2013 CX 5 GT with 2.0

[Unobtanium]

Not even close. VW produced 22 million Beetles, GM has produced a little over 2 million Suburbans. The Suburban will never reach the success of the original Beetle!



1935 Suburban Carryall had a seating capacity of 8 adults and a huge, cast iron engine producing a whopping 60 HP But the TORQUE! 'MURICA! to drive it's bulky 3,300 lb. chassis. Oh, so now a 3,300# SUV is "bulky"? What does your 2.0 CX-5 weigh, again?A heater and rear bumper were optional.

1955-1959 it was available with the standard in-line 6 cyl. "Thriftmaster" engine producing a maximum of 123 hp.
Also available was an optional 4.3L V-8 producing a maximum 145 hp.
Or, go whole hog and get the monstrously powerful 4.6L V8 making a whopping 155 hp.

All this in a vehicle with an incredibly inefficient transmission, aerodynamics of a brick and a much heavier curb weight than a CX-5.

Yes, but it was thought of almost a century before the CX-5.

 

[Unobtanium]

Don't get the CX5 if you plan to do a lot of highway driving. I had a 2 liter sport model and now have a 2.5 liter touring model. With either engine the engine noise and wind noise are high and get tiresome on long highway trips. I think my sport with the 2 liter engine made more engine noise on the highway because it had to work harder to keep momentum up, especially up long grades compared to the 2.5. Still again engine noise with either one is loud so it's not a big difference.

When I upgraded to the 2.5 liter engine I did notice the added weight over the front wheels. By about the second day, I didn't notice it anymore because it's very slight. The bigger engine is noticeably more powerful at lower RPM's and is a more relaxed engine, which for an SUV is in my opinion better. If we were talking about a real sports car like the Mazda Miata than I would agree the smaller engine would be a better fit.

If most of the driving you do is not highway driving, then you should definitely consider the CX5 with the 2 liter engine as an option. For me driving around town with the smaller engine was perfectly adequate and it does average about 1.5 mpg better than the 2.5.

Last for reference I measured 0-60 times with my G-tech ranging from 8.3 seconds to 8.6 seconds with the 2 liter engine and a consistent traction limited 7.5 seconds with the 2.5 liter engine.

"Traction limited"? As in, you're actually spinning on take-off? Were you torque braking (loading the stall converter), or just "stomping it"?

Reason I ask, is I have NEVER spun a tire in my CX-5, and I HAVE been aggressive with it, even in the rain. Maybe my Crosscontact LX20's are just awesome, or maybe AWD is pretty darn effective, just asking which?

I stop-watch'ed a video of mine and got 7.8 seconds 0-60, which seems dead in-line with most road-tests I have seen published.

 

[ekcooper]

I have owned them both. We are talking about a 30-35 HP difference, so it is noticeable.

The 2.0 was decent, I never complained, but you have to understand that the motor revs up to 6500 rpm, so use it!
The 2.5L is just right, although the MPG suffers, I love the lower end torque that the 2.5 gives.

Agreed. I had a 2013 and now have a 2016. The power is noticeable, but the gas mileage on the 2.0 was awesome. Loved them both.

 

[Unobtanium]

Agreed. I had a 2013 and now have a 2016. The power is noticeable, but the gas mileage on the 2.0 was awesome. Loved them both.

Also consider where you live. SA is pretty flat. I live in NW AR. I have lots of "hills" to deal with. The 2.0 would get thrashed in comparison to my 2.5.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Sa is hilly

 

[Unobtanium]

Sa is hilly

What part, lol? I was there last month and it wasn't. I'm going back again next week, and maybe I'll look around a bit more? I have a 300ft elevation change just on my 35 acres alone (@1400 linear feet). What kind of hilly does SA have?

