How do you like your manual CX-5?

[Hickenlooper]

Hi all,

I am in the market for a new car and I really like the 2017 CX-5 with a manual transmission. I am looking for the experience of current owners (2017 models or older) to tell me how they enjoy them! The local dealer has 3 in stock and I am going to take one for a drive next week.

How do you like the 2.0L and manual transmission for daily driving? Is it fun and sporty or too little power? I do a ton of driving each year, how is your real world fuel economy? Also, I do light towing of a seadoo/utility trailer, how does the 2.0L handle towing?

Any info/Pros and Cons would be much appreciated. Thanks!

 

[GJ-Molestor]

Hi all,

I am in the market for a new car and I really like the 2017 CX-5 with a manual transmission. I am looking for the experience of current owners (2017 models or older) to tell me how they enjoy them! The local dealer has 3 in stock and I am going to take one for a drive next week.

How do you like the 2.0L and manual transmission for daily driving? Is it fun and sporty or too little power? I do a ton of driving each year, how is your real world fuel economy? Also, I do light towing of a seadoo/utility trailer, how does the 2.0L handle towing?

Any info/Pros and Cons would be much appreciated. Thanks!

The 2L is completely out of question for the CX-5. Ive tried the 2L in a 2800pound Mazda 3 and felt like it wasnt enough at all. You would have trouvke towing in the CX-5 with the 2.5 for sure.

Hell, even the 2.5L is a little underpowered for the CX-5, that engine is better suited to the 6 sedan. I would advise looking to the larger engine only as you dont get any sort of mileage penalty when you choose the extra power.

As for the manual, Ive heard nothing but good things about it. Seems like a great unit.

 

[piotrek91]

Hi all,

I am in the market for a new car and I really like the 2017 CX-5 with a manual transmission. I am looking for the experience of current owners (2017 models or older) to tell me how they enjoy them! The local dealer has 3 in stock and I am going to take one for a drive next week.

How do you like the 2.0L and manual transmission for daily driving? Is it fun and sporty or too little power? I do a ton of driving each year, how is your real world fuel economy? Also, I do light towing of a seadoo/utility trailer, how does the 2.0L handle towing?

Any info/Pros and Cons would be much appreciated. Thanks!

After almost 5 years and 69,000mi I love driving my CX-5.

It's not a fast car, but it's not under-powered either.
It has no trouble at all going up steep freeway passes fully loaded at well over the speed limit.

The gear ratios of 1st-2nd-3rd are kind of far apart, so it's difficult to accelerate smoothly and quickly around town.
This make the car feel slower than it is at low speeds, and it requires some work to keep up with 300HP minivans on the way to the grocery store.

3rd gear and above the shifts are completely effortless. Merging and passing on the highway is easy as long as you plan ahead.

I've never towed anything, but others here have and noone reported any issues. 1st gear is very short, so starting from a stop is effortless.

Fuel economy is very dependent on where and how you drive.
All CX-5's do poorly on short trips and they also do not do well at high speeds (75MPH+)

My fuel economy is good. I can 35MPG in everyday driving if I drive for economy, or 30MPG if I drive briskly. On long highway drives I'll typically get 29MPG due to high speeds.

If you actually enjoy driving for the sake of driving, the 2.0L manual is excellent.
If you want a car that mindlessly gets you from A-B, you'll be better off with an automatic 2.5L.

 

[GJ-Molestor]

After almost 5 years and 69,000mi I love driving my CX-5.

It's not a fast car, but it's not under-powered either.
It has no trouble at all going up steep freeway passes fully loaded at well over the speed limit.

The gear ratios of 1st-2nd-3rd are kind of far apart, so it's difficult to accelerate smoothly and quickly around town.
This make the car feel slower than it is at low speeds, and it requires some work to keep up with 300HP minivans on the way to the grocery store.

3rd gear and above the shifts are completely effortless. Merging and passing on the highway is easy as long as you plan ahead.

I've never towed anything, but others here have and noone reported any issues. 1st gear is very short, so starting from a stop is effortless.

