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

maxwax

CX5 Road Tripper
:
2014 Sky Blue Touring AWD
Hello!

Well it's been exactly one month since I bought my 2014 Mazda CX5 and I thought I'd update the lurkers on what I've observed. (This is a long post aimed at shoppers considering the purchase of a new CX-5. See my other "Review" threads for past information and ask me anything.)

Summary: Satisfied, enjoying it overall. Adjusting to the switch from a small sporty car to a Crossover. Looking forward to using it in the mountains and the snow.

* Gas Mileage has met expectations.

Of the four tanks I've tracked, I got 28.x MPG on three and 26.x MPG on the last. The last involved a few short trips moving a friend on a hot day with the AC running all day.

https://www.fuelly.com/driver/maxwax/cx5

This is a sensitive attribute for me because my last car, a little Honda Fit got 33 MPG for its 6 year lifetime. I'm switching from 10 gallon fill ups at $30-$35 a tank to 13 gallon fill ups at $45-50 on the CX-5. So there is an increase in cost but I remind myself that I'm driving the best in class MPG with the CX-5 and that 28 MPG is pretty good for something that weighs 800 pounds more than the Honda.

* I got a little bored of driving the CX-5 in week three.

My Honda Fit was a 1.5L 109HP manual transmission, small, light, low to the ground, nimble and fun to drive despite its economy car class. I worked the gears, revved the engine and took corners pretty fast. Think: Go Kart by Honda.

Driving the much larger, heavier and powerful CX-5 has definitely changed my driving style, at least for now. I've been very delicate with it this month in order to break it in and establish a baseline of fuel economy in ideal conditions. That's meant driving like I've borrowed a grandma's Buick LeSabre and I don't want to wreck it. It's been comfortable, but sometimes uninspiring on the daily commute and highway drives.

The cause of this is the larger, more powerful engine, the excellent automatic transmission and the tuning of the transmission towards fuel economy. These three things combine to rob me of what I'm used to in the Honda: working the manual transmission, high-revving the engine and taking corners and curvvy off ramps fast.

Here's an example from two days ago: Driving down a highway, doing say 65 MPH, and I gently floor the pedal and it does pretty much nothing. Other automatics I've driven would downshift and take off, but not the CX-5.

A few minutes later I realize this is the CX-5's bias towards fuel economy so it's staying in 6th gear as much as possible. I test this by pulling my foot off the pedal then quickly flooring it. The CX-5 downshifts 2 gears, takes off and I'm doing 90 in a few seconds. So now I realize I was more aggressive with dealer's cars on test drives than my own: I always liked the way the 2.5L engine would pull me into the seat when accelerating from say 20 to 60.

So here's my take: I'd rather have the fuel economy and *really smooth* daily driving rather than a jumpy automatic that shifts up and down to make the car *feel* fast. When I want to go fast, I'll work the CX-5 and make it perform. It's just not the same experience as what I'm used to and I'll always miss the manual transmission.

* Driving in mud is fun!

After a really intense thunderstorm with a lot of rain on Friday night, I went out driving to follow the storm and check out the lightning. When I'd had enough and turned around, I found about 50 feet of fresh mud near me and decided to try it out.

This was one of my first experiences with the CX-5 off pavement and I really enjoyed it. Despite spinning wheels, I felt solidly planted, in control and ready for more. I had zero worry about getting stuck, which I could never say about the Honda. This has left me looking forward to more mud and snow in the Colorado winter.

I bought the CX-5 instead of a smaller, sporty car in order to enjoy living in Colorado where dirt roads, mud, and steep hills are easy to find. So I'm now realizing that the CX-5 is a Crossover SUV and not a sportscar. It can't be both and I've chosen something that can play in the mountains over something that zips on streets like my old car. Expect a happy review this winter after the first snow :)

* Happy with a bunch of small issues:

- Love the backup camera. LOVE IT. I use it all the time but my best experience with it was rushing to back the CX-5 into my rather small garage with a dresser blocking some of the space at the end. I was able to get within just a few inches of it rather quickly and avoid an impending hail storm.

- Blind Spot Monitoring has been reassuring. It hasn't saved me from an accident yet, but it's been nice to have and it will save me in the future.

- I've been coasting on a frequent basis which helps the CX-5 feel like a crossover and not a truck. It's weight and momentum can bring it to a stoplight without a huge loss in speed. In the trucks I've driven this wasn't the case and provided a driving experience that was less comfortable for me.

