Confirmation to CX-5's Laguna Seca's laptime.

[SayNoToPistons]

I know I know, "the CX-5 is not a race car, who cares", etc etc etc. But it would be good to know either way. According to Driving Sport's review, they said Mazda Engineers insisted that the petrol AT CX-5 had faster lap times than the 2.0 SkyActiv Mazda 3. Some what hard to believe given the higher weight and center of gravity in the CX-5. Though both have similar initial suspension designs consisting of a Macpherson front and multilink rear. The CX-5 has a slightly revised version with relocated mounting points.

Here is a review stating the same. 3 second advantage to the SA Mazda3 at Laguna Seca? I find that very hard to believe. A few tenths, okay, but 3 seconds on any real track (for those who have been) is quite a difference. Considering Laguna Seca is quite a high power track.

http://www.carreviewsoup.com/mazda-cx-5-sets-crossover-bar-to-skyactiv-heights

Does anyone have any real confirmation to what the CX-5 ran in comparison to the Mazda3 SA?


Also if anyone has pics of the CX-5 pace car on CX-9's 20's, please post them. I might steal a few details from that car including the wheels and front grill (whistle)

 

[CX-SV]

I think it was Mazda's claim.

Not that it matters much.

 

[PhoenixINX]

I own both cars and I absolutely find this easy to believe... the CX-5 is far more composed while being pushed, and will leave the driver more comfortable at the limits.

Without knowing specifics, I'm going to gamble the spring and shock rates are a fair bit higher than the 3i.

 

[inodes]

I can believe this as well. But my comparison would be with my old, and higher power 2.3L engine. A fair comparison given that I am comparing with my Diesel CX-5 (they drove the petrol around Laguna Seca).

Firstly, all acceleration times with my CX-5 versus my Mazda 3 2.3L - the CX-5 Diesel nails the 2.3L 3 on all accounts. Particularly at high speed when the engine has a LOT more grunt.

The chassis and body have a lot to do with it as well. The CX-5 is a generation ahead. Very sturdy and confidence inspiring.

 

[SayNoToPistons]

The CX-5 used was the regular petrol version. Same drivetrain as the Mazda3 SA it was compared against. The Mazda3 SA is without a doubt faster in a straight due to pure physics, which is largely applied during the many uphill and straight sections of Laguna Seca.

 

[smithsm1984]

The CX-5 used was the regular petrol version. Same drivetrain as the Mazda3 SA it was compared against. The Mazda3 SA is without a doubt faster in a straight due to pure physics, which is largely applied during the many uphill and straight sections of Laguna Seca.

Pure physics? Come on. Surely you don't think all cars have the same gearing, aerodynamics and grip.

I'm not saying that the Mazda3 or CX-5 is faster, but acceleration is more complex than "pure physics."

 

[SayNoToPistons]

Actually both cars have the same gearing. Aerodynamics contribute little to no difference in acceleration times on Laguna Seca when comparing both vehicles. The CX-5 sufferes from a 250-350lb penalty. So how much does physics apply to UPHILL AND STRAIGHT SECTIONS of Laguna Seca when comparing the CX-5 and Mazda3 SA?

Not to brag here, but mechanical engineer here.

 

[GAXIBM]

SaYNoToPistons I hate to say no to both cars have the same gearing, but check out the MT gear ratios for the CX-5 and the 2012 M3-I at http://www.mazdausamedia.com/files/2013 CX-5 Specifications (02-01-12).pdf and http://www.mazdausamedia.com/files/2012 Mazda3 & MAZDASPEED3 Specifications (Oct 2011).pdf
I see a wider gear ratio for the CX-5 in the MT which may be why it is better EPA on the CX-5 than AT compared to the M3-I which is better EPA on the AT. Also if you look at the final drive ratios and take into account the differents in the tire revolutions/mile I think you will find that the CX-5 turns the engine a bit faster than the M3-I in the same gear, both with AT. Also the CX-5 has a better torque curve due to higher compression, 4-2-1 header and "tuned for it". Net of those differences is CX-5 puts more power to the ground - quicker and at a lower speed than the M3-I which may be part of the difference in the EPA ratings and the difference on the track...

 

[CX-SV]

^ in short they do not share same drivetrain, thanks for listing some of the significant differences. Don't need to be M.E. to be aware of differences, just the facts.

 

[inodes]

There were numerous reviews of the CX-5 at Laguna Seca, mainly because it was a massive media releases. At least three that I've read have all stated that the CX-5 was able to get a better time than the Skyactiv Mazda 3. The CX-5 does have ride height against it, but it it has a far newer chassis (not shared with the 3), improved body and suspension components (not shared with the 3), has the higher compression and 4-2-1 header version of the Skyactiv-G.

Even if you don't believe the media, I'd take the word of PhoenixINX who owns and drives both vehicles on a regular basis.