2014 CX-5 180hp engine release date?

[CX-SV]

I don't see any history of Mazda ever publishing 0-60 times for CX-5 2.0L.

Btw - EPA gas mileage numbers are now out for 2014 CX-5 2.5L and came in as expected based on earlier published estimates (if I remember correctly from viewing EPA website yesterday, down 1 mpg city and highway, down 2 mpg combined rating for AWD version).

 

[STE92VE]

I don't see any history of Mazda ever publishing 0-60 times for CX-5 2.0L.

Not that I think that there is anything wrong with the 2.0L, but doesn't it make sense that they would want the world to know about the improved performance since all the car reviewers criticized the lack of vroom-vroom? http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-touring-awd-test-review

 

[HandA]

#1 - Since there are still 2.0L sitting on dealers lots they don't want to publicize the tremendous increase in 0-60 times, etc.

#2 - Mazda is embarrassed at the insignificantly small increase in performance, given that they have been touting a 20% increase in HP & Torque.

I guess you've figured out I don't like reason #2.

My guess is they might actually be thinking of their dealer network (unlike most car companies) and aren't willing to say to the customers "wait a bit longer and you can get a faster one" leaving the dealers stuck with a lot of 2013s. Plus it isn't really good to come out and say "woops, that first try wasn't quite right" Which is what it would sound like if they hyped it up too much.

But I'd also guess that it may not be a stellar change in times. Car and Driver said the CRV is only .7 seconds faster to 60 so the CX5 won't likely drop a ton in its time. Saying we shaved half a second off our 0-60 time won't likely turn a lot of heads.
It will likely be more of a 'feel' of power where you won't have to wind it up as much to pass people. I'm curious, is it going to have different gearing and shift points from the 2.0?

In nearly 19,000 miles there has never been a time when I've thought to myself that the car was slow. Sure there are times I wish it was faster (but few cars wouldn't have that) and when I want to zip through traffic on the freeway my old 240Z is much more fun to drop into third and floor as it will jump from 60 to 90 whereas the CX5 will be more in the 70 to 75 range in the same time frame. But it is still plenty fast for day to day driving and I still so often end up stuck behind vehicles with big V8s or 6 cylinders and 300 HP that putt away from every stop and just about stop for every corner. And I know just about every one of those people that are moving roadblocks would never consider buying a 4 cylinder vehicle, let along one with around 150 HP because it would be "too slow" for them....

since all the car reviewers criticized the lack of vroom-vroom?

Remember though, Car and Driver still gave it the top spot in their comparison test.

Trevor
Genuine Factory Mazda Oil and Filters

 

[CX-SV]

Not that I think that there is anything wrong with the 2.0L, but doesn't it make sense that they would want the world to know about the improved performance since all the car reviewers criticized the lack of vroom-vroom? http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-touring-awd-test-review

Oh, I see what your are referring to (these are not Mazda's published specs), but a Car and Driver magazine article. And yes the magazines consistently report measured 0-60 times that are slower than average for the class and they all consistently reported CX-5 2.0L has best in class gas mileage too.

 

[HandA]

and they all consistently reported CX-5 2.0L has best in class gas mileage too.

and that it was the most fun

I still think much of the feeling of under-powered is because it is so much fun so you want to drive even more enthusiastically. I've done a few quick maneuvers in mine for one reason or another and I'm always amazed at how well it does them and how solid it feels. It just seems to say "that was good, but you could do it faster"

Trevor
Genuine Mazda CX5 Accessories

 

[CX-SV]

and that it was the most fun

IGenuine Mazda CX5 Accessories

Fun is highly subjective, but yes just about all report the fun factor of CX-5. Personally I find the fun factor to be best in a class of compact SUV appliances mostly, but hardly overwhelming. I prefer more power in my fun vehicles (certainly more than 155 hp or 184 hp in 3400 pound vehicle), but the CX-5 offers excellent efficiency and utility .

 

[Figaro]

2014 Pic at Detroit

Fun is highly subjective, but yes just about all report the fun factor of CX-5. Personally I find the fun factor to be best in a class of compact SUV appliances mostly, but hardly overwhelming. I prefer more power in my fun vehicles (certainly more than 155 hp or 184 hp in 3400 pound vehicle), but the CX-5 offers excellent efficiency and utility .

FWIW. A 2014 CX5 was spotted at Detroit. see link below from Edmunds.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-pictures/cars-of-the-2013-detroit-auto-show-day-2-pictures.html

 

[Nodnerb]

FWIW. A 2014 CX5 was spotted at Detroit. see link below from Edmunds.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-pictures/cars-of-the-2013-detroit-auto-show-day-2-pictures.html

Page 24 of the pics.

 

[CX-SV]

Page 24 of the pics.

I like the wheel finish.

 

[Nodnerb]

I like the wheel finish.

Wheels look great. And the exhaust tips look larger. Not sure if that will be in production or just for the show. Looks nice though.

 

[Monterra]

Unfortunately a concept- "CX-5 180", this was also @SEMA show, looks lowered also, nice.