CX5 vs Forester XT

[piotrek91]

AWD vehicle versions of the CX5 are faster than the FWD versions. The power is distributed to all 4 wheels not just 2 wheels like it does in FWD.

not true. AWD versions are slower than the FWD versions.

Engineers stated that future AWD versions will get better MPG than FWD versions. It will happen, it's just a matter of time and software engineering.

This only really applies to some electric cars (like the tesla model S)
The Mazda video with Dave Coleman did say that under some conditions (snowy roads for example) it's possible for AWD to do as well or slightly better than FWD, but on dry roads that's not the case.

You can have 300 HP but if you can't put it to the ground, it's useless and results in tire spin and breaking traction.

The CX-5 doesn't have 300HP does it?

 

[CC58]

not true. AWD versions are slower than the FWD versions.

0-60mph - AWD=7.8sec, FWD=7.2sec

Wow, the difference is huge, far more than I had guessed.
This implies 50hp loss due to AWD. How can that be?

 

[sbkim]

Something seems off with above. Check out Edmunds testing of FWD 2.5L - 7.9 sec

http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2016/road-test-specs/

 

[piotrek91]

Something seems off with above. Check out Edmunds testing of FWD 2.5L - 7.9 sec

http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2016/road-test-specs/

You can't compare edmunds to other magazines.
Their 2014 AWD CX-5 took 8.3s
http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2014/review/

 

[CX5_Pete]

just for fun, I've been researching stuff on the Forester XT. One things for sure, if the XT still doesn't make enough power for the OP, it's a whole lot easier to add more power to a turbo.

http://speed.academy/dyno-test-aem-intake-2015-subaru-forester-xt/

 

[Throttle Steer]

You guys are dreaming if you think the CX-5 compares to even the average muscle car back in the day. If you have actually have driven one then you know what a big block does best and that is provide gobs of torque.

Sure there were some lame ducks back in the day but they still out torque the CX-5 by a ton.

 

[Lbear]

You guys are dreaming if you think the CX-5 compares to even the average muscle car back in the day. If you have actually have driven one then you know what a big block does best and that is provide gobs of torque.

Sure there were some lame ducks back in the day but they still out torque the CX-5 by a ton.

The reality is that most muscle cars from the 60s and 70s were unreliable, over exaggerated HP #'s and they were not as fast as compared to modern cars.

Jim Campisano, editorial director of Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords and Super Chevy magazines, has revisited the classic muscle car horsepower topic numerous times over the years. The magazines have compared old and new muscle cars and have also put classic models on a chassis dynamometer to record rear-wheel horsepower.

“Rear wheel horsepower was at least 30 percent lower than the reported gross figure, in some cases even more,” Campisano said.

Some Super Chevy readers were stunned to see that an LS6 Chevelle SS, with 450-hp rating, put down 288 rear wheel hp in the dyno test. That would have put a net hp rating at around 350 hp for that legendary big block.

So if you took the 2016 CX5 with the 190 HP, it would have been rated 270 HP back in the 70's

The other reality is modern cars like the CX5 have awesome independent suspension and tech that out performs older muscle cars. I've driven 60's and 70's muscle cars and they were deadly in turns and deadly when it came to stopping and maneuvering.

 

[Unobtanium]

not true. AWD versions are slower than the FWD versions.

This only really applies to some electric cars (like the tesla model S)
The Mazda video with Dave Coleman did say that under some conditions (snowy roads for example) it's possible for AWD to do as well or slightly better than FWD, but on dry roads that's not the case.



The CX-5 doesn't have 300HP does it?

It does not have 300hp, but it does spin the tires very significantly. Here is my CX5 when it was FWD only:

Now here it is with AWD:

 

[Unobtanium]

You guys are dreaming if you think the CX-5 compares to even the average muscle car back in the day. If you have actually have driven one then you know what a big block does best and that is provide gobs of torque.

Sure there were some lame ducks back in the day but they still out torque the CX-5 by a ton.

