2013 CX 5 GT with 2.0

From what I've read the balance shaft is also one of those thing once you take it off, it's very technical to properly reinstall if you dislike the vibrations/need to return to stock.
 
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.
Really, all you need is some lowering springs (H&r for a drop that won't have you hitting bumpstops) and a JBR or corksport rear sway bar. That's about $400-500 new, and you'll get a dramatic change in cornering performance.
Except for when it's raining I have the TCS all the way off (button hold 10 sec), and with the tune and brand new tires I can still trigger dsc if I shift at high rpmls in 1-2nd. Part of it may be from engine bucking though, corrected with a stiffer motor mount which I have waiting for install.
 
Last edited:
Really, all you need is some lowering springs (H&r for a drop that won't have you hitting bumpstops) and a JBR or corksport rear sway bar. That's about $400-500 new, and you'll get a dramatic change in cornering performance.
Except for when it's raining I have the TCS all the way off (button hold 10 sec), and with the tune and brand new tires I can still trigger dsc if I shift at high rpmls in 1-2nd. Part of it may be from engine bucking though, corrected with a stiffer motor mount which I have waiting for install.

I can't imagine a CX-5 exciting me in an actual performance application. I think I'll continue using it as intended and simply buy another corvette or whatnot later on.
 
Last edited:
Actually I saw higher than base model mustangs wallowing all over the track at an SASCA autox
 
Actually I saw higher than base model mustangs wallowing all over the track at an SASCA autox

Yes, but without YOU driving the mustang and CX-5 back to back, the comparison is moot. I'm just saying that the CX-5 is not a performance vehicle, and no amount of modding would satisfy me with it in that application. It IS a great daily driver, and I love it for such.

What would it need for me to enjoy it in a performance application...


-Oil cooler
-Better weight dist.
-Suspension work. Lots.
-Better brakes. Much.
-200whp more preferably, 100whp more minimum
-A manual transmission swap

Or I could just go buy the new Shelby GT350 or a C7 corvette 2 years from now or so and have all that and more, AND retain my CX-5 for DD use. I just don't understand the desire to mod a CX-5.
 
Last edited:
I can't imagine a CX-5 exciting me in an actual performance application. I think I'll continue using it as intended and simply buy another corvette or whatnot later on.

Just get one of these and then even a Corvette will not excite any longer:

07.jpg



17.jpg



(guitar)
 
But Corvettes and Mustangs are ill handling. If it has to be a performance car, it needs a mid-engine. Nothing less than this would do it for me:

1280px-Warwick_%28Rhode_Island%2C_USA%29%2C_Ford_GT_--_2006_--_1.jpg
 
Just get one of these and then even a Corvette will not excite any longer:

07.jpg



17.jpg



(guitar)
Sport bikes are awesome, but I had too many friends who rode them. Had. It wasn't even their fault most of the time. Soccer-mom on the phone. Etc.
Everyone has their "acceptable risks/rewards" algorithm in life, and for me, sports-car is in, while sport-bike is out. YMMV.

Beautiful scenery, btw!
 
But Corvettes and Mustangs are ill handling. If it has to be a performance car, it needs a mid-engine. Nothing less than this would do it for me:

1280px-Warwick_%28Rhode_Island%2C_USA%29%2C_Ford_GT_--_2006_--_1.jpg

Interestingly, that car actually kindof sucks on the track. It really wasn't that great of a car in the handling aspect, but it IS a collector's item already, and looked amazing. We got one in at the dealership I worked for, and the boss turned down a check for $220K for it. Market adjustment and all that. We had $238K IN the car, as a dealership, I was told.

Check out how the FGT places (behind the mustang, camaro, and even Grand Sport model corvettes, on many a track..).

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/virginia_international_raceway.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/top_gear_track.html
http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/willow_springs.html (this one is the most telling, as the 370Z, S2000, and even the Solstice showed it tail lights, lol)


So, no, I don't view it as very impressive. Especially when all 6 control arms earned it a recall for their propensity to break, lol
 
Last edited:
We got one in at the dealership I worked for, and the boss turned down a check for $220K for it. Market adjustment and all that. We had $238K IN the car, as a dealership, I was told.

