CX-5 gets a turbocharged 2.5L gas engine!

[Chris_Top_Her]

I would suspect better mpg in cruise at 5500 thanks to being able to lean the mixture .. at least thats the case in a small plane ("cessna")

 

[MikeM.]

I would suspect better mpg in cruise at 5500 thanks to being able to lean the mixture .. at least thats the case in a small plane ("cessna")

I do tend to get really high MPG when I cross the mountains. Some of that is due to the leaner mixture. Some of it is due to lower drag in the thinner air. The latter reason could also explain why the CX-5 feels so perky at speed when at altitude (less aerodynamic drag).

 

[Unobtanium]

I've only had my 2.0L CX-5 up to 5,500 feet ASL but I can report that I've never driven a NA car or truck that seemingly lost so little power due to the altitude.


It might have to do with the fact that the CX-5 can adjust both the intake and exhaust valve timing on the fly according to conditions. In fact, above 5000 feet and above 70 mph, my CX-5 feels like it has a little more acceleration than it does at sea level. At speeds 40 mph and below I can feel a little less power is available but it does really well on faster mountain pass highways when overtaking the slower moving traffic.

I don't have to rev the snot out of it as the middle rpm's work so well. It's the sweetest small NA engine I've ever had the pleasure of driving.

Actual testing at 5k feet shows your observations to be wrong. The 2.5 cx5 at 5k feet takes almost 12 seconds to hit 60. But this is the joy of a slow vehicle. After a while you get used to it. Until you try to compete with a more powerful vehicle merging and it feels like you're running from a dog in a dream, lol!

 

[MikeM.]

Actual testing at 5k feet shows your observations to be wrong. The 2.5 cx5 at 5k feet takes almost 12 seconds to hit 60.

Please re-read what I wrote to see why your response is complete non-sense. I said above 70 mph it feels like it has more acceleration. I think you can see the complete and utter fallacy of using a 0-60 acceleration test to say that proves me wrong!

And I believe the "actual testing at 5K" that you refer to was not scientific or repeatable. Was it with two big men and a trunk load of equipment on a road that was not even level? That's a meaningless 0-60 time, it can't be compared to the times achieved with a single normal sized driver and no luggage on a level road.

I've found a car on the lower end of the power spectrum like my 2.0L CX-5 works extremely well for a skilled attentive driver. It might be an issue for a driver that is neither skilled nor attentive.

 

[iced_theater]

Your response would have a lot more significance it you would take a few moments to fill out your profile indicating where that is...

Wyoming, about 6300 ft elevation. Where I work is closer to 7000 ft.

 

[Unobtanium]

Please re-read what I wrote to see why your response is complete non-sense. I said above 70 mph it feels like it has more acceleration. I think you can see the complete and utter fallacy of using a 0-60 acceleration test to say that proves me wrong!

And I believe the "actual testing at 5K" that you refer to was not scientific or repeatable. Was it with two big men and a trunk load of equipment on a road that was not even level? That's a meaningless 0-60 time, it can't be compared to the times achieved with a single normal sized driver and no luggage on a level road.

I've found a car on the lower end of the power spectrum like my 2.0L CX-5 works extremely well for a skilled attentive driver. It might be an issue for a driver that is neither skilled nor attentive.

There is no way your vehicle is not losing power.
It loses power due to air density.

You are not turning any faster RPM at a given speed/gear.
You are not forcing more air in via a turbo/nitrous/supercharger.
You therefor cannot burn any more fuel.
Physics are what they are.

Unless you are forcing more air into the cylinders, it's just not going to make any more power because of any fancy valve timing tricks or anything else.

 

[MikeM.]

There is no way your vehicle is not losing power.
It loses power due to air density.

You are not turning any faster RPM at a given speed/gear.
You are not forcing more air in via a turbo/nitrous/supercharger.
You therefor cannot burn any more fuel.
Physics are what they are.

