2017~2024 CX-5 top speed?

Cuz

Contributor
In their Dec 2018 review, Car and Driver reported the top speed of the CX-5 turbo was 130 mph. That seems a bit high, but Im sure it was on a closed track. Has anyone taken theirs up that far? How fast have you gone with your turbo CX-5, and how did it handle?

Thanks.
 
Well my non-turbo I took up to 110 MPH through I-80 in Wyoming. Handled fine, but I'm sure some wider tires would help.
 
Which is why it makes me crazy that the speedometer goes up to 160 or something, crowding all the numbers together and making it harder to read. Would be much nicer at like 120 MPH with something in the 60 t0 70 range straight up, instead of 80.
 
In their Dec 2018 review, Car and Driver reported the top speed of the CX-5 turbo was 130 mph. That seems a bit high, but I*m sure it was on a closed track. Has anyone taken theirs up that far? How fast have you gone with your turbo CX-5, and how did it handle?

Thanks.

It should easily hit 130mph. I have not tried it myself, but find it very easy to believe.
 
NA is gear and HP limited to around 125
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the inputs. I doubt Id spend much time over 100, but I do tend to spend much of my highway driving in the 85+ range.
 
Thanks for the inputs. I doubt I*d spend much time over 100, but I do tend to spend much of my highway driving in the 85+ range.

85-90 is also my preferred speed on an interstate given the proper conditions. Things start getting a little squirrely after that. And of course the danger rises exponentially. And cops.
 
85-90 is also my preferred speed on an interstate given the proper conditions. Things start getting a little squirrely after that. And of course the danger rises exponentially. And cops.

Squirrely? You mean morally and socially, or the vehicle itself?
 
Which is why it makes me crazy that the speedometer goes up to 160 or something, crowding all the numbers together and making it harder to read. Would be much nicer at like 120 MPH with something in the 60 t0 70 range straight up, instead of 80.

I remember when American vehicles stopped reporting beyond 85 mph...
 
I agree that the speedometer of 160 is nonsense. I think that 120 or even 140 is the way to go as suggest by murky. Ed
 
85-90 is also my preferred speed on an interstate given the proper conditions. Things start getting a little squirrely after that. And of course the danger rises exponentially. And cops.

Back in the 70s (before the nationwide maximum speed limit was briefly set at 55MPH) I would travel up & down I95 between DC and Richmond, VA quite a lot. I would travel 90+MPH and have cars on my bumper so close I could not see their license plates in my rear view mirror, in a line of traffic.

Even in my younger "I am immortal!" days, I would take the lower-speed/more rural Route 1 (which parallels I-95) unless I was traveling at hours when there would be no other traffic.

As you said, "given the proper conditions." And the danger sure does rise exponentially.

Maybe on long straight roads out west...
 
I agree that the speedometer of 160 is nonsense. I think that 120 or even 140 is the way to go as suggest by murky. Ed

Especially in a car that makes me sign a disclaimer every time the Infotainment system boots up.

Talk about your mixed messages.
 
I agree that the speedometer of 160 is nonsense. I think that 120 or even 140 is the way to go as suggest by murky. Ed

It's just marketing, isn't it? To make you think it can go REALLY FAST!!!!!
 
Back in the 70s (before the nationwide maximum speed limit was briefly set at 55MPH)

Your memory is more forgiving than mine. It seemed endless to me.

Looked it up:
The NMSL was modified in 1987 and 1988 to allow up to 65 mph (105 km/h) limits on certain limited-access rural roads. Congress repealed the NMSL in 1995, fully returning speed limit-setting authority to the individual states.

And I was in VA for much of that time, in the land of radar detector illegality. Also back before too much instant-on K-band.

Ah the memories.

Arrgh.
 
Back