Fuel economy is very dependent on where and how you drive.
All CX-5's do poorly on short trips and they also do not do well at high speeds (75MPH+)

My fuel economy is good. I can 35MPG in everyday driving if I drive for economy, or 30MPG if I drive briskly. On long highway drives I'll typically get 29MPG due to high speeds.

If you actually enjoy driving for the sake of driving, the 2.0L manual is excellent.
If you want a car that mindlessly gets you from A-B, you'll be better off with an automatic 2.5L.

You cannot get the 2.5 with a manual? The 2L is just not enough for the CX-5. I would do a cat delete and ECU tune for 91 octane if you had to settle with the 2L.

I agree, the gear ratios are pretty far spaced apart between first and second gear. Its like a super short first gear, long second gear and then 3-6 is really well spaced and 6th is just super, super long. If Im driving around 100/h on the highway because of traffic I used 5th gear so the engine doesnt bog. The cars transmission has crazy long gearing, but the final drive ratio is very short and peppy on these cars which does give it a more responsive feel.

Regardless, the transmissions gear ratios are very well suited to the output of the 2.5L and t gets the car moving along quite well when revving between 3-4kRPM.

Note - it seems like the 2L and 2.5 have identical gear ratios and possibly just different final drive ratios for the 2L. The gearing is much better with the 2.5L. When you downshift in the 2L, its ether not enough acceleration or too much... there is no happy sweet spot like in the 2.5 which has far more usuable shift points. The 2L could use a 7 or 8 speed.

I do agree that this car isnt too efficient in city driving unless you are driving conservatively with the 2.5.

If you want something smaller more nimble, faster, better efficiency Id go with the 2.5 Mazda 6 Manual.

 

[Kaps]

For me - the allure of 35 mpg in 2.0 is just too great. MZD should have offered it as a cheap competitor to Rogue just like Rogue Select. Keep it about 1 grand less, 1500 less for MT.
It would be on my shopping list just as an option.

 

[J.R.]

I want the diesel with the stick!!!!

Everything I've read the 2.0L isn't enough power for the CX5. You can make a go of it with the stick but you'll have to work the third pedal a lot if you want to GO. On a good note, Mazda's manual is a joy to 'work'

It's really a shame they only offer it with the 2.0L in the base model

 

[Unobtanium]

Stick is fun, but honestly, I'd go auto in a CUV/SUV.

 

[cbslc]

You can get a manual 2017? Not in the US 2016 was the last year of the manual. I have a 2l manual and am just fine with it. I live in Utah and hit the mtns quite often. I hate how autos shift every 20s in the mtns. It makes my wife car sick. Just pop it in 5th, 4th on the really hard ascents and leave it. In the city I'm getting 30-35 with early shifting, skipping gears and coasting. Highway mpg is around 36 if under 75mph. After 75, or if there is a year wind, mpg drops quickly. Reverse sucks! It's just not natural to me. All my prior cars had reverse where 6th is, and I am having issues with 1st vs reverse. Wish there was a gear indicator before I released the clutch. Hopefully I'll get used to it!

 

[mazdadude]

You can get a manual 2017? Not in the US 2016 was the last year of the manual. I have a 2l manual and am just fine with it. I live in Utah and hit the mtns quite often. I hate how autos shift every 20s in the mtns. It makes my wife car sick. Just pop it in 5th, 4th on the really hard ascents and leave it. In the city I'm getting 30-35 with early shifting, skipping gears and coasting. Highway mpg is around 36 if under 75mph. After 75, or if there is a year wind, mpg drops quickly. Reverse sucks! It's just not natural to me. All my prior cars had reverse where 6th is, and I am having issues with 1st vs reverse. Wish there was a gear indicator before I released the clutch. Hopefully I'll get used to it!

That is what is nice about having the M mode on the Mazda Automatic transmission. If you are going up down a lot of hills, you just move the lever to manual mode and hold what ever gear you want, or downshift upshift as YOU see fit. Then when back in stop and go traffic, you can move the lever back to D mode and be automatic again.