Unless you are forcing more air into the cylinders, it's just not going to make any more power because of any fancy valve timing tricks or anything else.

Do I have to explain everything to you in excruciating detail?

I have never said it produces the same amount of power at altitude. Obviously, it would produce at least a little less HP due to less air density. But at altitude, the less dense air reduces aerodynamic resistance in proportion to the theoretical reduction in power from the reduced air density. And at 70 mph, on a level road, about 90% of the power needed to maintain speed is used to overcome aerodynamic drag. This means, when the air is less dense, it takes less HP to maintain 70 mph. Any additional HP that is available, beyond that needed to maintain a steady speed, can be used to accelerate. If an engine loses power at a slower rate than air density decreases, it is possible to accelerate from 70-80 mph (for example) at a faster rate at altitude than at sea level. The exact speed/altitude at which this is possible depends upon the ratio of aerodynamic drag to rolling friction and the weight of the vehicle. And it depends upon an engine that, as air density decreases, loses power more slowly than a straight line mapping of air density/power would predict.

How could engine power be reduced at a slower rate than the reduction in air density? A number of ways.

First, the air intake on the CX-5 is designed to take air from the high pressure zone that builds up on the front of the car at freeway speeds. It does this with air density at sea level as well but the effect is not as beneficial because the intake/exhaust is not designed for air mass flows that great. The beneficial effect of the "ram air" intake is primarily apparent at reduced air density (like it will experience at altitude).

Secondly, the variable intake and exhaust valves can be used to optimize the breathing of the engine when the air is less dense.

Finally, because detonation is less likely at altitude, the ECU can use an ignition map more suitable to a higher octane fuel without risk of damage. This can increase performance compared to an engine at the same altitude that was not smart enough to advance the timing when air density is reduced. The CX-5 has highly sophisticated mapping. This is the same reason I don't recommend running 85 octane fuel even when the car is only used at altitude. In order to maintain the same buffer against detonation, it is necessary to run the same octane at altitude as at sea level because the ECU advances ignition timing to compensate for lower air densities.

No, I never claimed the engine wouldn't produce a little less power at altitude, I said, with less dense air and at higher speeds, it could accelerate a bit faster than it can at sea level.

 

[Unobtanium]

Do I have to explain everything to you in excruciating detail?

I have never said it produces the same amount of power at altitude. Obviously, it would produce at least a little less HP due to less air density. But at altitude, the less dense air reduces aerodynamic resistance in proportion to the theoretical reduction in power from the reduced air density. And at 70 mph, on a level road, about 90% of the power needed to maintain speed is used to overcome aerodynamic drag. This means, when the air is less dense, it takes less HP to maintain 70 mph. Any additional HP that is available, beyond that needed to maintain a steady speed, can be used to accelerate. If an engine loses power at a slower rate than air density decreases, it is possible to accelerate from 70-80 mph (for example) at a faster rate at altitude than at sea level. The exact speed/altitude at which this is possible depends upon the ratio of aerodynamic drag to rolling friction and the weight of the vehicle. And it depends upon an engine that, as air density decreases, loses power more slowly than a straight line mapping of air density/power would predict.
Let's calculate this...hold for a few while I plug in some numbers.

How could engine power be reduced at a slower rate than the reduction in air density? A number of ways.

First, the air intake on the CX-5 is designed to take air from the high pressure zone that builds up on the front of the car at freeway speeds. It does this with air density at sea level as well but the effect is not as beneficial because the intake/exhaust is not designed for air mass flows that great. The beneficial effect of the "ram air" intake is primarily apparent at reduced air density (like it will experience at altitude).
I don't think there is any real positive pressure in the intake manifold. I remember back when I drove a ram-air WS.6 Trans Am, the difference in trap speeds between the ram-air cars and non-ram air cars, when comparing 1/8 and 1/4 mile traps and looking at the difference did not matter much at all. Someone finally strapped one to a dyno and simulated something like 100mph speed with a fan and got a few rwhp out of it, though, but it was within the variance of a dyno. That was a true ram-air system coming straight in-line from the hood, to filter, to manifold. The CX-5 is definitely not.

