2016 CX5 better "driving machine" over 2017

[jhu8]

Funny thing, I just read this article again, and it was full of comments like this "It might be easy to damn the new CX-5 for being less of a performer at the track than its predecessor, but the 2017 model is actually much more enjoyable to drive on the street than the previous-generation model."

So there you have it. v1 is like the GTR's 2nd cousin twice removed on the track, but v2 is better on the street. Lets all shake hands and have a beer. The weekend is here.
And yes I rhymed.

Sunny an 80 tomorrow! Time to wash up the cx5. Wax is needed! Any recommendations?

 

[paging_drburgos]

Sunny an 80 tomorrow! Time to wash up the cx5. Wax is needed! Any recommendations?

Meguiars Ultimate Paste Wax. Best bang for the buck. And it doesn't stain the plastic trim.

 

[shaendra]

Meguiars Ultimate Paste Wax. Best bang for the buck. And it doesn't stain the plastic trim.

How does it hold up against bird poop? I either park on the street or in our short driveway that birds like to use for target practice.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

Lets all shake hands and have a beer. The weekend is here.
And yes I rhymed.

Starting the weekend with a local brew....

American Double / Imperial Stout / Bourbon stout
9.00% ABV
70 IBU

"Murder of Crows: A big, roasty, American Stout, brewed with a plethora of specialty malts and finished on old crow whiskey oak cubes. Bitter chocolate, oak, dark fruit and a subtle smoky char."

 

[Unobtanium]

I think you guys are missing the point of the article:

"The 2017 Mazda CX-5 Grand Touring AWD can be looked at similarly. Mazda redesigned its worldwide best-seller for the 2017 model year, and if you look at it by the numbers, its both heavier and smaller than the model it replacesyet its by far a much better family crossover than ever before. Its the intangibles that the Mazda CX-5 excels at."

Even if the absolute numbers are worse than before, the car is better.

Except that it's less safe, and the numbers aren't just a hair worse, they are monumentally worse.

 

[Unobtanium]

How does it hold up against bird poop? I either park on the street or in our short driveway that birds like to use for target practice.

My best luck has come with using Rejex.

 

[Unobtanium]

Mike M got it, you don't but then again you expected to get @EPA hwy fuel economy busting 90 down the interstate in a 68" tall CUV. I think you clearly bought the wrong car but you know that by now I guess. I drove the CR-V, its very good, better in many ways for most peoples' needs but if that is a better driving machine to you simply because it puts up better numbers have fun w/that CVT (its not and you're wrong) but surely entitled to your opinion.

As for the 140# thing I agree that a half second does seem a lot but I'll share with you this- the 16.5 touring loaner I just returned will flat smoke my car as it sits w/19s. Lots of variables in tests but one I noticed immediately was adding tire weight and a bit of diameter vs OE to this car absolutely crushed both acceleration and fe so the 17 has different wheels and tires if weight was gained there in any appreciable form plus the other hundred and whatever #s I believe the .5sec penalty. Gearing hasn't changed so what else would be afoot?

lol, not doing 90, but 75. All my others have done it.

Anyway, I think it is the tuning. It's just crazy to lose 1/2 a second to 60 and 2.5mph nearly in the 1/4. That is A LOT. That's equal to 25whp, or 250#.

 

[NelsonLewis]

lol, not doing 90, but 75. All my others have done it.

Anyway, I think it is the tuning. It's just crazy to lose 1/2 a second to 60 and 2.5mph nearly in the 1/4. That is A LOT. That's equal to 25whp, or 250#.

Sure is...

I don't see how they came up with the tuning as you could easily pull 20hp (peak of course, but 10+ across the board)out of this thing and gain some mpg as well(double it if you're not worried about fuel efficiency). I would be curious to see what OVT Matt has to say, but he got ran off for being a "hater" too, just for tuning these things...

 

[m8te]

Can't see them putting the 2.5T at this stage (hope I am wrong) because they have the 2.2TT diesel which makes the same amount of torque. Now if the figures were different.....

How often does one floor from standstill - more than you think. An example your at a set of traffic lights, you are in the left lane but your lane on the otherside of the lights has cars parked and you don't want to be caught behind cars in the right lane. Hence you floor it (albeit for a short period to the speed limit). You want quickish response. That's when this becomes important.

Really? I know you'd floor it to 60kph at traffic lights but where are traffic lights where you can floor it to 100kph so everyone can use it as a drag strip to test their ride? I'm keen to know. I'd be very interested! Maybe I live in the wrong neck of the woods.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

Really? I know you'd floor it to 60kph at traffic lights but where are traffic lights where you can floor it to 100kph so everyone can use it as a drag strip to test their ride? I'm keen to know. I'd be very interested! Maybe I live in the wrong neck of the woods.