 

[GJ-Molestor]

You can get a manual 2017? Not in the US 2016 was the last year of the manual. I have a 2l manual and am just fine with it. I live in Utah and hit the mtns quite often. I hate how autos shift every 20s in the mtns. It makes my wife car sick. Just pop it in 5th, 4th on the really hard ascents and leave it. In the city I'm getting 30-35 with early shifting, skipping gears and coasting. Highway mpg is around 36 if under 75mph. After 75, or if there is a year wind, mpg drops quickly. Reverse sucks! It's just not natural to me. All my prior cars had reverse where 6th is, and I am having issues with 1st vs reverse. Wish there was a gear indicator before I released the clutch. Hopefully I'll get used to it!

Skipping gears is terrible for your synchros. Not a good habit.

For any sort of spirited driving you will not be happy with the output of the 2.0 engine. Torque is your friend. The more you make of it at a lower RPM, the better the car gets up and goes but that also results in efficiency because you dont need to rev the car as hard. The 2.5 makes 185 torque at 3250rpm vs 150 at 4000rpm. If you drive both engines conservatively, I guarantee that the 2.5 will get the same fuel economy. As soon as you throw some spirited driving and passing into the mix, the torquey and responsive 2.5 barely brakes a sweat while moving along while making a truly lovely sound, especially for a 4 cylinder. Its really quite impressive when you realize its only a 4 cylinder engine.

I have the 2.5L in the Mazda 6, and i can say right now that you do not want the weaker engine in the heavier car.

That is what is nice about having the M mode on the Mazda Automatic transmission. If you are going up down a lot of hills, you just move the lever to manual mode and hold what ever gear you want, or downshift upshift as YOU see fit. Then when back in stop and go traffic, you can move the lever back to D mode and be automatic again.

Agree. The manual mode is great on these autos. Very responsive and the rev-matched downshifts are very good! The intake blipping of the large displacement motor is intoxicating

 

[Anchorman]

Skipping gears is terrible for your synchros. Not a good habit.

For goodness sake.

 

[Anchorman]

I want the diesel with the stick!!!!

Everything I've read the 2.0L isn't enough power for the CX5. You can make a go of it with the stick but you'll have to work the third pedal a lot if you want to GO. On a good note, Mazda's manual is a joy to 'work'

It's really a shame they only offer it with the 2.0L in the base model

Our standard box is manual. We can get it with the 2.0G and the 150 powered 2.2D in various specs. It's one of the nicest 6 speed boxes I've come across in a SUV with no notchyness at all. It's very light and smooth.

 

[timberstx]

The 2.0 with manual transmission is a great car. The clutch and the smooth shifter could not be better. As others have said its not a fast car (its not meant to be), but its still so much fun to drive. I find the power very adequate, and do not desire for a larger engine. In this case less is more. I can have fun with driving this car when I want without fear of getting a traffic ticket. The engine revs freely, so it never feels like it is struggling. And with the car being lighter, it just might be better going through some twisty roads.
I think part of the perception of the car being slow is the electronics. You have to be in the right gear if you want to really get this car to move. With computers and throttle by wire, its hard to lug the engine. You will be in the right gear for economy but want to speed up. If you mash down on the accelerator, the computer will just not allow the throttle to just open up and lug the engine. It will be progressive until you get the revs higher. After you get used to how it all works, accelerating quickly is not an issue.
I think mazda got it right with a 2.0 and manual transmission. I have achieved 45 mpg on freeway drives. Sorry to see them drop this configuration.
If I end up getting another car, and I cant get the manual in a CX-5, I might just have to get a Miata. Otherwise this will be my last car.

 

[RG_Flyer]

It is great and fun to drive. The reason I have the CX-5 is for the manual.
There are some on the forum that say a manual has no place in an SUV/CUV. If that is the case, then why is "driving dynamics" and handling always touted as the CX-5's main allure on the forum?
I mean, both attributes are part of the driving experience and what bolstered Mazda's Zoom-Zoom culture of driving as a pleasure and not as a chore.

I use the CX-5 as a commuter with some carry utility. I do like the higher height not because I am geriatric, rather because it provides a better view of the road and the most drive-through infrastructure (banks, toll, security checkpoints, etc) are higher these days than when coupes and sedans ruled the road. That said, my commute allows some spirited driving and both the handling and manual provide an enjoyable drive.