Secondly, the variable intake and exhaust valves can be used to optimize the breathing of the engine when the air is less dense. One would expect this, yes, but they are still taking in an identical volume as at sea-level, it is just less dense.

Finally, because detonation is less likely at altitude, the ECU can use an ignition map more suitable to a higher octane fuel without risk of damage. This can increase performance compared to an engine at the same altitude that was not smart enough to advance the timing when air density is reduced. The CX-5 has highly sophisticated mapping. This is the same reason I don't recommend running 85 octane fuel even when the car is only used at altitude. In order to maintain the same buffer against detonation, it is necessary to run the same octane at altitude as at sea level because the ECU advances ignition timing to compensate for lower air densities. I don't buy it. Otherwise 93 octane would allow the ECU the same amount of latitude. It doesn't. The mapping is good, yes, but it's not going to take advantage of more timing than at SL. Or it would take advantage of higher octane, as well.

No, I never claimed the engine wouldn't produce a little less power at altitude, I said, with less dense air and at higher speeds, it could accelerate a bit faster than it can at sea level.

Alright, here we go with the numbers, hold a few.

okay, at 70mph, the vehicle (3600# + (1) 180# occupant with a CoD of 0.29 and a frontal area of 21 sq feet, rolling resistance a canned value of 0.015) requires 24.8hp to maintain said velocity. I do not know the altitude for this calculation, but if we drop the CoD to 0.01 (no typo), 11.1hp is required. A whopping savings of 13.7hp due to less drag.

So what do you LOSE going to say, 5K feet elevation?

Well, that's easy. You lose 23bhp from a starting point of 155.

So, presuming you drop your drag to virtually nothing (it doesn't. Not at 5500ft). You will be at about an 11hp deficit from where you started. This is presuming that your Mazda does not somehow find a magical way to shove more fuel and oxygen into the cylinders at the same rpm as it did at sea-level without the help of a turbo or SC or oxygen rich fuel.

http://www.wallaceracing.com/braking-hp.php
http://www.tritrack.net/horsePower.html

I personally don't think you can feel 11 horsepower, at 70mph, and even if you can, I don't think the facts indicate you GAINING any horsepower.

In short, it's all in your head, until you can prove otherwise with math. Video. Stopwatch. Take your pick.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

firstly, it has to be said that the car is not producing 155 bhp at anytime except some altitude below sealevel (unless you have a tune then yes you can get 155bhp). I think 23bhp lost is a bit high.
ok for reference a chart for a NA engine that actually has an altitude chart. lycoming o320 with 160hp @ 2700rpm.
looking at 2400rpm @ standard temp (15c/59f)
2000ft gives 107.2hp (67%), 111 kt (128mph) 7.5 GPH
4000ft gives 102.4hp (64%), 110kt (127mph) 7.1 gph
6000ft gives 96hp (60%), 109kt (126mph) 6.8 gph.
since there is no "cruise at sea level" tab, 13.7hp lost seems to be about the right number considering the difference between 6000 and 2000 is 11.7 hp. (gotta love charts that already did all the aerodynamic formulas for you lol)
so even though he hp is less, in cruise, the speed is pretty much the same while the fuel consumption is less. less drag contributes to the negligible speed change with less power available. Of course there is no wheel friction is this equation but there is induced drag (consequence of lift) that could be compared to wheels on the ground.
As far as feeling the difference in HP, that's all subjective and how can I tell someone else what they can and can't feel if the difference is numerically there. Some people say they can't tell the difference between 2.0 and 2.5 but the way I drive the engine I can feel it especially tuned.

 

[MikeM.]

