Auto sport mode and general performance.

[Nodnerb]

I wonder why mazda didn't incorporate a sport mode for full automatic driving. I love this car, but I just can't drive it in automatic mode. The engine is only slightly underpowered when driven in manual mode but annoyingly frugal in full automatic. You'd think they would put in a sport mode for a car that is supposed to be so fun to drive.......which it is, when I control the shifts.

I'm approaching 40 yrs old and never thought I'd be looking forward to some performance mods for my awd cute ute, but another 20hp would do this car wonders. I could have gotten the sportage with 260hp for the same money, but the cx-5 was better in all the other important ways.

Is anyone else looking forward to some minor performance upgrades to bump up the hp just a bit?

 

[CX-SV]

No sport mode simply because it would have negative impact on mileage.

 

[Nodnerb]

I know, but he whole point is so that people have the option to drive it in economy or sport mode. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that the shift timing and the cx-5s rush to get into the next gear can be annoying. And of course that's why I drive it manually, but the option to drive it with a little oomph in full automatic would be nice too.

 

[ta240]

I'm pretty happy with it the way it is.

Unfortunately, like in many things, when you increase one thing on a car you typically decrease something else.
more power ends up with less economy
better handling ends up with harsher ride
more sound deadening ends up with heavier car and then less economy and more expensive car
fancier materials ends up with higher price
more gadgets ends up with higher price
and on and on.

To me the CX5 is a great balance of all the possibilities of what it could be. I love the handling but it is still decently smooth. When I stand on the gas it will get out of its own way but after around 1000 miles the computer is showing 31.9 mpg (haven't checked to see how accurate it is yet). It is plenty quite for me and the interior is a great place to be without it costing $30,000+ There are places I can see where they might have pinched a penny or two but if they hadn't it probably would have ended up being too expensive for what it is.

I actually like the way it shifts in auto. It annoys me more when cars always want to downshift at the slightest attempt to accelerate. I used to always want to shout at my pickup "I just wanted to go a little faster! You didn't need to downshift 2 gears" as the engine would scream and then finally upshift 1 gear before finally settling back into the gear it was in to start with.
Granted having a sport button wouldn't affect the way it drives for me in regular mode but it would be another expense added to the car. A small expense, but if everyone got their small items added it would add up fast.

It is fun to take into corners but more than that it is just super comfortable. I got stuck in traffic on the way home yesterday and just really didn't care. People were doing u-turns to go the long way around and I usually would do the same but figured "I'm comfortable, we are moving a little bit and in 5-10 minutes or so we'll be around the wreck so for now I'll just sit here and listen to music" Because if I were home, getting to sit in a comfortable chair and listen to good music would be considered a nice relaxing thing to do

Sure there are times when more power might be nice but I wouldn't trade that for a drop in mileage. Aside from saving money on gas I love feeling a bit like I'm giving the finger to some of the countries that hate us yet are happy to take our money for oil.

With all the trade-offs required in car development we end up with a wide range of cars that offer much different end combinations and no single car can be all things to all people. Which is good because it would be really hard to find my car in a parking lot if everyone drove a CX5

 

[Nodnerb]

I guess it all depends on what you like. Maybe once I get used to the car a bit it'll be better. I am coming from driving a v6 ford escape which had ample power but was also a total pig on gas.
If this car didn't have manual mode though, I likely wouldn't have bought it. In manual mode I love it. I am in Canada so pretty rough winters and think that maybe I will like the conservative auto for winter driving.

 

[CX-SV]

I know, but he whole point is so that people have the option to drive it in economy or sport mode. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that the shift timing and the cx-5s rush to get into the next gear can be annoying. And of course that's why I drive it manually, but the option to drive it with a little oomph in full automatic would be nice too.

Yes I see what you are saying, but from Mazda's viewpoint the manual mode is the solution. Otherwise the focus is on having best fuel economy for gas powered SUV in US market, mission accomplished (official EPA gas mileage numbers are out for new Escape 1.6L turbo, and CX-5 2.0L is still best in class).