- I've had several hour long telephone calls using my iPhone paired to the Bluetooth hands-free speaker system. Both I and my callers report voices sounding a little mechanical and artificial but no of us had any complaints. It's been really comfortable talking while driving this way and I'm glad I have it.

- The 6 speaker stereo exceeds my expectations for sound quality and I'm really happy with it. High notes are clear and there is almost too much bass. No need for an upgrade to the Bose unit, for me.

- The integrated Pandora app on my iPhone links up nicely with the Pandora interface on the Mazda touch screen. I don't have a paid Pandora account and find their advertising annoying but so far I've really enjoyed using Pandora through the touch screen. No advertisements, excellent sound quality, and I like using the touch screen for interactions instead of reaching for the phone.

- I use the KCRW app on my iPhone to stream music from the internet to the Mazda. With my phone mounted on a Gomadic suction cup iPhone holder above the dash, I get album art on the phone and track details on the Mazda display. This is really nice and sound quality has been great.

- I've gotten used to having a push button start instead of a key in the ignition. I have, once, exited the car, walked away and only when the car wouldn't lock using the key fob did I realize the car was parked and still running.

- While moving a friend I dropped the middle 20% seat back in order to put a narrow lamp in the car. It was nice to have and it's not just for skiis.

Finally, no problems so far. Nothing broken, not working, acting strangely.

I hope this helps if you're considering the CX-5. Ask questions if you have them!
 
Thanks, for sharing. Should have my CX-5 diesel, 175hp, AT hopefully this week, so I'll also share my thoughts and experience.
 
Maxwax once you break it in you will have fun pushing it. For an SUV it handles very well with spirited driving.
 
Hello Maxwax:
Did you get any extras, like the Bose audio system? If not, how do you like the standard AM/FM radio? Thank you for the excellent writeup. Ed
 
I would agree with everything you wrote (we've now had our CX-5 for a little over a month) except the stereo. WAY too much boomy mid-bass. Horrible. Changed the speakers to Polks and it's STILL there. I have to run the head unit with the bass turned way down, and then it's passably neutral. Really disappointing.
 
The stereo is a tough one. People have very different tastes when it comes to music. I have the GT+tech and the Bose system is really very good overall. Coming from a Subaru WRX manual-shift, I do miss the power and control. Though I have to say that the automatic transmission in the CX-5 is better than any other I have experienced. Makes the switch over a lot less painful!
 
I would agree with everything you wrote (we've now had our CX-5 for a little over a month) except the stereo. WAY too much boomy mid-bass. Horrible. Changed the speakers to Polks and it's STILL there. I have to run the head unit with the bass turned way down, and then it's passably neutral. Really disappointing.

Everyone has their own tastes, and these negative comments need to be taken with a grain of salt, I love the way the factory stereo sounds, yes it can get boomy if the bass is cranked up, but left lower it's fine. If it doesn't have enough bass at that point, consider adding an aftermarket woofer in the hatch.
 
I read your earlier post from a few weeks ago when you first reviewed it. I noticed both time you mentioned about your Honda Fit. With it being m/t and everything else. This time you also mentioned how it's "go-cart" from honda and taking fast corners and how it handles. I personally have never driven a Fit and have own my shares of m/t in the past. I am not sure how much you missed your m/t FIT but then again I wonder how good the Fit really is. I wouldn't even remotely use the term "go-cart" with FIT. It's tall with narrow tires and not that close to the ground. Nor is it tune for "super handling". Nothing against your Fit but I wouldn't remotely consider it a go-cart till you really driven one, say a Miata (something light like a Fit but tune for handling). Also the fact that it's rwd vs FIT's fwd. That to me is a go-cart and going from Miata (which my brother actually owns, a 2013 Miata Club and I drive it occasionally), even going from driving that (yes it's a m/t) and going to my Cx-5, it aint all that bad. Now as far as taking fast turns, I don't know how fast you do it with your FIT but the cx-5 won't be far off at all, it punches straight line faster after the curve. The cx-5 handles pretty nice. FIT is light and low on horses, Cx-5 is heavier with more horse/torque. On the highway, it could possibly eat the FIT for dinner. It seems to me that you should of gotten the 2013 Sports Cx-5 m/t. I test drove that and the m/t is smooth and all. Your post sounds like you bought the wrong car.
 