What year was it?

Check out how the FGT places (behind the mustang, camaro, and even Grand Sport model corvettes, on many a track..).

I said, "nothing less would do it for me". It's all about the experience, not lap times. The GT is a simple but visceral sports car. And I just don't like Corvettes except some of the early classics (ironically, a 2.0L CX-5 would devastate the early Corvettes on a race track). So sue me. I could buy motorcycles that had quicker lap times than my Ducati's (and that were somewhat less expensive) but most of them would not provide the experience I'm after.


So, no, I don't view it as very impressive. Especially when all 6 control arms earned it a recall for their propensity to break, lol

I hadn't heard that but I imagine they were all replaced under warranty. It's not always about winning races and, whether talking motorcycles or sports cars, there's much more to it than pure specifications.
 
Sport bikes are awesome, but I had too many friends who rode them. Had. It wasn't even their fault most of the time. Soccer-mom on the phone. Etc.

Hey, sorry about your friends who lost their lives while riding. But to claim "it wasn't even their fault" is so wrong on so many levels. I'm not one to blame my mistakes on others because I know that most drivers are negligent a shocking amount of the time. So even when the official police report assigns blame to the other driver, you must understand, a person lost his/her life and it was because they put themselves in that situation. If I die on a motorcycle it will most likely be a single vehicle accident, my fault, and the official report will likely reflect that..." failed to negotiate a corner. Excessive speed was like a contributing factor." Or something similar.

When there are other vehicles around, I ride like they are all secret enemy agents who, for whatever reason, have been ordered to kill me and are just acting normally until they have the perfect opportunity to swerve in front of me and take my life. They might be surprised when they fail because I am as ready for them as I can possibly be and am constantly scanning the situation and identifying safe exits. Doesn't mean I can't ride in a sporting manner in traffic, but I do need to be aware of every stupid thing other drivers could do and avoid putting myself in a place where I have no exit. But I can't count on all my fingers and toes the number of people who have only a year or two of experience and yet think they know how to ride a performance motorcycle. I can say the same thing about people that have 30 years riding experience and yet, still have very poor technical skills. Most riders simply have no idea how to stop their motorcycle in the least amount of time, let alone brake and change direction at the same time. Yet they believe they do.

But life is short and precious. Live it like you mean it or, you might wake up at 80 years old some day and wonder if you ever really lived at all.

Everyone has their "acceptable risks/rewards" algorithm in life, and for me, sports-car is in, while sport-bike is out. YMMV.

It looks like we have different understandings of what the risks are and what the rewards are. There really is no, and I mean no comparison between the experience of driving a sports car and that of riding a sporting motorcycle. And I say "sporting" motorcycle because the bike above is not even technically a sportbike. It's a Sport-Touring bike that leans towards the sport side. But compared to a sports car, it's a full-on sporting machine and, when properly set-up, has perfect balance and composure when ridden at the edge in a way that no four wheeled vehicle can claim.
 
Last edited:
What year was it?
2005, I believe. THat's been a while...go look on Autotrader though. They are starting to appreciate even from the "market adjusted" +$100K sticker...that car is one of the few "instant classics" recently.



I said, "nothing less would do it for me". It's all about the experience, not lap times. The GT is a simple but visceral sports car. And I just don't like Corvettes except some of the early classics (ironically, a 2.0L CX-5 would devastate the early Corvettes on a race track). So sue me. I could buy motorcycles that had quicker lap times than my Ducati's (and that were somewhat less expensive) but most of them would not provide the experience I'm after.
Have you driven a FGT? I personally have not, so I cannot really comment on the experience, but I agree with you, unless you are racing for money/sponsorship, it's about FUN! So I really have no argument if you think an FGT is "better" than a Corvette, and yes, the CX-5 would impress quite a few "fast" cars from "back in the day". Especially in braking/handling. The most visceral car I have been in was probably a 500+ hp Pantera DeTomosa owned by one of my customers when I worked for Ford. THAT was a visceral car. I declined to drive it, as the Getrag trans was worth more than my entire vehicle x 2 at the time, lol!




