2016 CX5 better "driving machine" over 2017

So merging into traffic, passing power, etc. isn't relevant, but how it does in sand with knobbies is? You all deserve all the damn poisonous things you have over there.
 
Unobtanium said:
So merging into traffic, passing power, etc. isn't relevant, but how it does in sand with knobbies is? You all deserve all the damn poisonous things you have over there.
Click to expand...

Hahaha. I'm sorry, but this made me spit out my water laughing.
 
If you haven't driven both then it doesn't matter. Haven't the reviewers already said that v 2.0 is better on the road? Or are we trying to say that this car is a track car? Because duh, yeah. Total track car. I think there's a gen 1 CX-5sti/RS/M series that uses skids, coil overs, carbon everywhere, gutted, and includes racing harnesses like the Ford GT. For sure, total track beast just like the new CRV. Nothing says road skills like a CUV. ;)
 
"if you get caught up in the hype that the CX-5 is a divine gift of practical performance, you're going to be disappointed. But if you've got a family to lug around, don't have $100,000 to spend on an AMG station wagon and still want to feel like you're driving, not just steering, the CX-5 seems hard to beat."

http://jalopnik.com/the-2017-mazda-cx-5-is-still-the-crossover-for-people-w-1793234420

Interesting that the title of this review is The 2017 Mazda CX-5 Is Still The Crossover For People Who Don't Hate Driving Or Life
 
Unobtanium said:
If they can take a car offroad like that, I have no idea why they won't track it. It's not "meant" for either.
Click to expand...
Because there is more chance of taking it off road then going on a track.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
bigtex said:
Yeah, in the review they call it a "softroader". But I was just saying reviews like this may be more important to them than 0-60 or skid pad. Same can be said in the US for most buyers, but it is other characteristics than offroad ability, such as NVH, fuel economy, appearance, versatility, etc.
Click to expand...
Exactly

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
Unobtanium said:
So merging into traffic, passing power, etc. isn't relevant, but how it does in sand with knobbies is? You all deserve all the damn poisonous things you have over there.
Click to expand...
It is a mixture for example acceleration figures etc but also driving experience. We take it into account with reading reviews and then we take vehicles on test drives. As I said skid pads has pretty much don't happen here so are irrelevant to hear. By the way we do fine with all these poisonous things that we have here [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
bigtex said:
"if you get caught up in the hype that the CX-5 is a divine gift of practical performance, you're going to be disappointed. But if you've got a family to lug around, don't have $100,000 to spend on an AMG station wagon and still want to feel like you're driving, not just steering, the CX-5 seems hard to beat."

http://jalopnik.com/the-2017-mazda-cx-5-is-still-the-crossover-for-people-w-1793234420

Interesting that the title of this review is The 2017 Mazda CX-5 Is Still The Crossover For People Who Don't Hate Driving Or Life
Click to expand...

Great review!
 
Unobtanium said:
Am I abrasive? At times. But I'm usually correct.
Click to expand...

The reason some people get annoyed by you is right here: Usually correct? I can't believe you admitted that much because you come across like you're never wrong. No one likes people like that.
;)
 
dseag2 said:
Great review!
Click to expand...

Except they mucked up on this point “Sport Mode,” activated by a cool toggle switch on the center console, doesn’t seem to do anything besides make the engine moan a little more.

Main thing is it keeps the engine in its peak power and torque band.
 
Last edited:
Just a small update since I mentioned before that MotorTrend did not have a 45-65 mph time for the 2017 CX-5. They have one now. It takes 4.4 seconds to go from 45 to 65 mph on the 2017 model with AWD. That makes it only 0.1 second slower than the 2016 in the 45-65 mph metric, which is not going to be noticeable at all. I bet if Mazda switched to better OEM tires, it would beat that time easily.
 
Last edited:
Monterra said:
^^That and maybe MT ran ram's piss in their CX-5..C&D's (FWD one) just put up a respectable 7.8:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-cx-5-fwd-test-review
Click to expand...

The factory moly oil plus break-in period for skyactiv engines have a noticeable difference in performance after 2 oil changes that said 0-60 in 7.8 seconds is not bad for the FWD model. Then again peep out their 0-60 tests on their long term test car. It's sometimes faster due to post break-in period.
 
CX-5um said:
The factory moly oil plus break-in period for skyactiv engines have a noticeable difference in performance after 2 oil changes that said 0-60 in 7.8 seconds is not bad for the FWD model. Then again peep out their 0-60 tests on their long term test car. It's sometimes faster due to post break-in period.
Click to expand...

I love this line:

"There is an exception. It’s apparent as soon as you begin driving Mazda’s CX-5 that it has an energy that’s absent from its appliancelike competition.'
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
    • Like
CX-5 Fuel efficiency, comfort and handling
Replies
12
Views
3K
sonny1
S
I
  • Question
Pre-purchase help 2020 CX-5 Turbo?
Replies
10
Views
686
Impatient
I
C
Front Camera Failed in Light Mist! 2024 Turbo CX-5
Replies
5
Views
768
CX5Nut
C

Latest posts

Back