Alright, here we go with the numbers, hold a few.

okay, at 70mph, the vehicle (3600# + (1) 180# occupant with a CoD of 0.29 and a frontal area of 21 sq feet, rolling resistance a canned value of 0.015) requires 24.8hp to maintain said velocity. I do not know the altitude for this calculation, but if we drop the CoD to 0.01 (no typo), 11.1hp is required. A whopping savings of 13.7hp due to less drag.

Almost all your CX-5 numbers are different from the ones published by Mazda and various industry sources.

CoD=.33 (not .29)
Frontal area = 28.0 sq. ft. (not 21)

Running these more accurate numbers, it takes this much HP to overcome sea-level aero drag at the following speeds:


70 mph=22 HP
80 mph=32 hp
90 mph=45 hP
100mph=63 hp
125mph=123 hp

Because aerodynamic drag is directly proportional to air density (and the air at 5000 Ft. is about 16% less dense than sea-level depending upon humidity, etc.) therefore it takes less energy to overcome aerodynamic drag at these speeds at 5000 feet:

70 mph=18 HP (4 less HP)
80 mph=27 HP (5 less HP)
90 mph=38 HP (7 less HP)
100mph=53 HP (10 less HP)
125mph=103 HP(20 less HP)

Granted, if at 5000 Ft. the air is 16% less dense, you will theoretically have 16% less power at any given rpm, in reality it doesn't work so neatly (actual loss is less) due to the fact that air that is more dense has more restriction to flow. And, as I've pointed out, at higher speeds there is a higher pressure cell around the CX-5's air intake which benefits high altitude operation more than it does at sea level. Also, the ECU can adjust the valves to stay open longer since the incoming air has less density, less mass, less momentum. So the actual HP losses at high vehicle speeds is less than the theoretical losses, perhaps only half, say 8.3% HP loss at higher speeds. When I'm driving at high speed in the mountains on a level section, I'm generally around 3000 rpm's-4000 rpm's where the engine is producing less than 100 HP, not 155 HP. So, at higher speeds it starts to feel a little more peppy at altitude.

But I do agree, it would still take slightly longer to accelerate from 70-80 mph at 5000 feet. But the difference is not what you would expect and at higher speeds it probably equals out and even passes it's sea-level acceleration. In fact, I know it does because at 125 mph you are saving 20 HP in aerodynamic drag and probably only losing 13 HP in total output (155 HP x 8.3%) due to the strong band of high pressure air that forms around the front of the hood.


My point is, in the mountains you will feel the power hit at slower speeds (like when you pull out onto the highway from the shoulder) but not so much to not at all when sporting around at higher speeds.

 

[Dr_Watson]

I do tend to get really high MPG when I cross the mountains. Some of that is due to the leaner mixture. Some of it is due to lower drag in the thinner air. The latter reason could also explain why the CX-5 feels so perky at speed when at altitude (less aerodynamic drag).

The part I don't get is how do you get from sea level to 5000ft, cross mountains (declines and inclines kill mpg) and get overall higher MPG. I cross mountains often, trips to the Alps and back, low MPG on the way up, high on the way back, but always results in lower MPG than if I had stayed away from the mountains.

 

[MikeM.]

The part I don't get is how do you get from sea level to 5000ft, cross mountains (declines and inclines kill mpg) and get overall higher MPG. I cross mountains often, trips to the Alps and back, low MPG on the way up, high on the way back, but always results in lower MPG than if I had stayed away from the mountains.

The work spent going up gets paid back coming back down. Add on efficiencies caused by less aerodynamic drag at altitude and slightly less fuel injected per cycle due to slight decrease in air density and my mileage is typically around 35-37 mpg (very good for a AWD vehicle with AT).

Good MPG numbers come easier if the driver is naturally in tune with the vehicle. How one gets on/off the throttle matters the most. I don't hesitate to downshift to 5th or even fourth when accelerating. I put it in 6th a little before I crest the top of a rise. If the downhill are too steep and brakes are necessary, MPG will obviously suffer in direct proportion to how much heat your brakes are radiating. I prefer engine braking down long grades instead of riding the brake pedal.