Is the 302 Camaro Z28, and Monte Carlo 454 in the category of "lame duck"? because the CX5 would beat/hang with 'em, lol

I've not driven a big block, but my last actually fast car weighed 3175# and had a 427ci motor.

 

[Unobtanium]

The reality is that most muscle cars from the 60s and 70s were unreliable, over exaggerated HP #'s and they were not as fast as compared to modern cars.

Jim Campisano, editorial director of Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords and Super Chevy magazines, has revisited the classic muscle car horsepower topic numerous times over the years. The magazines have compared old and new muscle cars and have also put classic models on a chassis dynamometer to record rear-wheel horsepower.

“Rear wheel horsepower was at least 30 percent lower than the reported gross figure, in some cases even more,” Campisano said.

Some Super Chevy readers were stunned to see that an LS6 Chevelle SS, with 450-hp rating, put down 288 rear wheel hp in the dyno test. That would have put a net hp rating at around 350 hp for that legendary big block.

So if you took the 2016 CX5 with the 190 HP, it would have been rated 270 HP back in the 70's

The other reality is modern cars like the CX5 have awesome independent suspension and tech that out performs older muscle cars. I've driven 60's and 70's muscle cars and they were deadly in turns and deadly when it came to stopping and maneuvering.

http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/

Another thing not to over-look are the more efficient drivelines and the greater number of gear ratios leading to more torque multiplication. This allows the CX5 to compete with the muscle cars in 0-60 type events. For a more modern equivalent, my 370Z and the C5 Corvette were identical in 0-60 and 5-60 mph testing, even though the cars weighed the same, and the 370Z had almost 100# torque less. Gearing...it really can matter, and the CX5 has a 4.6 rear-end and a 3.55 first gear, or thereabouts. That's beast!

 

[sbkim]

Thanks for sharing Pete. I doubt that I would mod it due to warranty issues but having the ability to tune a turbo car is a nice to have...

just for fun, I've been researching stuff on the Forester XT. One things for sure, if the XT still doesn't make enough power for the OP, it's a whole lot easier to add more power to a turbo.

http://speed.academy/dyno-test-aem-intake-2015-subaru-forester-xt/

 

[Rarebit]

I used to split hairs over 0-60 and mile times, but eventually came to a different yardstick: does it accelerate fast enough when you put your foot in it? Perhaps ridiculously subjective, but I find that day to day, it's what really matters. And of course, what's "fast enough" is a personal judgement. But some feel a particular car is too slow for them while others feel it's fast enough. In the end, the ones who will be disappointed are those who didn't buy on "feel", but went by the numbers. The fastest accelerating cars I've owned weren't particularly fast, and the CX-5 is slower than both of them. But if "feels" fast enough for me.

In the discussions above, several people have referred to AWD and 19" wheels as adding "reciprocating" mass. I believe they meant "rotating". I'm not aware of anything in a car with AWD or 19" wheels that reciprocates more than a in car with smaller wheels or FWD.

 

[bmninada]

OP originally asked for advice regarding XT verses CX5 and as usual in this forum everyone just have to deviate...

When buying, I did comparison with XT. XT is definitely better in terms of visibility. I'd say 3 times better. Interiors: CX5 much better, especially 2016. Cabin noise - no comparison, CX5 much quieter.

Now comes the million $ difference - performance of XT. Yes, I could feel the difference. I drive daily to NY, so trust me when I say I do feel the need for quick acceleration and power. However, I ended up selecting CX5 for these reasons: (1) Turbo forces me to buy premium and I hate recurring expenses which will ONLY go up. (2) XT cost me about $5000 more. If I add (1) and (2) together with an ownership of at least 5 years, it really adds up. This was a huge factor swaying me towards CX5.
Then I drove both: XT's transmission felt detached, dunno. CX5: more alive. AWD : Frankly no bloody difference, at all. Road handling: hands-down CX5 felt better - straight road, curves, slight bumps, up, down. I'd say at least 3 times better.
Finally, yes: performance felt better, easier to climb, overtake with XT but frankly for those momentary flashes of performance requirements do I really feel the need to pay (1) and (2) and sacrifice all else. Nah. So, I went for CX5.