The much more powerful Kia Sportage turbo and Ford Escape 2.0L turbo aren't even close in fuel economy but do offer excellent acceleration (0-60mph in under 7 seconds). For those placing a priority on power in a AWD compact SUV, those 2 vehicles would be best choice. For me the CX-5 has the right blend of power/economy, realizing the bias is towards economy, but I also have 2 much more powerful sport sedans to drive for fun on weekends, so I prefer my compact SUV to be economical.

 

[ta240]

For those placing a priority on power in a AWD compact SUV, those 2 vehicles would be best choice.

exactly. And the other thing to remember is if you want the 0-60 in 7 seconds performance and still buy a CX5 you likely won't see the great MPG either.

Top Gear UK did a thing where they had a guy in a Prius race around a course they setup as fast as it could go and had a BMW M5 follow it. At the end the M5 used less gas. They said that showed that the Prius wasn't any good. All it showed to me was that you should buy the car that is designed for the way you plan to drive. I see it all the time with the new small cars with really small engines where people are shocked that in one test or another it got worse mpg than a VW GTI. Well, duh, if you want to go at GTI speeds, then get a GTI as that is what it is designed and built to do. Don't try to wring GTI performance out of the Elantra and complain when it doesn't do it and gets bad mileage in the process.

 

[erhayes]

I think a Sport Mode would be great-best of both. However; magazine testers find only a few tens of a second difference on 0 to 60 test runs when comparing Full auto to Manual shifting. There just isn't enough power to justify a sport mode I guess. Maybe Mazda will offer a Skyactive 2.3L engine next year in a CX5. I find it unusual that the Zoom Zoom company will go from a fun-to-drive CX7 with 244HP and replace it with a neat CX5 that that puts at the back of the pack in performance with the pedestrian acceleration numbers . I for one think there is a better compromise that is not tilted toward economy so much. JMO Ed

 

[CX-SV]

Car and Driver explained it well in most recent test of AWD CX-5.

Use manual mode for significantly faster acceleration because it lets you take engine to 6500 rev limit. The auto mode tends to shift a bit early at 6250 rpm.

 

[erhayes]

I do not want to manually shift at 6500 rpm to get decent acceleration in a daily driver. My suburban driving requires faily brisk acceleration to maybe 45 mph and hold that speed for maybe a mile before doing it again. So I guess my old Subaru Forester with the 2.5L engine did it correctly by giving me some low-end and midrange torque. I will probably end up with a CX5 but, it appears that I will touting its handling, fuel consumption and other attributes but, keeping very quiet about the less desirable acceleration. )

 

[CX-SV]

I do not want to manually shift at 6500 rpm to get decent acceleration in a daily driver. My suburban driving requires faily brisk acceleration to maybe 45 mph and hold that speed for maybe a mile before doing it again. So I guess my old Subaru Forester with the 2.5L engine did it correctly by giving me some low-end and midrange torque. I will probably end up with a CX5 but, it appears that I will touting its handling, fuel consumption and other attributes but, keeping very quiet about the less desirable acceleration. )

Mazda did it correctly too with Skyactiv 2.0L CX-5, giving it decent low and mid-range 150 pounds of peak torque at 4000 rpm (the Skyactiv 2.0L unique to the CX-5 has the long stroke, high compression, valve timing, tuned exhaust manifold, contributing to higher torque than other versions of 2.0L). No need to hammer it to redline in order to do fairly brisk accleration to 45 mph in suburban driving. The Skyactiv 2.0L combined with sophisticed Skyactiv 6 speed tranny is far more refined than droning flat 4 engine/4 speed tranny combo in old Forrester when pressed for brisk acceleration.

Yes, C&D did shift CX-5 manually at redline to get 0-60 mph in 9.2 seconds, the old Forrester normally aspirated 2.5L auto tranny isn't going to do any better in any mode. Agreed nobody wants to constantly redline a car to get decent acceleration, but fairly brisk accleration to 45 mph doesn't require that of either car.

 

[sixspeed]

I struggled with the choice, wanted all the toys but not the automatic. So I decided to go with the manual and upgrade it aftermarket. I am sooo pleased I did. The six speed is silky smooth and has plenty pep for me, plus the shifting gives the zoom zoom fun. I love it at the gas station, we average at least 32 mpg and drive it with enthusiasm. My only complaint is 1st is slower than I would like.