There are some highways around here with stoplights in 60 mph zones. Pisses me off to see it turn red as you approach. Downright dangerous at times.

 

[dseag2]

I'll just post what I posted in another thread with a few revisions...

I don't think the point is whether the '17 CX-5 is a better driver's car than the previous generation. I don't think Mazda expects any loyalists to run out and trade in their 2016.5 models. The point is that Mazda is trying to cast a broader net by providing a car that looks and feels more premium and attracts buyers that may not have considered Mazda. I am one of those buyers. I didn't consider the Rav-4 or a CR-V (even though I leased an Accord for my cousin) because I don't equate those with "premium" at all. And I don't think most people shopping in this segment are going to choose a CR-V or Rav-4 because of its 0-60 times either. If I want to corner carve and stoplight race I can drive my A4. The '17 CX-5 is a nice, quiet, well-finished vehicle that can get out of its own way, handles well and provides cargo utility. And yes, sometimes I prefer driving it and leaving the A4 in the garage. That's what is important for me.

Let the debate rage on.

 

[jhu8]

Meguiars Ultimate Paste Wax. Best bang for the buck. And it doesn't stain the plastic trim.

Cool, will check that out! When I first got my CX5 I used some wax(forget the name) and wow, stained the black trim so much! I was so careful to. Guess the wax was that bad.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

Cool, will check that out! When I first got my CX5 I used some wax(forget the name) and wow, stained the black trim so much! I was so careful to. Guess the wax was that bad.

Meguiars Ultimate Liquid wax works great too. No fear of staining the trim pieces.

 

[Xeler8ing]

Really? I know you'd floor it to 60kph at traffic lights but where are traffic lights where you can floor it to 100kph so everyone can use it as a drag strip to test their ride? I'm keen to know. I'd be very interested! Maybe I live in the wrong neck of the woods.

Try a highway out in the western suburbs of Sydney (up to 80km/h though!)

 

[piotrek91]

Let's hop back into the old memory machine...

https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/sho...ns-questions&p=6417686&viewfull=1#post6417686

But now...."performance doesn't matter".

Am I abrasive? At times. But I'm usually correct. Dislike it? Manage your dashboard.

Gotta say I'm flattered to have my old post dug up

I don't fully understand what you're on about tho..
You seem to have been a big fan of making the CX-5 quieter and heavier.. the new model is extremely quiet, the windshield is thick, yet you're still complaining about a car you have no intention of ever buying.

Even the 100# gain is not likely the cause

I agree. The numbers don't add up. I'm curious how it'll do in the other tests.

 

[Unobtanium]

Gotta say I'm flattered to have my old post dug up

I don't fully understand what you're on about tho..
You seem to have been a big fan of making the CX-5 quieter and heavier.. the new model is extremely quiet, the windshield is thick, yet you're still complaining about a car you have no intention of ever buying.



I agree. The numbers don't add up. I'm curious how it'll do in the other tests.

I'm saying everyone complained about my ideas, told me it was bad, said it wasn't Mazda esque, explained how the cx5 was a drivers car...

Personally, I was right, and I love the changes. What I don't get is the performance deficit. It doesn't jive with the minute weight gain at all. That, and the lower safety ratings. Neither of those two things did I suggest, support, or like.

 

[Xeler8ing]

That, and the lower safety ratings.

Has NHSTA changed their testing methods or their assessment ratings/measurements? This could be why last the rating was higher but this year it is not (scratch)

Because AFAIK ANCAP here did change their ways so some results done previously are now out of date.

 

[joe6864]

Something very important that people seem to not realize. Mazda did not design the 2017 CX-5 to convince owners of the 2016 model to purchase. They designed it and made the changes they did to attract more NEW buyers than before. It worked... the 2017 changes are what attracted me to this vehicle in the first place.

 

[joe6864]

That, and the lower safety ratings.

Both cars got 4/5 stars. Same overall rating.
2017 is better at frontal. 2016 is better at side. Both are the same at tipping. Both are the same overall.

Instead of your rhetoric, here are links to the actual data points for you to browse:

2016: https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2016/MAZDA/CX-5/SUV/AWD#safety-ratings-frontal

2017: https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2017/MAZDA/CX-5/SUV/AWD#safety-ratings-frontal

 

[mazdadude]

I'm saying everyone complained about my ideas, told me it was bad, said it wasn't Mazda esque, explained how the cx5 was a drivers car...

Personally, I was right, and I love the changes. What I don't get is the performance deficit. It doesn't jive with the minute weight gain at all. That, and the lower safety ratings. Neither of those two things did I suggest, support, or like.

OMG! You don't know when to stop do you?
(deadhorse

No, you were not right.
No, everyone did not complain about your ideas.
Nobody likes an "I told you so", especially when the information is still wrong.
No, Mazda is not here to do the things you suggest, support, or like.