How you set up for corners matters too. I like to hold the same line all the way through a corner when possible and end the turn crisply (but smoothly) when the road straightens out. Never hesitate to put your foot into the throttle if you exit a corner (say at 35-40 mph) and you have open road or an uphill ahead. Babying the throttle is often counter productive. I've learned when to just downshift and drive like I mean it and when to coast or go with a light throttle. In cold weather it's important to get the engine temperature up and keep it there which means avoiding poking about at 35 mph with a cold engine.

If you find yourself behind someone with an erratic speed, pass them and demonstrate natural speed control. Leave a good sized gap between you and the next vehicle so you can anticipate slowing traffic without using your brakes. I promise, you are all going to get there at essentially the same time, the key is to enjoy the time spent getting there rather than making yourself frustrated. The trip will seem shorter this way even if it takes 5 minutes longer.

 

[Unobtanium]

Almost all your CX-5 numbers are different from the ones published by Mazda and various industry sources.

CoD=.33 (not .29)
Frontal area = 28.0 sq. ft. (not 21)

Running these more accurate numbers, it takes this much HP to overcome sea-level aero drag at the following speeds:


70 mph=22 HP
80 mph=32 hp
90 mph=45 hP
100mph=63 hp
125mph=123 hp

Because aerodynamic drag is directly proportional to air density (and the air at 5000 Ft. is about 16% less dense than sea-level depending upon humidity, etc.) therefore it takes less energy to overcome aerodynamic drag at these speeds at 5000 feet:

70 mph=18 HP (4 less HP)
80 mph=27 HP (5 less HP)
90 mph=38 HP (7 less HP)
100mph=53 HP (10 less HP)
125mph=103 HP(20 less HP)

Granted, if at 5000 Ft. the air is 16% less dense, you will theoretically have 16% less power at any given rpm, in reality it doesn't work so neatly (actual loss is less) due to the fact that air that is more dense has more restriction to flow. And, as I've pointed out, at higher speeds there is a higher pressure cell around the CX-5's air intake which benefits high altitude operation more than it does at sea level. Also, the ECU can adjust the valves to stay open longer since the incoming air has less density, less mass, less momentum. So the actual HP losses at high vehicle speeds is less than the theoretical losses, perhaps only half, say 8.3% HP loss at higher speeds. When I'm driving at high speed in the mountains on a level section, I'm generally around 3000 rpm's-4000 rpm's where the engine is producing less than 100 HP, not 155 HP. So, at higher speeds it starts to feel a little more peppy at altitude.

But I do agree, it would still take slightly longer to accelerate from 70-80 mph at 5000 feet. But the difference is not what you would expect and at higher speeds it probably equals out and even passes it's sea-level acceleration. In fact, I know it does because at 125 mph you are saving 20 HP in aerodynamic drag and probably only losing 13 HP in total output (155 HP x 8.3%) due to the strong band of high pressure air that forms around the front of the hood.


My point is, in the mountains you will feel the power hit at slower speeds (like when you pull out onto the highway from the shoulder) but not so much to not at all when sporting around at higher speeds.

I still doubt you can feel it whatever the difference. That is about the difference in a full tank and quarter tank of gas. Maybe you can. But I've got doubts.

 

[Unobtanium]

The work spent going up gets paid back coming back down. Add on efficiencies caused by less aerodynamic drag at altitude and slightly less fuel injected per cycle due to slight decrease in air density and my mileage is typically around 35-37 mpg (very good for a AWD vehicle with AT).

Good MPG numbers come easier if the driver is naturally in tune with the vehicle. How one gets on/off the throttle matters the most. I don't hesitate to downshift to 5th or even fourth when accelerating. I put it in 6th a little before I crest the top of a rise. If the downhill are too steep and brakes are necessary, MPG will obviously suffer in direct proportion to how much heat your brakes are radiating. I prefer engine braking down long grades instead of riding the brake pedal.

