- :
- State of Jefferson
- :
- 2017 CX-5 GT AWD+
Reading that article it sounded as if RWD would replace an AWD option altogether. For us automotives noobs can someone pls comment if RWD provides similar rugged traction?
Funny, this thread caused me to go read a couple of articles on RWD/FWD/AWD. Sadly, none of them discussed the daily handling benefits of AWD as if no such thing existed, they only discussed slugging through snow.Reading that article it sounded as if RWD would replace an AWD option altogether. For us automotives noobs can someone pls comment if RWD provides similar rugged traction?
Sadly, it's 280hp/250tq. Such an abysmal fail from Mazda. I'll likely buy an audi sq5 unless they revise the numbers up as we move closer to drop date.A nice inline 6 with at least 300 HP and plenty of torque oombined with rear wheel drive as god intended in a standard model and AWD as an option would be a real winner.
It doesn't.Reading that article it sounded as if RWD would replace an AWD option altogether. For us automotives noobs can someone pls comment if RWD provides similar rugged traction?
Sadly, it's 280hp/250tq. Such an abysmal fail from Mazda. I'll likely buy an audi sq5 unless they revise the numbers up as we move closer to drop date.
Here in Canada, sq5 starts at $64 000. CX5 tops out at $43 000. That's a big gap for Mazda to play with. If the power numbers end up reality, and they can get it out the door in the low 50s, I think it's got a chance to be competitive. Assuming all the other features scale up appropriately
If under 50k, sign me up now. But yes, if it start to creep up near 60k, they will have an issue convincing people.
But you never know. The platform is the 6, so one could ask the same question...what if price creeps up to Audi and infiniti sedan ranges...but then again, I see Avalons (ok not a lot) and maximas on the road, so many a few thousand is enough of a gap to make people pause and ask do I really need to spend more.
I've never owned a luxury brand but I've paid prices where I could have. I always find there's equipment/features missing for the same price. I'd like to one day have an Audi or Acura (I tend to like those more) but I also tend to turn cars over quicker than most. The savings on price paid help me in that respect.
As it stands, the CX5 will get skulldragged by a 2 year old RAV4. No thanks unless they up those rookie numbers. 280hp i6? What is this, 1995?
The upscale “feel” of a Mazda may be there, but the features of the Prime are going to kill it.
CPO SQ5 with 20-30K miles on it is $45K.
As it stands, the CX5 will get skulldragged by a 2 year old RAV4. No thanks unless they up those rookie numbers. 280hp i6? What is this, 1995?
I actually do like the look of rav interior, but I put big emphasis on touch, feel, materials, etc. Prob more than most. CX5 seems in reviews to still have enough of an edge for me (But i've not sat in a RAV myself)
And handling. Can't see them taking the RAV and making it dance. For me, speed is important but it's not the primary thing. Nor is fuel eco (I know that isn't a popular thing to admit).