You didn't mentioned your FIT's year so I just pulled the spec from a 2009 FIT Sport M/T. It has 117 horses so that means your car is pre-2009 since you said its 105 horses. 0-60 is 8.9, that's slower than your 2014 CX-5 AWD, I am sure 1/4 is slower too. Skidpad is .78. That is very low and I think CX-5 is above .8. It sounds to me the cx-5 is really the "tall" go-cart that you haven't unleash out of the bag.

http://www.edmunds.com/honda/fit/2009/long-term-road-test/performance.html

Test Results:
0 - 60 (sec): 8.9 (9.8 with traction control enabled)
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 16.6 @ 81.6 (17.1 @ 81.0 with traction control enabled)
Slalom (mph): 65.8 (62.9 with traction control enabled)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.78 ( .75 with traction control enabled)
 
You didn't mentioned your FIT's year so I just pulled the spec from a 2009 FIT Sport M/T. It has 117 horses so that means your car is pre-2009 since you said its 105 horses. 0-60 is 8.9, that's slower than your 2014 CX-5 AWD, I am sure 1/4 is slower too. Skidpad is .78. That is very low and I think CX-5 is above .8. It sounds to me the cx-5 is really the "tall" go-cart that you haven't unleash out of the bag.

http://www.edmunds.com/honda/fit/2009/long-term-road-test/performance.html

Test Results:
0 - 60 (sec): 8.9 (9.8 with traction control enabled)
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 16.6 @ 81.6 (17.1 @ 81.0 with traction control enabled)
Slalom (mph): 65.8 (62.9 with traction control enabled)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.78 ( .75 with traction control enabled)

What did edmunds get for the cx5 for an apples to apples comparison? Those numbers only tell a small part of the whole story. Compare the performance numbers of the cx5 like skid pad and slalom to its competitors ( Rav4, Escape, etc) and the numbers are almost identical. Test drive those cars back to back and it becomes very apparent of the cx5's sporting intensions compared to its competitors. The fact that the fit is 800 ibs lighter than an awd cx5 says a lot. Transient response will be much better on the fit even thought raw numbers are close. Being 800 Lbs lighter would make the fit feel more nimble than a cx5, which can be translated to more fun to drive.

Also no problem getting over 34 mpg here although I bet I could get more in a fit driving it the same way on the same roads as I do with my 2.0 cx5. Maxwax, your transmission has adaptive logic. It will adapt to the way you drive it so if you are driving it like grandma would than when you all of a sudden expect it to downshift right away it will still be in grandma mode. Once it's broken in and you start driving it the way you would your Fit than the transmission will become more intuitive. You'll also notice the engine will feel more powerful after about 4000 miles or less. My little 2.0 sometimes surprises me when I'm accelerating in certain situations. Use the autostick too to manually down shift it when you can see the need long before the transmission would. It's actually fun to do. I like to bump it into 3rd when i come out of the tolls. this puts it in the engines sweat spot for accelerating briskly of of there. I also use the autostick to hold it in gear for engine braking in stop and go traffic.

I too longed for a manual transmission and I tried to get one at the time. They were just too hard to find and when I thought I had one someone had already grabbed it. That being said after driving my automatic for 14+ months I do not think I could go back to a manual now. This transmission is just so good. Its in the top two things I like about my cx5.
 
What did edmunds get for the cx5 for an apples to apples comparison? Those numbers only tell a small part of the whole story. Compare the performance numbers of the cx5 like skid pad and slalom to its competitors ( Rav4, Escape, etc) and the numbers are almost identical. Test drive those cars back to back and it becomes very apparent of the cx5's sporting intensions compared to its competitors. The fact that the fit is 800 ibs lighter than an awd cx5 says a lot. Transient response will be much better on the fit even thought raw numbers are close. Being 800 Lbs lighter would make the fit feel more nimble than a cx5, which can be translated to more fun to drive.

Also no problem getting over 34 mpg here although I bet I could get more in a fit driving it the same way on the same roads as I do with my 2.0 cx5. Maxwax, your transmission has adaptive logic. It will adapt to the way you drive it so if you are driving it like grandma would than when you all of a sudden expect it to downshift right away it will still be in grandma mode. Once it's broken in and you start driving it the way you would your Fit than the transmission will become more intuitive. You'll also notice the engine will feel more powerful after about 4000 miles or less. My little 2.0 sometimes surprises me when I'm accelerating in certain situations. Use the autostick too to manually down shift it when you can see the need long before the transmission would. It's actually fun to do. I like to bump it into 3rd when i come out of the tolls. this puts it in the engines sweat spot for accelerating briskly of of there. I also use the autostick to hold it in gear for engine braking in stop and go traffic.