I hadn't heard that but I imagine they were all replaced under warranty. It's not always about winning races and, whether talking motorcycles or sports cars, there's much more to it than pure specifications.
Oh, yes, Ford fixed it, and really, it's not as shameful as one might think considering how FAST! that car went from paper to pavement. Now the Lexus LFA...THAT is shameful.
 
Hey, sorry about your friends who lost their lives while riding. But to claim "it wasn't even their fault" is so wrong on so many levels. I'm not one to blame my mistakes on others because I know that most drivers are negligent a shocking amount of the time. So even when the official police report assigns blame to the other driver, you must understand, a person lost his/her life and it was because they put themselves in that situation. If I die on a motorcycle it will most likely be a single vehicle accident, my fault, and the official report will likely reflect that..." failed to negotiate a corner. Excessive speed was like a contributing factor." Or something similar.
How exactly do you blame my friend for being hit by a driver running a redlight? How do you blame one of my other friends for a pizza delivery guy making a U-turn directly into him on the spur of the moment because he missed a turn (that friend is still alive, but I used to jog with his wife because he can't anymore). I'm not taking offense to you "blaming my friends", as I understand you meant it in a clinical and non-personal sense, but when you can explain to me how a driver running a redlight, and the flagrant illegal U-turn with no warning was somehow the fault of the bike rider, I'll agree. Now, I also agree that sometimes, yes, the two parties are both at fault. I witnessed a guy on a sport bike (well, I heard it, ran to the scene) hit a black cadillac that he claims he did not see/no lights. But you know what? There was over 40 feet of rubber laid down by that bike's tires...THAT was a two-party fault. Or mabye it was JUST the biker's fault. But that isn't what happened to my friends.

But I still want to point out...being right didn't and won't bring anyone back from the grave. Being wrong and admitting it won't either. Airbags and some material between you and the other vehicle/concrete barrier/whatever DOES have a higher chance of keeping you above ground, though. Like I said, everyone has their own "acceptable risk" category. That's PERSONAL, and that's my stance. YMMV, and I don't fault or condemn your stance either. Everyone needs to be happy, so long as they aren't harming others.


When there are other vehicles around, I ride like they are all secret enemy agents who, for whatever reason, have been ordered to kill me and are just acting normally until they have the perfect opportunity to swerve in front of me and take my life. They might be surprised when they fail because I am as ready for them as I can possibly be and am constantly scanning the situation and identifying safe exits. Doesn't mean I can't ride in a sporting manner in traffic, but I do need to be aware of every stupid thing other drivers could do and avoid putting myself in a place where I have no exit. But I can't count on all my fingers and toes the number of people who have only a year or two of experience and yet think they know how to ride a performance motorcycle. I can say the same thing about people that have 30 years riding experience and yet, still have very poor technical skills. Most riders simply have no idea how to stop their motorcycle in the least amount of time, let alone brake and change direction at the same time. Yet they believe they do.

Exactly. I am new to bikes (were I to get into them). You don't get re-do's. I work in healthcare. I see what happens when people make mistakes. I would make a mistake, just like I did when I first got into sports cars. but you know what? My sports car mistake cost me a few thousand dollars and one very shameful situation (noone was harmed though, 1 vehicle accident). A bike? That might not be so "cheap"...I am not willing to pay the price to learn.

But life is short and precious. Live it like you mean it or, you might wake up at 80 years old some day and wonder if you ever really lived at all.

Everyone has their "acceptable risks/rewards" algorithm in life, and for me, sports-car is in, while sport-bike is out. YMMV.

