2014 CX-5 New Owner Observations: 30-Day Review (2.5L Touring AWD)

I am curious how many others here went from FIT to Cx-5. It's too totally different car. If a fit with 109 horses is fun for you, great. For me, I would probably have to drive the daylight out of it to get it up to traffic speed. It's highway speed probably takes forever and you probably need to drop it down to 4th and 3rd for real passing power (assuming it's 6 m/t) The reason, I say that is when I drive my brother's Miata Club. On highway, 6th gear is useless. Want decent power, gotta drop down to 4th. 5th is alrite but you need ALOT of gas. That's 167 horses by the way and sitting inches off the ground with sport tuned suspension.

The moral of the story is cx-5 is a good crossover and one of the best handling for it's price. Go and enjoy it. It's not m/t so no looking back.
 
Why do the Consumer Reports road clearance numbers come out at 7.0 for the CX-5 when everyone else reports them as 8.5?

I believe that Consumer Reports loads up the car to represent what could happen in real life. So 7.0 is when fully loaded, I believe, and 8.5 is when no one is in the car.
 
I made a mistake and put in 2007 Honda Fit stats and labeled it a 2009, which has 118 horsepower so I edited that post. The stats are correct but the year was wrong.

Jabba is correct, they measure it fully loaded to the lowest point within 1/2".

Maxwax you are welcome. I decided that just putting up the facts would speak for themselves. It's also interesting to compared them and see how things stack up. I also think you've done some really good and interesting writups about your experiences with the CX5 and enjoyed reading them.

I'm curious what your impression on power differences was when you test drove the bigger engine after test driving the 2.0 with the manual?

Thanks
 
I made a mistake and put in 2007 Honda Fit stats and labeled it a 2009, which has 118 horsepower so I edited that post. The stats are correct but the year was wrong.

Maxwax you are welcome. I decided that just putting up the facts would speak for themselves. It's also interesting to compared them and see how things stack up. I also think you've done some really good and interesting writups about your experiences with the CX5 and enjoyed reading them.

I'm curious what your impression on power differences was when you test drove the bigger engine after test driving the 2.0 with the manual?

There is a noticeable difference between the 2.0L Sport engine and the 2.5L Touring engine. But it is not night-and-day difference: it's not a one is bad and the other is good comparision. I chose my words carefully in one of my original reviews that the 2.0L is good, but the 2.5L is just better.

It reminds me of how I've always felt in my Hondas with only a driver and then with passengers. With only a driver, the car feels like 100% of power. With three adults weighing it down, it feels like 60, 70 or 80% of the normal experience depending on the power of the car and whether you're climbing hills.

I'd suspect that to a 2.5L engine driver, driving a 2.0L might feel like the same car but with some passengers weighing it down. It's the same Automatic transmission, the same features, the same comfort, just with a little less power. I don't expect to see many 2.0L drivers take a 2.5L test drive and rush out to trade up. It's not that good.

My first two test drives in 2014 CX-5s were a Sport Manual and a Sport Automatic. I test drove them in Fort Collins Colorado on mostly polite suburban roads but the middle of the drive featured a 300 foot elevation gain into the foothills near a local reservoir. Both models handled the hills confidently and steadily without a need to push the pedal very hard.

I think Sport owners (especially those with manuals!) should relax and enjoy it. I bought a Touring because I was really drawn to the bluetooth connectivity, backup camera, blind spot monitoring, and power seat & with lumbar support. Those got me considering a Touring and then adding the bigger engine helped sway me towards it. If it weren't for those, I'd be writing about my Sport Manual.

BTW, 7" Ground clearance fully loaded is great for me. A huge improvement over my Fit: http://www.maxwellspangler.com/blog/uploaded_images/dsc_1303-706580.jpg Notice the rear wheel well. I wasn't sure it was safe, but it went from one coast to another like that. Never less than 29 MPG.

PS. Thanks for telling me those were 2007 Fit numbers. I was going to ask you to check with CR and post those for me. They're great for posterity.
 
I agree with pretty much everything that was said here, and would also like to add two things: the seat comfort is excellent for long car rides (8+ hours) . About halfway through the drive I started to get a little tight, but once the lumbar support was engaged it was smooth sailing. Along with the comfort, the handling on winding hills is incredible, I have no fear taking it down a back road and driving it hard through the turns.
 
Nice write up once again, you're good at that. I looked at the picture of that fit fully loaded and wow, that is impressive. I test drove a 2014 Mazda 6 with the 2.5 engine but That engine was brand new and my 2.0 was broken in. Like I said before once the engine brakes in you'll likely notice a boost in acceleration. I thought that there was hardly a difference in power between the 6 with the 2.5 engine and my CX5 with a 2.0. To be fare there was four people in the 6 including me so that surely made a difference.

My wife has a 2012 Mazda 5 with the older non Skyactive 157 HP 2.5 liter engine in it. I bought it as a leftover but new model for just $17,775. When I drive her car it feels a little bit quicker than my CX5 during normal driving. I have tested my CX5 on my G-tech for 0-60 times and have gotten times from 8.37 to 8.6 seconds to 60 mph. I am at 700 ft above sea level and have FWD. When her car is broken in I may test hers with my G-tech in the same spot and see what happens for comparison. We had an 09 Kia Rondo with a 175 horsepower engine and I got 0-60 in 8.66 seconds with it on the same day I ran the CX5 the same way. The Kia felt much quicker than my CX5 but apparently at least during a full throttle run it was not. The Kia had a 4-speed automatic, which I think is why it lost to the Mazda with it's closer ratio 6-speed automatic. The Kia had a throttle response that was like an on off switch too. It was either full acceleration or dead. It's a trick many manufacturers use to fool people into thinking their car is quicker than it really is. Thankfully Mazda does not do this.

Again, thanks for posting such good reviews.
 
Back