2019 CX-5 Details

[xtrailman]

Yes I voted out, and voted not to join in the 70's, it took others longer to realise what the EU was all about. (dunno)

In the UK SE is base, Sport is fully loaded. And costs around a list of 34K

 

[xtrailman]

Sorry its SE-L.

 

[xtrailman]

It's been tested here at 8.7 seconds from memory

I've see various figures lower than Mazda too, but the fact is the car has gained around 80kg in sport trim from 1663kg for my 2013 car (manual) to 1743kg for the 2017 auto.
With no power increase performance will drop, as the braking distance from 70mph has increased.

 

[jthj]

2.5L G Turbo - 2019 CX5

That's due to the low dust pads. Slap some metallics on there and it will be a different animal. My 370z was the same. It's a Japanese thing. Check out the germans for opposite.

Lol yea the GTI brake dust is pretty bad. Them some good brakes though.

And the ST I had before that had a similar situation. I got hawk HPS pads which did produce less dust. They had good grab once at least a little warmed up. Cold you needed a little more force until they broke in. Once broke in that wasn’t bad. The main issue I had with them was they were kinda noisy when not warmed up. That started to get really annoying. I will probably just put dark grey or black wheels on the GTI and live with the dust.

 

[xtrailman]

Yeah, but is this due to tires or brakes? The brakes over repeated 70 to 0 stops seem to show NO fade, per the test sheet you can observe here...

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-mazda-cx-5-awd-instrumented-test-review

Thanks for the link, ". A bigger disappointment was the all-wheel-drive CX-5’s 70-mph-to-zero stopping distance of 182 feet—five feet longer than its front-wheel-drive counterpart and a full 16 feet more than the Honda. "

I don't know enough about the technical side to comment, but the link says it for me.....

 

[xtrailman]

$500 tune and better rubber will lower that a lot. a guy here was getting 6 sec 0-60 from his tuned diesel. stock engine with an intake if I recall.. cx-9 wheels which are still 7.5" wide.

That's quick. Although I know someone who will say it isn't. (gossip)

 

[jthj]

2.5L G Turbo - 2019 CX5

Thanks for the link, ". A bigger disappointment was the all-wheel-drive CX-5’s 70-mph-to-zero stopping distance of 182 feet—five feet longer than its front-wheel-drive counterpart and a full 16 feet more than the Honda. "

I don't know enough about the technical side to comment, but the link says it for me.....

The Honda, at least here in the us, runs 235 width tires whereas the CX-5 has 225. I bet a tire upgrade would help that as well as cornering grip.

I believe the Honda is a bit lighter too.

 

[xtrailman]

The Honda, at least here in the us, runs 235 width tires whereas the CX-5 has 225. I bet a tire upgrade would help that as well as cornering grip.

I believe the Honda is a bit lighter too.

Perhaps, but then fuel consumption will increase, and performance in snow will degrade.

 

[jthj]

Perhaps, but then fuel consumption will increase, and performance in snow will degrade.

True, as they say you can’t have your cake and eat it. Always a trade off.

 

[Xeler8ing]

I've see various figures lower than Mazda too, but the fact is the car has gained around 80kg in sport trim from 1663kg for my 2013 car (manual) to 1743kg for the 2017 auto.
With no power increase performance will drop, as the braking distance from 70mph has increased.

Power increase is coming shortly albeit here

 

[Unobtanium]

Thanks for the link, ". A bigger disappointment was the all-wheel-drive CX-5’s 70-mph-to-zero stopping distance of 182 feet—five feet longer than its front-wheel-drive counterpart and a full 16 feet more than the Honda. "

I don't know enough about the technical side to comment, but the link says it for me.....

Since the brakes had no fade...let's look at the tires.

 

[xtrailman]

It might be right for a 2.5T CX-5.(wider tyres) (dance)

 

[Xeler8ing]

They can only do so much otherwise ride comfort would go backwards

 

[Unobtanium]

They can only do so much otherwise ride comfort would go backwards

They will be fine. Noone complains about the cl43amg or the Macan? Why not go MRC like on the Corvette and mustang and camaro? It wouldn't add tok much to the bottom line especially for what you get.

 

[jthj]

Do you mean magnetic ride control? I just saw Kyle from 1320 complaining about those going out every 50k miles and costing 1200 to fix on his Tahoe. Consensus in the comments was that sucks but it’s normal and people often just dump the MRC due to high repair cost.

 

[Unobtanium]

Do you mean magnetic ride control? I just saw Kyle from 1320 complaining about those going out every 50k miles and costing 1200 to fix on his Tahoe. Consensus in the comments was that sucks but it’s normal and people often just dump the MRC due to high repair cost.

Ummm...I've heard of maybe 1 or 2 dying on corvettes in 2 decades that I've been a vette fan. I know guys with 100k mile and 15 year old c5s. MRC still doing great. So thats odd.

Even if you're bang on right...how long do you think conventional shocks and struts last and what do they cost to replace? I'm betting at least $5-800 on a cx5, no? Even still, mrc is a great upgrade.

 

[jthj]

Vettes don’t weigh much though. Both are GM probably same tech.

 

[jthj]

I think it’s cool tech for sure. My GTI has DCC which is definitely a bit different. Still great in that you can adjust the suspension with the push of a button. Also I believe in both cases the computer is adjusting based on sensor data.

 

[Unobtanium]

Vettes don’t weigh much though. Both are GM probably same tech.

Ferrari is actually kind of heavy,and they license it from GM. The cx5 weighs about 250# more than a Corvette btw.

 

[jthj]

Ferrari is actually kind of heavy,and they license it from GM. The cx5 weighs about 250# more than a Corvette btw.

It was the Tahoe having failure and those are HEAVY AF lol