It looks like we have different understandings of what the risks are and what the rewards are. There really is no, and I mean no comparison between the experience of driving a sports car and that of riding a sporting motorcycle. And I say "sporting" motorcycle because the bike above is not even technically a sportbike. It's a Sport-Touring bike that leans towards the sport side. But compared to a sports car, it's a full-on sporting machine and, when properly set-up, has perfect balance and composure when ridden at the edge in a way that no four wheeled vehicle can claim.[/QUOTE]
Cars are faster than bikes, or at least, mine was faster than plenty of them (although once you get up past the modern 600's, it takes mods to keep up with the,), and a car is better in the corners. HOWEVER, you're right, I bet. I don't know, so I say "I bet". That said, some people think cocaine is fun. Gives 'em a rush. I had a roommate like that. Did coke a few times because "Hey, live a little!" and he currently has no substance addiction, nor did he get one, nor did the coke hurt him in the least that I could tell. I know riding a bike isn't like doing drugs, but cocaine fell into "Live a little!" for my friend, while you probably shake your head wondering WTF?! Well, sports cars are fine for me, as are a few other "semi dangerous things", but sport bikes aren't one of them. Different strokes and all that. Live and let live, basically.
 
Get an old NSX...vtec yo!
modp-0904-02-o%2B1993-acura-nsx%2Bfront-view.jpg

If they depreciated at a "normal" rate, I would be all over that idea just because I like the look, and it's a real "Driver's car", even if it's not very fast. However, those things cost big bucks in good condition, compared to new. I think they still retail for new or higher, actually. I'll snag a C7 for that money.
 
True mid engine sports cars are the best, there is no experience like it. I love that NSX!
 
Sport bikes are awesome, but I had too many friends who rode them. Had. It wasn't even their fault most of the time. Soccer-mom on the phone. Etc.
Everyone has their "acceptable risks/rewards" algorithm in life, and for me, sports-car is in, while sport-bike is out. YMMV.
Beautiful scenery, btw!
Yes, My friend just got out of surgery yesterday. He will live. The Harley was totaled and the other driver was ticketed. Being in the right doesn't fix broken bones.
 
Hence the reason I have these in my garage as well. Oh and sorry for the thread jack.



 
Oh and sorry for the thread jack.

I believe an apology is unnecessary as this thread is about whether the 2.0L engine has enough power to be a good car. Exploring the history of sports cars and the extreme examples of power/weight ratios of exotic sports cars and performance motorcycles is a good way to understand the full spectrum of power, acceleration and what it all means when considering whether the 2.0L has "enough".

I find that when one considers that the CX-5, even with the little 2.0L engine, would simply devastate the first real American sports car, the Corvette, on a race track to be very illuminating. The 2.0L would leave the first Corvettes behind like a bad dream. Sure, that all happened almost a human lifetime ago and this is a different era but the point made is you can load the CX-5 to its maximum gross weight, take it in the mountains, and even the little 2.0L engine will be fun to drive and go as fast as you want (it will just take slightly longer to get there). If you are looking to out-compete the other drivers on the road, the CX-5 is not your car regardless of engine size.
 
I believe an apology is unnecessary as this thread is about whether the 2.0L engine has enough power to be a good car. Exploring the history of sports cars and the extreme examples of power/weight ratios of exotic sports cars and performance motorcycles is a good way to understand the full spectrum of power, acceleration and what it all means when considering whether the 2.0L has "enough".

I find that when one considers that the CX-5, even with the little 2.0L engine, would simply devastate the first real American sports car, the Corvette, on a race track to be very illuminating. The 2.0L would leave the first Corvettes behind like a bad dream. Sure, that all happened almost a human lifetime ago and this is a different era but the point made is you can load the CX-5 to its maximum gross weight, take it in the mountains, and even the little 2.0L engine will be fun to drive and go as fast as you want (it will just take slightly longer to get there). If you are looking to out-compete the other drivers on the road, the CX-5 is not your car regardless of engine size.

Living close enough to the Dragon (Deal's Gap) to participate, witness, and discuss the happenings, I would say that the determining factor is skill. That would be the case whether on two or four wheels.
People frequently dismiss that with, "all else being equal" car a is faster than b, or four wheels beats two. There are some mad skills out there. I cannot claim to be one of them, but they can be amazing to watch.
I do know this, even the lowly 2.0 MT-6 would be a hoot on the Dragon.

map_6401.jpg
 
Back