CX5 vs Forester XT
- Thread starter sbkim
- Start date
Power is over-rated when shopping for a daily driver. The CX-5 has great torque and all the power you need unless you need to tow trailers at the upper end of the tow ratings at high speeds.
Have you driven them both to compare?
Test drive both. When my search for a new car started, I was pretty sure I would end up with a Subaru Legacy or Forester depending on if I decided to stay with a car or wanted to move on to a SUV. AWD was a must and there wasn't a lot of AWD cars I liked. So after test driving the legacy, I test drove just about every SUV I could. For me there was many things I didn't like about the Forester. The interior felt cheap compared to most in the class. It was fairly basic looking too and seemed dated. Driving it, yeah it felt like it had some umpf and like the AWD did a good job holding me to the road, but the actual steering felt sloppy and had lots of body roll compared to most in the class. I went with the CX-5 because it looked better outside, better interior with more options, handled better (a suv i could actually have fun with if i wanted to do some spirited driving through windy roads). With the recent articles about Mazda's AWD system, it seems like I even made the right choice for AWD as well.
C
CX5_Pete
I crossed shopped these two. I was set on the Forester since the base 2.5i had standard back up camera and AWD, but the CX-5 Sport had incredible gas mileage and handling was the best of any CUV I have ever driven. So it came down to either having AWD or having a really fun car to drive with great gas mileage. I settled on the CX-5. There are some days where I think I should have gone with the Forester since it doesn't cost that much more, but so far I am pleased with the CX-5.
The Forester XT definitely has more power than the CX-5. If power and AWD is what you want, I would go with the Forester. If you want fuel efficiency, good looking interior/exterior, and good handling characteristics then go with the CX-5.
The Forester XT definitely has more power than the CX-5. If power and AWD is what you want, I would go with the Forester. If you want fuel efficiency, good looking interior/exterior, and good handling characteristics then go with the CX-5.
I'm confused why go with the Forester if you want AWD? The CX-5 is available in AWD. AWD isn't a reason to get the forester especially when recent test show Mazda's AWD is as good as Subaru's if not better in some categories.
C
CX5_Pete
I agree, testing shows that the CX-5 AWD does very well, not arguing that at all. But if he wants power AND awd, the the Forester is the way to go. If he expects power from the CX-5 (either FWD or AWD), he's going to be disappointed. Not to say the CX-5 is weak. But we're talking about 250 vs 185 HP/258 vs 185 lb-ft
Last edited:
Is this your DD or hauling family?
The CX5 is decent in city but if you're with the wife and kids; i would go withy bigger engine. Handling be damn, you wont need it. I am awaiting for the cX9 and I can dump my CX5.
The 2016 Kia Sorento really surprised me. Test drive the turbo 4 or the EX V6 and see for yourself.
Also of note the CX5 has nosiy cabin. The Bose speakers is not worth the upgrade but it is bundled with the tech package.
Goodluck!
Thanks everyone for your input. This will be DD and hauling family from time to time. CX5 checks all of my boxes for what I want in my next car for the many reasons cited above. Forester XT has decent performance on par with my current semi sporty sedan which is also turbo charged but I am not finding the car as emotional as the CX5. It's a tough choice but I would be choosing XT only because of additional power and perhaps a bit bigger and quieter than CX5. Only other thing that impacts just me is subie dealership is much closer to where I live vs. Mazda.
I think you are right on Pete... you can definitely feel that 65HP deficiency... but then again you are also looking at $5K premium along with premium gas etc.
Also on a side note, gas mileage between XT and CXGT is about 1 more mpg but XT recommends premium.
Also on a side note, gas mileage between XT and CXGT is about 1 more mpg but XT recommends premium.
Last edited:
This is obviously personal choice but power is important for me as daily driver. This is stemming mostly from my current and past vehicles.