How you set up for corners matters too. I like to hold the same line all the way through a corner when possible and end the turn crisply (but smoothly) when the road straightens out. Never hesitate to put your foot into the throttle if you exit a corner (say at 35-40 mph) and you have open road or an uphill ahead. Babying the throttle is often counter productive. I've learned when to just downshift and drive like I mean it and when to coast or go with a light throttle. In cold weather it's important to get the engine temperature up and keep it there which means avoiding poking about at 35 mph with a cold engine.

If you find yourself behind someone with an erratic speed, pass them and demonstrate natural speed control. Leave a good sized gap between you and the next vehicle so you can anticipate slowing traffic without using your brakes. I promise, you are all going to get there at essentially the same time, the key is to enjoy the time spent getting there rather than making yourself frustrated. The trip will seem shorter this way even if it takes 5 minutes longer.

This is my one complaint. Corners. The cx5 is front heavy and likes throttle on exit. However, to provide that would require dropping at least 2 gears and sometimes 3 or more. The only way to achieve this without upsetting the chassis is to manually shift it before entering the corner. Kindof frustrating imo. Thus far, literally my only complaint about the auto in this thing. Otherwise it's near telepathic.

 

[MikeM.]

This is my one complaint. Corners. The cx5 is front heavy and likes throttle on exit. However, to provide that would require dropping at least 2 gears and sometimes 3 or more.

That's why the sweet little 2.0L engine is the way to go, IMO. The 2.5L puts more than the optimum amount of weight up front for balanced handling. 100 lb. might not seem very significant until you visualize yourself loading two heavy 50# sacks of grain into your engine bay.

The only way to achieve this without upsetting the chassis is to manually shift it before entering the corner. Kindof frustrating imo. Thus far, literally my only complaint about the auto in this thing. Otherwise it's near telepathic.

While I can achieve a little more fine control by manually shifting, I find I can rally just fine out of corners by giving the throttle a sudden stab near the apex of the turn. With experience you will learn the proper time to do this although it does vary depending upon speed/gear. Generally, you stab the throttle sooner than you might think intuitive. And stabbing it quickly is key, if you ease into it tentatively it will never shift down as many gears as you might like. The big advantage of using the manual control is you can downshift into the corner which the auto will never do aggressively enough on it's own for hard driving. I'm not sure why this would be frustrating - the auto shift is there if you don't care to utilize the manual and the manual is there if you feel you need it. But either way, manual or auto, you can rail the corners pretty good within the limits of the chassis with it's high CoG and whatever road tires you have on there.

 

[Unobtanium]

That's why the sweet little 2.0L engine is the way to go, IMO. The 2.5L puts more than the optimum amount of weight up front for balanced handling. 100 lb. might not seem very significant until you visualize yourself loading two heavy 50# sacks of grain into your engine bay.
100# up front is CERTAINLY significant! That said, I'll take the passing power over the ability to properly exit a corner hastily, considering this is an SUV.


While I can achieve a little more fine control by manually shifting, I find I can rally just fine out of corners by giving the throttle a sudden stab near the apex of the turn. That goes against every experience I have ever had. That would put my Z06 in the ditch sideways! Even my 370Z would have put you in the dirt for being ham-fisted like that. I think I'll just manually shift and properly roll onto the throttle before learning habits like that. Also, it sounds like you're going pretty slow if that works for you. Maybe driving at the limits you are, it works fine, but in ANY vehicle, when you are nearing the edge of the friction circle, you're not going to like the results of "stabbing" anything. I will typically enter a corner on the brake, ever so slightly to aid turn in, and then near the apex roll onto the throttle. If I stabbed anything, it would end in the ditch because the friction circle does not like shock-loading.With experience you will learn the proper time to do this although it does vary depending upon speed/gear. Generally, you stab the throttle sooner than you might think intuitive. And stabbing it quickly is key, if you ease into it tentatively it will never shift down as many gears as you might like. The big advantage of using the manual control is you can downshift into the corner which the auto will never do aggressively enough on it's own for hard driving. I'm not sure why this would be frustrating - the auto shift is there if you don't care to utilize the manual and the manual is there if you feel you need it. But either way, manual or auto, you can rail the corners pretty good within the limits of the chassis with it's high CoG and whatever road tires you have on there.