I too longed for a manual transmission and I tried to get one at the time. They were just too hard to find and when I thought I had one someone had already grabbed it. That being said after driving my automatic for 14+ months I do not think I could go back to a manual now. This transmission is just so good. Its in the top two things I like about my cx5.

Yes its lighter, a lot lighter and we all know that. The thing is 105 horsepower fit is not a miata, brz, or a more powerful car like a 370z, nor a good handling fwd like a gti. What I was saying is yes its a m/t but t sure is not a car that was tune from the factory to be driven in the canyon curves. The car is tall, tires are not sticky, its not low to the ground, its fwd. Now if you put let's say a Mini, that is fwd also, but low to ground, track width prep for handling and chasis ready for go cart fun. On the other hand the cx5 chasis is tuned for handling. If you put both cars on the same track I am almost certain the cx5 will whip the FIT in lap times. Is it more fun to drive? It depends on what maxwax is looking for. My suggestion is push hard on the cx5 and it handles better than you think.
 
Some statistics from Consumer Reports testing on the CX5 2.0, CX5 2.5' and a 2007 Honda Fit with manual transmission and a 1.5 liter 109 HP engine.

0-30 mph, 3.6, 2.8, 3.2
0-60 mph, 10.0, 8.0, 9.9
45-65 mph, 6.4, 5.0, 6.5
Quarter mile, 17.7, 16.2, 17.4
MPH in QM, 80, 86, 80

Max Avoidance 53.5' 52.5, 56 MPH

Braking 60-0 ft, 133, 133, 134
CR overall 25, 25, 34 MPG
Curb weight 3420, 3435' 2495 Lbs
Road clearance 7.0, 7.0, 5.0 inches

The Honda fit based on these numbers handles better, is faster than the 2.0, and gets far better gas mileage. Everything Maxwax stated I believe is accurate based on the numbers from Consumer Reports testing. It's interesting to see that the CX5 with the bigger engine over the front wheels hurts the max avoidance speed by 1 mph. The difference in weight is actually 940 Lbs too, a very big difference I'm sure no amount of chassis tuning can hide.

For kicks I'm adding the 2012 Mini base MT and the 2012 Mazda Miata Mt.

0-30 mph, 3.0, 2.4
0-60 mph, 9.1, 7.0
45-65 mph, 6.3, 4.3
Quarter mile, 17.0, 15.4
MPH in QM, 83, 91

Max Avoidance 56.5, 58 MPH

Braking 60-0 ft, 125, 122
CR overall 33, 28 MPG
Curb weight 2535, 2740 Lbs
Road clearance 4.5, 4.5 inches
 
Last edited:
Some statistics from Consumer Reports testing on the CX5 2.0, CX5 2.5' and a 2009 Honda Fit with manual transmission and a 1.5 liter 109 HP engine.

0-30 mph, 3.6, 2.8, 3.2
0-60 mph, 10.0, 8.0, 9.9
45-65 mph, 6.4, 5.0, 6.5
Quarter mile, 17.7, 16.2, 17.4
MPH in QM, 80, 86, 80

Max Avoidance 53.5' 52.5, 56 MPH

Braking 60-0 ft, 133, 133, 134
CR overall 25, 25, 34 MPG
Curb weight 3420, 3435' 2495 Lbs
Road clearance 7.0, 7.0, 5.0 inches

The Honda fit based on these numbers handles better, is faster than the 2.0, and gets far better gas mileage. Everything Maxwax stated I believe is accurate based on the numbers from Consumer Reports testing. It's interesting to see that the CX5 with the bigger engine over the front wheels hurts the max avoidance speed by 1 mph. The difference in weight is actually 940 Lbs too, a very big difference I'm sure no amount of chassis tuning can hide.

For kicks I'm adding the 2012 Mini base MT and the 2012 Mazda Miata Mt.