I'm not trying to pretend it is something it's not, but life's practicalities don't allow me a specialty vehicle for each role or a weekend toy, so the manual CX-5 provides blend of comfort, utility, efficiency, and with not too much imagination, some indulgence. I am thankful Mazda provided it for as long as they did and the Canadians, British, and others should consider themselves fortunate to still have a choice.

 

[Hickenlooper]

Wow I didn't check the thread until today but thank you for all of the replies. It seems to be a mixed bag of people content and not content with the 2.0L, I guess to each their own and I won't know until I drive it.

Yes the 2017+ CX-5 models are available in Canada with a manual transmission. My main attraction to the CX-5 is the 35mpg WITH the manual transmission. Other competitors offer a manual but with much worse fuel economy. I currently own a Subaru forester but it only averages 27mpg and the automatic is a drag to drive. My family owns a 2007 Mazda 3 which has bounced between family members over the years. I know they are fun and reliable cars (200K still going strong) although not the quickest.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

I think it depends on what you want.

I love manuals, but for me I say keep it on the Jeeps and the sport cars. I did not want a manual for my CX-5. Having the 2.5L was a better choice in my opinion for me. I enjoy using the manual mode on my auto when I need it (works very well), and then auto when I don't want to use it.

That said, most people I see here with the manuals go the other way, and don't care as much about the speed/size of the engine, and much prefer the joy of driving the manual.

So, you know, depends on what you want!

 

[GJ-Molestor]

I think it depends on what you want.

I love manuals, but for me I say keep it on the Jeeps and the sport cars. I did not want a manual for my CX-5. Having the 2.5L was a better choice in my opinion for me. I enjoy using the manual mode on my auto when I need it (works very well), and then auto when I don't want to use it.

That said, most people I see here with the manuals go the other way, and don't care as much about the speed/size of the engine, and much prefer the joy of driving the manual.

So, you know, depends on what you want!

As much as I love manuals, I fully agree that the 2.5L is a more sensible choice for the crossover, even if it means no manual? The auto is at least very well calibrated.

I recommend skipping the CX-5 and just buy a manual 2.5 Mazda 6. Faster and more fuel efficient with the same engine/power output and much improved handling/stability.

 

[ColoradoDriver]

As much as I love manuals, I fully agree that the 2.5L is a more sensible choice for the crossover, even if it means no manual? The auto is at least very well calibrated.

I recommend skipping the CX-5 and just buy a manual 2.5 Mazda 6. Faster and more fuel efficient with the same engine/power output and much improved handling/stability.

LOL, you seem to have missed my last sentence.

It depends on what you want. Some people are perfectly ok with a 2.0L just to have a manual.

So again, depends on what you want, OP.

 

[J.R.]

Our standard box is manual. We can get it with the 2.0G and the 150 powered 2.2D in various specs. It's one of the nicest 6 speed boxes I've come across in a SUV with no notchyness at all. It's very light and smooth.

I know I'm on the wrong side of the Atlantic when it comes to cars.

As much as I love manuals, I fully agree that the 2.5L is a more sensible choice for the crossover, even if it means no manual? The auto is at least very well calibrated.

I recommend skipping the CX-5 and just buy a manual 2.5 Mazda 6. Faster and more fuel efficient with the same engine/power output and much improved handling/stability.

If I could get a freaking manual 6 wagon with the diesel I could die happy. I'd buy it before the CX5 in a heart beat if it was available here. AWD, even better.

 

[GJ-Molestor]

I know I'm on the wrong side of the Atlantic when it comes to cars.



If I could get a freaking manual 6 wagon with the diesel I could die happy. I'd buy it before the CX5 in a heart beat if it was available here. AWD, even better.

Agreed, that would be just awesome. But unfortunately Americans have a horrid taste in cars and for some reason prefer lumbering SUVs and trucks over a wagon with similar levels of practicality but improved performance and lower running costs with the identical engine...

Id still give the 6 sedan a look over either way. Its got plenty of space for our needs and I have a big family.