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

elevation changes frequently around the city, only about 500 feet all around but frequently, city and highway. san Antonio is just south of hill country

 

[Unobtanium]

elevation changes frequently around the city, only about 500 feet all around but frequently, city and highway. san Antonio is just south of hill country

Here is a picture to illustrate that I took of the power-line that runs parallel to the Eastern border of my property, offset by about 100 yards:

Here I am going for a drive:

Maybe I just haven't been to the "hilly" part of SA, if it's anything like where I live, I missed it ^^

 

[bamirault]

I've been doing a ton of research and from everything I read the 2.0 is under powered when getting onto freeways and passing at highway speeds. I wanted to get some real opinions from owners with this engine.

jjp:

I have the 2.0, and it is less powerful than the Volvo it replaced. I only notice this when doing a byway/highway merge, and when passing on more rural roads. More power is always nice, but can be compensated for by careful planning/attention and a little patience. Having to do this is compensated for by the superior fuel economy; which I would not give up for the power. Still, had the front passenger headrest in the GLK250 been removable to meet my cargo needs I'd be driving one.

Brian

 

[V8toilet]

Unobtanium,

I just push the pedal to the floor from a complete stop. I ran the times from both directions and averaged them together but they were within a tenth anyway. The road I used was very level. The tires would start to break traction and the traction control intervened for a moment. This actually happened with the 2.0 too on a few runs but the 0-60 times were more adversely effected so I discarded them. I discarded some of the times with the 2.5 too but they were more consistent than they were with the 2.0. Maybe it was because of the added 100 lbs over the front tires. The first time I did this with my 2013 Sport with the 2.0 engine I was surprised by the 0-60 time I got of 8.44 seconds. I was expecting it to be in the low 9 second range.

I believe the G-tech is accurate as the 1/4 mile times it produced at New England Dragway with my other vehicle were very close and actually read a bit slower than the timer at the drag strip. One big factor that affects engine power and so the 0-60 times is elevation. Where I tested the elevation is about 500' above sea level. The higher you go the slower your 0-60 time will be given that traction is the same.

Forgot to mention both my CX5 are FWD.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Here is a picture to illustrate that I took of the power-line that runs parallel to the Eastern border of my property, offset by about 100 yards:

Here I am going for a drive:
[video=youtube;[/video]

Maybe I just haven't been to the "hilly" part of SA, if it's anything like where I live, I missed it ^^

Do you have an intake or exhaust?

 

[Unobtanium]

Do you have an intake or exhaust?

Berk CBE and a smooth intake tubes with Cosworth filters. The CBE really woke it up in the power department, even though I hated how the car sounded like a damn Altima with the stock exhaust and that is why I installed it, for sound alone. Reality is, it probably gave me around 15rwhp base on the dyno's I've seen. I probably kept it around something like 4500-5500rpm though, because the roads were wet. I was on Pilot Super Sports and could have probably pushed them a bit harder, but not with a passenger and not on public roads. I miss having fun vehicles, but that 370 had its fair share of gremlins.

 

[Unobtanium]

Unobtanium,

I just push the pedal to the floor from a complete stop. I ran the times from both directions and averaged them together but they were within a tenth anyway. The road I used was very level. The tires would start to break traction and the traction control intervened for a moment. This actually happened with the 2.0 too on a few runs but the 0-60 times were more adversely effected so I discarded them. I discarded some of the times with the 2.5 too but they were more consistent than they were with the 2.0. Maybe it was because of the added 100 lbs over the front tires. The first time I did this with my 2013 Sport with the 2.0 engine I was surprised by the 0-60 time I got of 8.44 seconds. I was expecting it to be in the low 9 second range.

I believe the G-tech is accurate as the 1/4 mile times it produced at New England Dragway with my other vehicle were very close and actually read a bit slower than the timer at the drag strip. One big factor that affects engine power and so the 0-60 times is elevation. Where I tested the elevation is about 500' above sea level. The higher you go the slower your 0-60 time will be given that traction is the same.

Forgot to mention both my CX5 are FWD.

I am not sure how I feel about G-Tech's. I have seen some very legit numbers from them, and some very funky numbers from them. I think EVERYTHING factors in. Traction, acceleration curve, etc.

It sounds like the AWD system really DOES do something in these vehicles, though, because I can FLOOR my 2.5L AWD CX-5 from a dead stop in the rain and not spin. I thought it was just because it didn't have much power. So either the AWD is very effective, or my Crosscontact LX20's are.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Oh I thought that was the cx5. It is fun you just have to mod it.

