Drove the 2014 today

[Even Steven]

Gosh, 15.5 may be a little optimistic.

I'd guess more like a low 16.

A little late to the party, but Car and Driver magazine managed to get a 15.8 out of their 2014 tester. Not bad at all for a new engine with just 30 more HP.

 

[MikeM.]

A little late to the party, but Car and Driver magazine managed to get a 15.8 out of their 2014 tester. Not bad at all for a new engine with just 30 more HP.

Not bad at all.

But unless you're in a competitive race, it's not much better than the 17.1 second quarter mile they timed the CX-5 equipped with the 2.0L engine.

1.3 seconds less in the 1/4 mile makes the bigger engine only 7.6% faster. For drivers who don't race or tow heavy loads, the 2.0L offers more than enough real world performance. This is obvious to me every time I load it up and take a trip in the mountains.

 

[sweet]

Had them both, '13GT and now the '14GT. You don't have to be in a competitive race to appreciate the extra power, especially merging into highway traffic, passing, climbing hills, crossing a busy intersection from a stop. All this for about 1mpg less...The more I drive the '14GT, the more I realize what was missing in the '13GT, POWER....No comparison.

 

[V8toilet]

When I had my 2.0 Sport I got 0-60 in 8.5 seconds on average and my running average MPG was 35 MPG. Using the same G-tech accelerometer in the same spot and some wheel spin I got a pretty consistant 0-60 in 7.5 seconds with my 2014 and my running average is now 33.3 MPG. Both suv's are FWD. where the 2.5 shines is in more low end torque. It doesn't have to downshift as much on hills and highway on ramps are easier to tackle. I still think the 2.0 is a worthy engine though and I do remember feeling that extra 112 lbs when I first got right into the 2014 Touring.

 

[CX-SV]

Good perspective from long-term owners of both 2.0 and 2.5's. Thanks sweet and V8toilet for that feedback.

 

[sqgator]

I drove both FWD versions of the 2.0L and 2.5L recently. Test drives were on normal surface in a busy city with a lot of stop and go. Quite a gap in pick up between 2.5L and 2.0L, bigger engine's pick-up was graceful while 2.0L struggled a bit. The high rev engine of 2.0L complied with request when stepping on it but with noisy engine. On the other hand, due to the 19-inches rim, the ride on the 2.5L was a bit stiff/rough, guess it's a trade-off between handling and ride. But the 2.5L CX-5 was still not as fast/fun as the new Subaru Forester, though CX-5 seems to be better built and nicer looking. I did end up buying the 2.5L CX-5 after 2 generations of Toyota RAV4s over the years.

 

[V8toilet]

But the 2.5L CX-5 was still not as fast/fun as the new Subaru Forester, though CX-5 seems to be better built and nicer looking.

The Subaru might feel faster but the CX-5 is a bit quicker. Look at these statistics from Consumer Reports testing, both are AWD. Subaru probably employs the same trick most other manufacturers do by making the throttle very sensitive to trick you into thinking the car is faster than it is. I through in some other statistics for the fun of it. The Subaru is lighter and gets slightly better fuel economy too.

2014 Subaru Forester 2.5i Premium 4-cyl CVT vs Mazda CX-5 Touring 4-cyl 2.5

0 to 30 mph, sec. 3.5 2.8
0 to 60 mph, sec. 8.7 8.0
45 to 65 mph, sec. 5.8 5.0
Quarter-mile, sec. 16.8 16.2
Quarter-mile, mph 86 86

Avoidance maneuver, max speed
52.0 52.5

CR's overall mileage, mpg
26 25

Engines available
2.5-liter 4 (170 hp); 2.0-liter 4 turbo (250 hp) 2.0-liter 4 (155 hp); 2.5-liter 4 (184 hp)

CR's city/highway, mpg
18 / 35 19 / 32

Curb weight, lb.
3,370 3,435 *

Owner Satisfaction
Good vs Excellent

Reliability
Good vs Excellent

Owner Costs
Good vs Good

NHTSA overall frontal-crash
Good vs Excellent

NHTSA front-crash, driver/front passenger
Excellent/ Good vs Excellent/ Excellent

IIHS front small overlap
Good vs Marginal

 

[Even Steven]

Not bad at all.

But unless you're in a competitive race, it's not much better than the 17.1 second quarter mile they timed the CX-5 equipped with the 2.0L engine.

1.3 seconds less in the 1/4 mile makes the bigger engine only 7.6% faster. For drivers who don't race or tow heavy loads, the 2.0L offers more than enough real world performance. This is obvious to me every time I load it up and take a trip in the mountains.