I would certainly encourage you not to try this in any performance vehicle if you value your life, limb, and current insurance rates. I plan on sticking with the manual-shift mode. I just find that when driving at 5/10 or so, the lack of low end power (and it IS very good for a 4-cylinder, don't get me wrong) along with the plethora of gears makes corner exit a bit annoying. If you are really leaning on it and using manual shift mode, etc, I bet most of that is corrected. I'm spoiled by torque laden motors with flat power bands. For a 4-cylinder though, this thing is amazing!

Remember...slow is smooth, smooth is fast, slow is fast! Don't stab stuff!

I guess two things need to happen here. I need to stop acting like this thing should perform like a sports car, and you should be sure that if you ever drive a sports car, you be sure not to do everything you do with the CX-5.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

My experience with the AWD is you can go high rpm low gear into a corner (talking sharp turn eg 90deg , low speed) and shift up at the apex to dart out. On a long high speed curve like on a highway, you can add throttle to increase traction through the awd coupling. But I also have a modified suspension and have followed another cx-5 around certain sharp high speed turns on US 281 and watched a cx-5 in front of me body roll bad and have to drift to the outside of the turn to bleed off speed without using the brake and making the situation worse. My experience is actually that adding throttle on those high speed curves actually gives better grip and control vs the cars who just coast the turn or try to brake because they entered the turn too fast.

 

[Unobtanium]

My experience with the AWD is you can go high rpm low gear into a corner (talking sharp turn eg 90deg , low speed) and shift up at the apex to dart out. On a long high speed curve like on a highway, you can add throttle to increase traction through the awd coupling. But I also have a modified suspension and have followed another cx-5 around certain sharp high speed turns on US 281 and watched a cx-5 in front of me body roll bad and have to drift to the outside of the turn to bleed off speed without using the brake and making the situation worse. My experience is actually that adding throttle on those high speed curves actually gives better grip and control vs the cars who just coast the turn or try to brake because they entered the turn too fast.

Braking because you entered too fast is bad. Very. Especially in a front-heavy vehicle. That is part of why I like neutral vehicles on the street. Sometimes you have to slow up a bit. They give you "more option" without losing stability.

 

[MikeM.]

Remember...slow is smooth, smooth is fast, slow is fast! Don't stab stuff!

I guess two things need to happen here. I need to stop acting like this thing should perform like a sports car, and you should be sure that if you ever drive a sports car, you be sure not to do everything you do with the CX-5.

OK Papa, thanks for the driving lesson but I was grinding holes in the engine covers of my 1970's SuperSport at 80 mph before you had a binky in your mouth. This is dicey and requires ultimate smoothness because it unweights your tires through the middle of the turn. But I couldn't get to the engine covers until I had ground nice 45 degree bevel on the pipe and centerstand. Don't try this without being smooth as butter with your entire body relaxed, all weight on pegs and grips, not the seat. Tires were crap then, I'm not sure why I'm still here to talk about it. My modern Ducati go around the same corners a lot faster, with a whole lot less stuff getting ground down.

But I appreciate your concern. (yawn)

 

[piotrek91]

Remember...slow is smooth, smooth is fast, slow is fast! Don't stab stuff!

On public roads this is always true..

But there are cases where stabbing stuff is the way to go. (rally driving, and some cases on a racetrack)
For example, check out how Mr. Ayrton Senna goes through the corner at 1:27
https://youtu.be/8By2AEsGAhU?t=1m27s