0-30 mph, 3.0, 2.4
0-60 mph, 9.1, 7.0
45-65 mph, 6.3, 4.3
Quarter mile, 17.0, 15.4
MPH in QM, 83, 91

Max Avoidance 56.5, 58 MPH

Braking 60-0 ft, 125, 122
CR overall 33, 28 MPG
Curb weight 2535, 2740 Lbs
Road clearance 4.5, 4.5 inches

The thing is maxwax has a 2014 so 2013 is not even a question. Performance wise, ok aside from handling FIT may be better while 0-60, 1/4 etc all whip the FIT's butt. Handed it upside down. On the track, I don't see how the sharp shooter FIT can outrun a cx-5 with power difference all made up as soon as their is a straightaway. As for the mini, I would be talking about John Cooper S edition, no wimpy base model. As for Miata, it's in a totally different league. Don't even need the #'s. On a track, the miata can finish and you still have time to sit down for your snicker bar. With that being said, I was just going by what the poster stated. How the 105 high revving is so canyon carving, fun vs a slushbox. The thing is, it's all in the butt dyno. That 105 horses revving only "seems" fast and turns fast when no one is doing that next to you. Slide a Miata next to it and the FIT is suddenly over weight and feels like a mini van. No bashing on the FIT for sure but my point is a FIT is no sportier than a 2014 Cx-5 and Cx-5 on a track I would say can rip the FIT apart.

My gut feeling is maxwax made a wrong choice but his concern is mainly m/t (at least that's what it seems). If he was coming from a 370z, gti, ford focus st, bmw 3 series, g coupe, etc then I see how he is missing all the fun and high revving. Just don't see it in a FIT. It's basically an econo "raised" box with a silky honda m/t and good for hauling varies boxes and people because it has a roomy interior. Not sure if you've been to a track but I really don't know how often FIT's show up there.

Handling and lightweight does make up time but the FIT is way under power. If it was 150 horses then yeah, it's better. For 105 horses I don't see how it can move if it's under 4,000 to 5,000 rpm. Then again this is very subjective. I've driven powerful v8s and low end 4 cylinders and the least horses I've driven is a Nissan Sentra which is 126 horses? The engine is screaming to get it to go in the summer with the AC on.
 
Hello Maxwax:
Did you get any extras, like the Bose audio system? If not, how do you like the standard AM/FM radio? Thank you for the excellent writeup. Ed

Hi Ed, Thanks for reading! I have the stock stereo that's part of the Touring package. I really don't expect its that much different from the Sport, but it's definitely not the Bose. Sound quality is excellent. The touch screen interface is also more friendly and comfortable than I expected. Both the stereo and the touchscreen are actually much better than I expected.

If you're not an audiophile I think you'll be very happy with the stock stereo.

On a similar note, when I make calls using the hands free speaker, people have mentioned they are aware of road noise but no one has complained. So I think the sound deadening in the CX-5 is good enough so the stereo or calls will sound good.
 
I also looked up maxwax's earlier post. It's a 2007 honda fit sport so I think that's 1st generation and that's why he has 105 horses. The 2009 you pulled from consumer reports should be 117 horses for the 2009 model and not 109. If it's 117 and it's now 105, that's a drop of 12 horses and for this small little FIT, that is alot. So the performance figures should all go down. I would assume max avoidance would also since 2nd generations are usually a little better.
 
That 105 horses revving only "seems" fast and turns fast when no one is doing that next to you. Slide a Miata next to it and the FIT is suddenly over weight and feels like a mini van.

What you write here is absolutely spot-on. Except you left out the fact that with a Miata next to it the Honda Fit LOOKS like a shrunken mini van as well. Never liked that. BUT, I think I lost you when I mentioned the phrase "Go Kart by Honda".

I wasn't trying to compare it to a Miata or anything else. Friends who have driven my Fit described it as "zippy" and we joked that it felt like a pay-per-ride Go Kart at an amusement park. Those things are light and when you drive them they basically have two speeds: go slowly or floor it to go as fast as you can. With a manual transmission and my driving style, I could work the gearbox and make the little Fit feel fast and fun to drive regardless of the actual specs. I even took it on really rocky dirt roads in the mountains and risked severe under body damage to it, but driving it smartly let it do things like a champ. By ignoring its measurements and having fun with it I really enjoyed driving it.

The reason I write my posts and the reason I keep referencing my Honda Fit is to provide context for my opinions. I'm also trying to help the large number of small car and traditional car drivers who are now shopping for Crossovers like the CX-5, Escape, Rav4, etc. In the 90s the typical middle class car was a Honda Accord, Toyota Camry or Ford Taurus. For me, it was a Honda Civic and then a Fit. Now those drivers are switching to crossovers.

When they switch from car to crossover, they'll go through the experience of transition that I'm going through right now. Based on all the reviews for the CX-5 unanimously proclaiming the CX-5 as the most sporty and fun to drive, I imagine this is even more true for Escape, Rav4, Santa Fe and other crossover drivers.