Disagree completely. It's really not about hard numbers or about racing.....it's more about transforming the vehicle into something that can more easily handle real-world driving situations, such as driving up hills (or better yet--mountains) or merging onto the highway. I drove the 2.0L and found it to be lacking power. The 2.5L, on the other hand, completely transforms the driving experience. From behind the wheel, it feels like much more than a 30 HP difference between the two engines. If I never drove up hills or merged onto highways, I might be happy with the 2.0L engine.

 

[sqgator]

The Subaru might feel faster but the CX-5 is a bit quicker. Look at these statistics from Consumer Reports testing, both are AWD. Subaru probably employs the same trick most other manufacturers do by making the throttle very sensitive to trick you into thinking the car is faster than it is. I through in some other statistics for the fun of it. The Subaru is lighter and gets slightly better fuel economy too.
QUOTE]

The Subaru Forester I drove was a new 2.0XT, turbo 4 with 240 HP, definitely a lot more powerful than CX-5's 185HP. It's actually quicker than the Posche Cayenne 3.6L. The Subaru 2.5i is no match for CX-5 2.5L.

 

[V8toilet]

Didn't know that detail, definitely makes a difference.

 

[CX-SV]

And the Subie 2.0XT turbo is no match for CX-5 gas mileage either (not to mention pricing).

 

[MikeM.]

If I never drove up hills or merged onto highways, I might be happy with the 2.0L engine.

To each their own - some people wouldn't be happy with 300 hp. Personally, I believe in using driver skill to merge onto freeways without needing excessive power. For example, I avoid following another car too closely on freeway on ramps. That way I can build speed quickly as I prepare to merge without coming upon the tail of the jack rabbit in front of me who wants to hold the entire on-ramp hostage until he's ready to accelerate to freeway speed. The CX-5 rails the freeway on-ramps, I have to watch my speed or I'll be going too fast to merge. Just drive the first part of the on-ramp a bit slower so you have room to accelerate to speed before merging.

As for the mountains, last winter I drove the little 2.0L engined CX-5 AWD over 50 round trips up/down a steep and twisty mountain pass, sometimes loaded with 4 large adults and all their winter gear. I had power to spare so I'm not sure what the issue is.

One of my favorite features of my CX-5 is how it sips the fuel without driving like a cramped little econo-box (I'm 6-04 and 210 lbs.). I wouldn't take a bigger engine for free if it meant I had to stop for fuel 15 miles sooner.

 

[Even Steven]

To each their own - some people wouldn't be happy with 300 hp.

Well, in my case, I think 180-ish is just fine. 300 HP would definitely be overkill for the CX-5, although it would probably be a lot of fun! But like I said earlier, the extra 30 HP really transforms the way the car drives. I feels like a lot more than 30 HP from the seat of my pants, that's for sure. I've heard other people say the same, so I'm relatively certain that I'm not alone.

Personally, I believe in using driver skill to merge onto freeways without needing excessive power. For example, I avoid following another car too closely on freeway on ramps. That way I can build speed quickly as I prepare to merge without coming upon the tail of the jack rabbit in front of me who wants to hold the entire on-ramp hostage until he's ready to accelerate to freeway speed. The CX-5 rails the freeway on-ramps, I have to watch my speed or I'll be going too fast to merge. Just drive the first part of the on-ramp a bit slower so you have room to accelerate to speed before merging.

Me too. I wouldn't exactly call it any kind of special skill though, it's more like common sense. My car makes close to 400 HP and I still use the same approach as you when merging onto a highway. Keep in mind that I'm not bashing the 2.0L engine. Of course it has enough power to merge. But the 2.5L engine does it better in my opinion. It's an appropriate level of power for the CX-5 as far as I'm concerned. And to be completely honest, I wouldn't be disappointed if the engine made another 20HP or so.

As for the mountains, last winter I drove the little 2.0L engined CX-5 AWD over 50 round trips up/down a steep and twisty mountain pass, sometimes loaded with 4 large adults and all their winter gear. I had power to spare so I'm not sure what the issue is.

Again, any car can drive up mountains. It's not a matter of if a vehicle can do it....it's more a matter of how a vehicle does it. For me, the 2.5L engine makes a world of difference. Honestly, I don't really have a dog in this fight because I don't even own a CX-5 yet. I'm basing my opinions off the time that I've had behind the wheel of CX-5's with both engines. When I had my first test drive, it was in a 2013 model with the 2.0L and I walked away a bit disappointed in the power. But once I drove the 2.5L engine, I no longer felt that way at all.

One of my favorite features of my CX-5 is how it sips the fuel without driving like a cramped little econo-box (I'm 6-04 and 210 lbs.). I wouldn't take a bigger engine for free if it meant I had to stop for fuel 15 miles sooner.

Fair enough. The 2.0L is obviously good enough for you. I'm just glad that Mazda decided to go with the 2.5L engine so that it is good enough for me too.