I don't even know what to say about this.....

[Nodnerb]

....other than hhaahahahahhahaaa, and they must be joking.

"The first impression of this car was good. Front visibility! Nimble and quick, I had to check the specs to see it had no turbo." (uhm)

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=21907

 

[HandA]

I could actually see nimble and quick as a description. It isn't fast but it isn't the slouch that it gets so often made out to be to me quick and fast, to me, are two different things. And the ability to maneuver quickly can make it feel quicker than it is. The looking for a turbo thing might be a bit much but around town in traffic it does have pep and for non-car people that might mean 'turbo'.

We test drove a Pontiac G8 GT which I still think is one of the best looking cars and although it had tons of power it wasn't a car I looked forward to jumping onto a crowded freeway in. Sure it could scream its way into traffic but I prefer a more surgical approach to getting into tight spaces. The G8 just felt huge, which I guess for some is a good thing and sure you can turn it with the rear wheels but that isn't always practical But immediately after that we drove a Buick Regal with the little 4 cyl and it was more fun and I drove it harder than the G8; pushing it much harder through the same freeway on-ramp and it was fun. A review I once read of the Miata said it was a car you could drive at 99% of its capability 99% of the time and to me that is much more fun. Sure, in a perfect world you get everything, smooth ride, great handling, tons of power, good fuel economy and nimble but since the McLaren 12C was out of my price range I'll settle for a just a few of those things

 

[NinjaNoises]

This guy has lost all credibility. lol.

 

[CX-SV]

Incompetent, and probably a (non) driver of something like a 1st gen Prius.

 

[HandA]

I'm also guessing since he mentions the dealership in the review and has the dealers URL shown in the picture of the car they probably have an arrangement with the dealership and don't want to say anything negative.

And depending on what car he currently drives it could fee fast.... I guess... Compared to my 2.4l Toyota Tacoma the CX5 is fast(er). And the Tacoma was fast compared to the old Ford Ranger I had to drive for work years ago.


Although after some searching he has reviewed some faster cars:

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=19959

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=12987

 

[popeyecahn]

....other than hhaahahahahhahaaa, and they must be joking.

"The first impression of this car was good. Front visibility! Nimble and quick, I had to check the specs to see it had no turbo." (uhm)

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=21907

Consider the source, Greeley isn't even on a par with Saskatoon...

 

[sxa]

Consider this, I drive a 2006 Hyundai Accent, 0-60 is around 13 seconds, with some drivers reporting 0-60 seconds on the CX-5 at 9 seconds I would say it would be considered "quick" in my book. As already pointed out, quick and fast are two different things. Nimble I don't know since I haven't driven one yet.

 

[CX-SV]

It's nimble (for a SUV).

 

[SayNoToPistons]

It's got better steering response than a new Audi A6 and can easily trump most compact cars in pure handling. Hell, it lapped Laguna Seca 3 seconds faster than a Mazda 3 2.0 (non SkyA-G). Straight line performance of the SkyA-G 2.0L in the CX-5 on the other hand... Well, we all know about that.

 

[Nodnerb]

Consider this, I drive a 2006 Hyundai Accent, 0-60 is around 13 seconds, with some drivers reporting 0-60 seconds on the CX-5 at 9 seconds I would say it would be considered "quick" in my book. As already pointed out, quick and fast are two different things. Nimble I don't know since I haven't driven one yet.

Point is, no one in their right mind would find this car so unbelievably 'fast' that it must have a turbo. In fact, no one in their right mind would call this car fast, or quick. It can seem to have a smidge of pep at the right time and circumstance, but not much, and never a turbo. Nimble, yes.

 

[CX-SV]

Exactly, and thankfully cars that do 0-60 in 13 seconds are not benchmarks in NA.

I won't be splitting hairs on quick or fast here lol.

 

[sxa]

Point is, no one in their right mind would find this car so unbelievably 'fast' that it must have a turbo. In fact, no one in their right mind would call this car fast, or quick. It can seem to have a smidge of pep at the right time and circumstance, but not much, and never a turbo. Nimble, yes.

Mind you I am not a car guy, and I have never driven a vehicle that had a turbo engine. I do see that the reviewer has driven faster vehicles, and reading the review I see that he did seem to be kissing up to the car perhaps for the sake of agreements with the dealer advertised on the site.

 

[Jcanracer]

I used to drive a supercharged Toyota Matrix. With my mods it felt "quick" (175hp, 150-ish lbft), but the stock TRD blower on a stock automatic Matrix felt just a tad slower than the CX5. I even remember that a 1.8t Audi A4 used to only come with 155hp and was considered quite capable at the time. I'm not leaping to the defense of this reviewer, but I do believe his driving experience may have something to do with the relative nature of calling this car "quick". The turbo comment is only excusable if he's a dinosaur who never drove a modern performance car.

I marvel at this car on every sweeping on/off-ramp for its handling and its "quickness" but that's only after taking into account:
1. the fact that it is a compact SUV
2. the fact that the engine is only an economy-tuned 2 liter
3. the embarrassing fact that my previous car was a torque-less rice-rocket which couldn't decide if it was a hatchback or compact suv (lol2)