I'm really happy to hear that others find the CX-5 sporty and once I stop taking it easy, I probably will too.
 
I also looked up maxwax's earlier post. It's a 2007 honda fit sport so I think that's 1st generation and that's why he has 105 horses. The 2009 you pulled from consumer reports should be 117 horses for the 2009 model and not 109. If it's 117 and it's now 105, that's a drop of 12 horses and for this small little FIT, that is alot. So the performance figures should all go down.

I had a 2007 Honda Fit with 109HP. They redesigned the car for 2009 and made some significant changes to it. Some changes like a dead pedal, legroom and a telescoping steering wheel were good but most of the reviews I read suggested that the drive feel was nowhere near as good as the 2006-2008 version. That's a major reason why I didn't buy another and went shopping.

When I bought my Fit in 2007 I did an exhaustive investigation of all my choices and it was the clear winner in the high-efficiency small car class. Here's an example from Edmunds:

"Handles like a champ
The Fit drove like a champ, with quick steering and exquisite road feel. These impressions were confirmed on the track, where it slipped through the slalom in 6.1 seconds at 67.5 mph. The Fit felt stable and well balanced, and provided good feedback to the driver. It was about as much fun as you could have in a thrifty little car. Not only that, but the sporty handling didn't sacrifice comfort; it provided a pleasing, comfortable ride."
http://www.edmunds.com/honda/fit/2007/road-test.html

Now compare that review to a 2013 CX-5 review:

"Fun, Lively, and Oh, So GoodThe CX-5 doesn’t drive like any other existing compact SUV. It’s more lively, more involving, more steeped in the sports-car character that Mazda harps on about in its Zoom-Zoom advertising. The steering is quick and crisp, body motions are held tightly in check, and the ride is purposely firm underfoot. This is the SUV for those who promised they’d never stoop to driving one. This is where fun-to-drive lives when there are kids to convey, dogs to deliver, or a long weekend’s worth of camping gear to haul."
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-first-drive-review


What makes the Honda Fit of 2007 and the Mazda CX-5 of 2013/2014 very similar is that they are both exceptional for their class. The Ford, Toyota, Honda and other crossovers have plenty to like about them, but it really appeared to me that reviewers really enjoyed driving the CX-5 and felt it stood out in road handling (and fuel economy) ... just like my Honda Fit of the past.

This similarity and the reports of the CX-5 being markedly fun to drive really pulled me in. After 20 years of happily driving Hondas I didn't even test drive a CR-V despite starting my search with that natural choice. So I'm confident I made the right choice, I'm just going through new owner adjustment as I get used to the new experience.
 
Some statistics from Consumer Reports testing on the CX5 2.0, CX5 2.5' and a 2009 Honda Fit with manual transmission and a 1.5 liter 109 HP engine.

0-30 mph, 3.6, 2.8, 3.2
0-60 mph, 10.0, 8.0, 9.9
45-65 mph, 6.4, 5.0, 6.5
Quarter mile, 17.7, 16.2, 17.4
MPH in QM, 80, 86, 80

Max Avoidance 53.5' 52.5, 56 MPH

Braking 60-0 ft, 133, 133, 134
CR overall 25, 25, 34 MPG
Curb weight 3420, 3435' 2495 Lbs
Road clearance 7.0, 7.0, 5.0 inches

The Honda fit based on these numbers handles better, is faster than the 2.0, and gets far better gas mileage. Everything Maxwax stated I believe is accurate based on the numbers from Consumer Reports testing. It's interesting to see that the CX5 with the bigger engine over the front wheels hurts the max avoidance speed by 1 mph. The difference in weight is actually 940 Lbs too, a very big difference I'm sure no amount of chassis tuning can hide.

Hey thanks for posting this! That's really cool to see.

I think this kind of comparison is really important for car shoppers. You should take what you have now and use what you like about it as a baseline for what you want in the future. For example, you probably don't need 300 HP just because its available.. If you are like me, (for example) satisfied with 0 to 60 times of 9.9 seconds, then doing the same in a CX-5 2.0L Manual Sport will probably be completely acceptable to you.

When I test drove the 2.0L Sport Manual I loved the Mazda manual shifter: short and precise, it felt like "home" to me. I didn't notice a lack of speed until I read reviews suggesting it. That planted a seed and scared me a away a bit. Later, when I got to appreciate the luxuries of the Touring, I convinced myself to spend several thousand dollars more than I originally wanted.

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?
 

New Threads

Back