 

[Unobtanium]

OP originally asked for advice regarding XT verses CX5 and as usual in this forum everyone just have to deviate...

When buying, I did comparison with XT. XT is definitely better in terms of visibility. I'd say 3 times better. Interiors: CX5 much better, especially 2016. Cabin noise - no comparison, CX5 much quieter.

Now comes the million $ difference - performance of XT. Yes, I could feel the difference. I drive daily to NY, so trust me when I say I do feel the need for quick acceleration and power. However, I ended up selecting CX5 for these reasons: (1) Turbo forces me to buy premium and I hate recurring expenses which will ONLY go up. (2) XT cost me about $5000 more. If I add (1) and (2) together with an ownership of at least 5 years, it really adds up. This was a huge factor swaying me towards CX5.
Then I drove both: XT's transmission felt detached, dunno. CX5: more alive. AWD : Frankly no bloody difference, at all. Road handling: hands-down CX5 felt better - straight road, curves, slight bumps, up, down. I'd say at least 3 times better.
Finally, yes: performance felt better, easier to climb, overtake with XT but frankly for those momentary flashes of performance requirements do I really feel the need to pay (1) and (2) and sacrifice all else. Nah. So, I went for CX5.

I appreciate this review. It doesn't sound like you're dickriding the CX5 like a lot of people here do, and are being honest about it. You make me glad i chose the CX5 over the XT. The handling thing looks even on paper, so glad to have your organic take on it.

 

[sbkim]

Agreed with Uno... thanks for the great review. Really helps alot and exactly the info I was looking for. However, thanks for making my decision even more difficult

Now, I am sure it's market specific but XT fully loaded vs CX5 loaded is about $2K differential where I am. This is certainly testament to strong demand / sales of CX5. It looks like XT will get a refresh in 2017 for various cosmestic and perhaps upscale inside. I'd like to see what 2017 CX5 has to offer before pulling the trigger.

One counterpoint I have is that I thought CX5 (GT2.5L) was noisier - mostly from engine - than the XT.

OP originally asked for advice regarding XT verses CX5 and as usual in this forum everyone just have to deviate...

When buying, I did comparison with XT. XT is definitely better in terms of visibility. I'd say 3 times better. Interiors: CX5 much better, especially 2016. Cabin noise - no comparison, CX5 much quieter.

Now comes the million $ difference - performance of XT. Yes, I could feel the difference. I drive daily to NY, so trust me when I say I do feel the need for quick acceleration and power. However, I ended up selecting CX5 for these reasons: (1) Turbo forces me to buy premium and I hate recurring expenses which will ONLY go up. (2) XT cost me about $5000 more. If I add (1) and (2) together with an ownership of at least 5 years, it really adds up. This was a huge factor swaying me towards CX5.
Then I drove both: XT's transmission felt detached, dunno. CX5: more alive. AWD : Frankly no bloody difference, at all. Road handling: hands-down CX5 felt better - straight road, curves, slight bumps, up, down. I'd say at least 3 times better.
Finally, yes: performance felt better, easier to climb, overtake with XT but frankly for those momentary flashes of performance requirements do I really feel the need to pay (1) and (2) and sacrifice all else. Nah. So, I went for CX5.

 

[Unobtanium]

Agreed with Uno... thanks for the great review. Really helps alot and exactly the info I was looking for. However, thanks for making my decision even more difficult

Now, I am sure it's market specific but XT fully loaded vs CX5 loaded is about $2K differential where I am. This is certainly testament to strong demand / sales of CX5. It looks like XT will get a refresh in 2017 for various cosmestic and perhaps upscale inside. I'd like to see what 2017 CX5 has to offer before pulling the trigger.

Drive them both if they are within $2K of each other and buy the one you like best. They are both solid vehicles.

 

[MikeM.]

Drive them both if they are within $2K of each other and buy the one you like best.

Because $2,000.00 is just chump change anyway?

What if I could show you how that $2,000.00 could grow into a small fortune by the time you retire? And if those who want to weaken/eliminate S.S. get into power, you're gonna need all the retirement funds you can generate.