My recommendation for those still thinking about the purchase is go with the manual 2 wheel drive and you'll get driving fun, great gas mileage and have lots of spare change to upgrade and accessorize.

 

[ta240]

It kills me how often I'd end up in my 130 HP P5 stuck behind people with 250-300+ hp cars that I'm screaming (in my head at least) Get out of my way! As we go up an onramp or pull away from a light. And I'm sure all those people would cringe at the thought of driving a little 4 cyl.

I had a guy in a Impreza WRX STI on one curved onramp and I had to brake several times in my Protege5 because he couldn't take the corner. All the while listening to his exhaust go blaaaaahhhhhhhh, like he was going fast.

And with the way the CAFE requirements are going soon our CX5's will be crazy fast by comparison

 

[erhayes]

CX-SV, you are misinformed. I just checked Car & Driver? on the Subaru performance and the NA Forester has considerably better straight line performance than the CX5. The Forester is faster in the 0 to 60, the 0 to 100 and the quarter mile time Top speeds are comparable. The CX5 wins on economy and fun-to-drive however. We need to check data before tossing out numbers as fact. )

 

[CX-SV]

CX-SV, you are misinformed. I just checked Car & Driver? on the Subaru performance and the NA Forester has considerably better straight line performance than the CX5. The Forester is faster in the 0 to 60, the 0 to 100 and the quarter mile time Top speeds are comparable. The CX5 wins on economy and fun-to-drive however. We need to check data before tossing out numbers as fact. )

1. erhayes, you need to specify (model) year instead of specifying "old" when making generalizations about low end torque, etc. Even your most recent above post does not state model year tested. You need to specify what model year that you are referring to before tossing out numbers as fact.).

2. I am not misinformed. I just checked C&D and the old previous gen/pre-2011 EJ 2.5 NA Forrester did 0-60 in 9.7 seconds (vs 9.2 CX-5).
erhayes, you are misinformed due to referencing numbers regarding current new generation of Forester, not "old" previous gen.

 

[erhayes]

Performance comparison from the latest Car & Driver on-line. 2011 Subaru touring automatic transmission. 0-60=8.7 seconds, Quarter mile time=16.8 seconds. 2013 CX5 fwd with a Manual transmission. 0-60=9.2 seconds and a quarter mile time of 17.1 seconds. Big differences and the Suby was running a 4 speed automatic vs the manual in the CX5. I sold my Forester and now drive a CX7 and while I want to traid for a CX5, I'm not sure I'd be satified in the long run. Just my observations based on data. ) End of this post for me. Ed

 

[CX-SV]

^Yes and that explains the problem as I said before, C&D tested the 2 different vehicles at 2 different times with different results (specs I referenced per C&D article online were for "old"/previous gen). The 2011 Subaru is the new/current generation of the engine, not the old/previous generation. It's mysterious why you are you referencing the current gen/2011 Forrester when your "old" Subie Forrester was previous gen dating back to model year 2000 with a completely different engine....

Agreed, end of boring Subie Forester discussion for me too, since it's OT and unrelated to this thread (thumbs up).

 

[CX-SV]

What Mazda did incorporate into the CX-5 is the most advanced auto tranny in this class of affordable compact SUV's.

Features like 6 speeds, dual clutch firm shifts with smooth takeoff below 5mph, no droning CVT, BMW-like manual shift mode complete with throttle blipping/rev-matching. So far none of the other major players including Honda, Acura, Kia/Hyundai, Ford, GM, VW have an auto tranny this advanced in affordable compact SUVs, but they will come up with improved transmissions soon enough probably.

 

[mclark999]

Whether by design or not, the Cx5 is a dog. Not the car to buy if you want straight line performance.

I also would like a sport mode for the automatic. I don't like having to floor the pedal to get it to shift at high rpms.

 

[CX-SV]

Whether by design or not, the Cx5 is a dog. Not the car to buy if you want straight line performance.

I also would like a sport mode for the automatic. I don't like having to floor the pedal to get it to shift at high rpms.

I'm surprised you didn't select a turbo (turbo gas or diesel engine) compact SUV for use at high altitude common in CO, the power loss at altitude for normally aspirated engine is huge.