A lot of us CX-5 owners made our decision in part because the CX-5 avoided the upfront cost of a turbo, not to mention the potential additional cost of ownership down the road if it fails. Having said that, peoples perceived needs sometimes outweigh practicality. Even the little 2.0L Skyactiv is faster than the first Chevrolet Corvette, the first American sports car! It wasn't until the Corvettes third year of production that they offered the "high performance" 4.34L V8 which brought the 0-60 time all the way down to 8.5 seconds. But that was optional.
Good point MikeM. How times of changed...my wife's daily SUV hits 60 in 4.2 sec 
It's crazy how fast and power recent cars are getting from the factory.
It's crazy how fast and power recent cars are getting from the factory. - :
- 2014 Mazda 6 GT with MRCC
Don't buy a forester.... Subaru should be ashamed of putting a CVT in that thing. Get a proper 6-speed automatic that shifts like a dream. You won't need more power, and you'll like the fuel savings. Finally, the Forester has a bouncy ride, it's way underdamped.
2016 Forester XT goes 0-60mph in 6.5 seconds while CX-5 goes 0-60mph in 7.2 seconds.
Last edited:
From above link "CX-5's 0-60 time falls to about 7.2 seconds (Mazda's estimate)"
The CRV has the same HP as CX-5, but CX-5 is a full second faster 0-60mph. This is due to skyactiv's long tube folded headers bringing down the torque peak to 3250rpm. The "area under the torque curve" is far higher in CX-5 resulting in much quicker times.
OOps, didn't see the link. Thanks. Same website seems to claim 6.2 for XT:
"if you want quick acceleration (from 258-pound-feet of torque) spend another 11 grand for the 2.0XT and pump in premium gas. It will accelerate from zero to 60 in just 6.2 seconds. It offers quickness in other areas, such as turning and stopping, the XT offers a sport suspension on 18-inch alloy wheels with grippy tires, and bigger brakes with ventilated rotors."
Oddly enough 2016 cx5 review shows 7.8 sec
http://www.autoblog.com/buy/2016-Mazda-CX_5-Grand_Touring__4dr_All_wheel_Drive/editors-review/
"if you want quick acceleration (from 258-pound-feet of torque) spend another 11 grand for the 2.0XT and pump in premium gas. It will accelerate from zero to 60 in just 6.2 seconds. It offers quickness in other areas, such as turning and stopping, the XT offers a sport suspension on 18-inch alloy wheels with grippy tires, and bigger brakes with ventilated rotors."
Oddly enough 2016 cx5 review shows 7.8 sec
http://www.autoblog.com/buy/2016-Mazda-CX_5-Grand_Touring__4dr_All_wheel_Drive/editors-review/
Last edited:
And that is scary slow from any kind of performance standpoint. For a daily driver it's so much more than adequate it's not even funny.
I guess I just don't get a kick out of extra acceleration unless it's ludicrously fast. Even my fastest motorcycle can't quite break a 10 second 1/4 mile or a 3 second 0-60. Braking and cornering hard, now that's fun! Mediocre acceleration? Meh, not gonna pay a lot of money, maintenance, fuel, reliability, etc. to get mediocre acceleration. As long as it doesn't strain to keep up with the traffic I'm happy. It's just a car. If I have to downshift to make it go, all the better.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
To me, the purpose of a vehicle in this segment is cheap transportation. The XT, costing more than a mid-level CX-5, makes no sense when you could buy a GLK350 or something and have more power and more luxury. I would rather an XT than a CX-5, yes, but not at the cost of premium fuel and more sticker, while still having the draw-backs of a low-level CUV. In short, I'd get a lightly used GLK350 instead, if you're considering the XT. If you're considering the CX-5, also cross-shop the RAV4, CRV, and other usual suspects.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Well, I guess we found another thing to agree on. Anything that takes over 5 seconds to go from 0-60 is a snooze fest and not worth discussing unless it's a larger SUV or something, although I consider anything that takes over 9 seconds dangerous on real roads, lol.
