the high octane premium gasoline in the US spec 2.0L engine is approximately 5% increase in fuel cost.

 

[rcs914]

Now we just need someone to do the same with a broken in 2014.