 

[yrwei52]

Mike M. I could not find anything that mentions the weight of the 2 different sized motors. Although I have it in my head that there is only ~ 40lbs difference, I can not verify this and was hoping that you had a source?

Can't look it up right now but the vehicle weight difference is ~100 lbs. Some of this is likely due to a battery with more CCA and maybe a bigger starter (but I haven't checked the part #'s on the starter).

Use 2015 CX-5 as an example, total curb weight for a SA-G 2.0L FWD AT Sport is 3,263 lbs and for a SA-G 2.5L FWD AT Touring is 3,375 lbs. The difference is 112 lbs which should be contributed by heavier 2.5L. 2.5L has balance shaft which makes up the most weight of 112 lbs I believe.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

I agree. I am finding out that the CX-5 isn't great for actual road trips. Above about 65mph, gas mileage takes a MASSIVE hit (you start getting 3-5mpg less than what the EPA hwy rating is), and wind/road noise becomes annoying (this from a guy who used to drive a Z06, 370Z, and modded mustang with no cats, an X-pipe, and flows). Above 65mph primary usage, I would honestly look at a GLK350 or something.

Actually I don't find the CX-5 noise level that bad....it is quieter than my Infiniti.

Granted my longest runs are normally a mere 200 miles (in 80 MPH range) or so but no complaints here... if I really needed complete isolation from reality I would be looking at a Buick, Cadillac or an LS 460.

 

[Unobtanium]

Oh I thought that was the cx5. It is fun you just have to mod it.

A LOT!
But it's a knock-around daily for me, and I want to get back into something nice when it's paid off, so I'll pass on the mods.

 

[Unobtanium]

Actually I don't find the CX-5 noise level that bad....it is quieter than my Infiniti.

Granted my longest runs are normally a mere 200 miles (in 80 MPH range) or so but no complaints here... if I really needed complete isolation from reality I would be looking at a Buick, Cadillac or an LS 460.

I just find it loud compared to my Grand Jeep Cherokee. It's about the same as a sporty sedan from lower-end companies.

 

[jjac28]

Actually I don't find the CX-5 noise level that bad....it is quieter than my Infiniti.

Granted my longest runs are normally a mere 200 miles (in 80 MPH range) or so but no complaints here... if I really needed complete isolation from reality I would be looking at a Buick, Cadillac or an LS 460.

i agree my cx-5 is pretty quiet on the highway, i dont notice any excessive noise, maybe its something to do with the tires? mine are only at 30k km.
I find that the 2.0l has enough power and acceleration for any type of situation or when loaded with up with stuff, i never found myself in need of more power and im an aggressive driver.
mind you, i drive the 6spd manual which helps to get all the power out of that engine, but the most impressive thing about this engine is the fuel consumption , on a recent trip to niagara falls i averaged 36mpg, thats really amazing for an suv and better than most compact cars.

 

[MikeM.]

I find that the 2.0l has enough power and acceleration for any type of situation or when loaded with up with stuff, i never found myself in need of more power and im an aggressive driver.

One reason the 2.0L feels so perky relative to it's displacement and HP rating is it doesn't have all the rotational inertia of the 2.5L engine with it's twin, counter-rotating chain driven balance shafts under the crankshaft. It has fewer moving parts and while the frictional losses of balance shafts might not be large, they spin at twice the rpm's of the crankshaft (so up to 13,000 rpm's). This means their rotational inertia is double what their weight would suggest and this makes the 2.5L engine feel less 'revy'. The published HP ratings don't take this into account but it is quite measurable on a typical inertia dynamometer and will rob power, particularly off the line and in the lower gears.


Performance tuners often remove the balance shafts to make their engines more free-revving which improves acceleration but since the 2.0L never needed the balance shafts to begin with, you get that benefit without having to remove anything. This was achieved due to the 8.8 mm shorter stroke of the 2.0L vs. the 2.5L and the smaller, lighter pistons which makes maximum advantage of the lightweight forged pistons with minimal skirting. While you could remove the balance shafts in the 2.5L engine I haven't seen any 'delete kits' on the market and you would likely be unhappy with engine smoothness after removal due to it's longer stroke and heavier components.