And that's before we consider things like the cost delta between regular and premium gasoline, potential turbo replacement, higher insurance costs, etc. etc. etc..... In short, that is terrible financial advice! In today's world, you need to make smart financial decisions unless you're a trust fund baby.

 

[bmninada]

Agreed with Uno... thanks for the great review. Really helps alot and exactly the info I was looking for. However, thanks for making my decision even more difficult

Now, I am sure it's market specific but XT fully loaded vs CX5 loaded is about $2K differential where I am. This is certainly testament to strong demand / sales of CX5. It looks like XT will get a refresh in 2017 for various cosmestic and perhaps upscale inside. I'd like to see what 2017 CX5 has to offer before pulling the trigger.

One counterpoint I have is that I thought CX5 (GT2.5L) was noisier - mostly from engine - than the XT.

OP - actually $2000 is a lot of money! I know, I know when you're looking at $30,000 vs $32,000 its less than 10% and when you're financing the monthly difference is even less but think about it? What exactly you're getting in return: simply put bigger HP which will help you accelerate/overtake quicker. But how many times would you actually need that DIFFERENCE in power? Remember you ain't comparing the XT with (say) a Ford Pinto here. CX5 is pretty darn fast and quick. A counter argument for you: CX5 road handling is better. What does it mean? When making a fast maneuver and cutting into a lane the quicker the car responds to the steering wheel over-shadows the powerful engine. Now this is where CX5 over-takes the XT. Try both. Drive both. Try rapid steering wheel turns. You'll see how CX5 response is quite instantaneous. I think you did mention family. In which case many over-look this but having a fast turn response gives you significant safety advantage. Especially when you suddenly need to turn the car left/right to avoid something and you're driving above 50 mph.
Another counter argument favoring CX5. Reminding you - I drive daily into NY City and thru NY City. When jumping lanes, cutting between cars, flooring to jump the yellow lights/yellow cabs and those darn Citi bikes - I TOUCH the acceleration - there's a response. Which means, even though I have less HP than XT I can bet you by the time the XT "wakes" up (transmission - remember: being detached) I am already in the other lane with less HP!
1 last thing - again something you may not care about. BUT: no one ever spoke about this: CX5 I am finding turn radius is really awesome. I have an extremely bad parking location and trust me I have seen sedans doing 3 to 5 K-turns (3-point turns) while my CX5 cuts it out, like butter. I had the XT, remember: I had to make 2 K-turns to take it out.

Your question: CX5, pre 2016 was noisy. Dunno what the heck the Mazda guys did but its really quiet - my 2016 CX5. My problem is the OEM F@%##ed up tires - Toyo. They are freakish noisy.

 

[Unobtanium]

Because $2,000.00 is just chump change anyway?

What if I could show you how that $2,000.00 could grow into a small fortune by the time you retire? And if those who want to weaken/eliminate S.S. get into power, you're gonna need all the retirement funds you can generate.

And that's before we consider things like the cost delta between regular and premium gasoline, potential turbo replacement, higher insurance costs, etc. etc. etc..... In short, that is terrible financial advice! In today's world, you need to make smart financial decisions unless you're a trust fund baby.

I'd rather have a fat smile than a fat bank account. If all my bills are paid, and I'm okay for retirement, I'm going for smiles, not zero's in the acct. Can't take either with me...

Know what I want? Land, my house, plenty of ammo for my weapons, and the time to hike, shoot, camp, and enjoy life. Part of that means a fun vehicle at times, when times dictate it as feasible. But I have no aspirations of blowing huge chunks of change after I retire.

 

[bmninada]

I'd rather have a fat smile than a fat bank account. If all my bills are paid, and I'm okay for retirement, I'm going for smiles, not zero's in the acct. Can't take either with me...

Know what I want? Land, my house, plenty of ammo for my weapons, and the time to hike, shoot, camp, and enjoy life. Part of that means a fun vehicle at times, when times dictate it as feasible. But I have no aspirations of blowing huge chunks of change after I retire.

UB - please be careful while hunting!