I Hate My CX-5

[Unobtanium]

That is an unfair comparison given the huge frontal area of CX-5. That said, my CX-5 gets same city MPG as my 2007 Civic. My CX-5 gets 32MPG in mountain drivng which is far better than my 2007 Civic. The Civic beats the CX-5 in high speed highway driving due to huge wind resistance.

A fair comparison would be your 2002 Inginiti G20 to a 2015 Maxda3 /w skyactiv.
Mazda3 has over 30% better MPG and more power too.

2002 Infiniti G20 2.0L w/4-speed Auto____ 2015 Mazda3 2.0L /w 6-speed Auto
Horsepower: 145 hp @ 6000 rpm________ Horsepower: 155 @ 6000 rpm
Torque: 136 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm__________ Torque: 150 lb-ft @ 4000rpm
Compression Ratio: 9.5 : 1____________ Compression Ratio: 13:1
EPA MPG: 23/30_____________________ EPA MPG 30/41
Curb Weight: 2961 lbs _______________ Weight: 2918 lbs.

Mazda3 with 2.5L engine only loses 2mpg, but gains 185hp/184lb-ft. Infiniti G20 is fuel eating slug in comparison.

Skyactiv is a huge gain over competitors too. 15% more power, and 15% better MPG due to figuring out a way to run 13:1 compression with 87 octane gas. No one else can do that. The hybrid six speed transmission with low speed torque converter and use of wet clutches above 5mpg preserves the fun factor while increasing MPG. Others have resorted to CVT for efficient transmission, but horrible driving experience.

I really wonder how much difference the better aero and that slick 6-speed auto over the 4-speed slush box makes.

However, I did not take into account FRONTAL AREA of the SUV. I bet the SUV is "slicker" than the G20, but you can't argue with frontal area.

I am quite happy with my CX-5, I guess I just don't appreciate everything since it's not actually fast, etc. but when you break it down like such, I can see the engineering working for me somewhat. I would point out though that the RAV-4 doesn't use a CVT and it makes similar power, and in AWD trim only gets 1-2mpg less (it is also a 3500#-ish 6-speed auto with AWD and similar aero, if I had to guess). It also runs on 87 octane. So, all-told, it looks like all that technology is worth about 10hp, and 2 mpg. Not bad, honestly. I'll take it!

 

[Unobtanium]

In CR tested the Subaru Forester with the CVT transmission bested the CX5 (both 2.0 and 2.5) in their combined mileage testing by 1 mpg. Still the CX5 2.5 is much quicker to 60 MPH than the Subaru and in my opinion Mazda's 6 speed wet clutch auto is fantastic. I'm so glad Mazda didn't follow the herd and put a rubber band transmission in their SUV too.

How durable is it, though, in the long haul, is my question. In 100K miles will it be shot like the clutch in a manual might be, or will it plug along for 300K miles like the "rubber band transmission" in my friend's Lexus and my Dad's Chevy work van. Well, it has over 400K on it, but, you know what I mean...

That 1mpg fuel saving or so that it's worth will end up causing you to seriously pay the piper if it means a new trans every 100K miles.

 

[RG_Flyer]

How durable is it, though, in the long haul, is my question. In 100K miles will it be shot like the clutch in a manual might be, or will it plug along for 300K miles like the "rubber band transmission" in my friend's Lexus and my Dad's Chevy work van. Well, it has over 400K on it, but, you know what I mean...

It would take an incompetent driver or some extreme thrashing to trash a clutch at 100K. I have seen many exceed twice that.

 

[piotrek91]

I really wonder how much difference the better aero and that slick 6-speed auto over the 4-speed slush box makes.

However, I did not take into account FRONTAL AREA of the SUV. I bet the SUV is "slicker" than the G20, but you can't argue with frontal area.

I am quite happy with my CX-5, I guess I just don't appreciate everything since it's not actually fast, etc. but when you break it down like such, I can see the engineering working for me somewhat. I would point out though that the RAV-4 doesn't use a CVT and it makes similar power, and in AWD trim only gets 1-2mpg less (it is also a 3500#-ish 6-speed auto with AWD and similar aero, if I had to guess). It also runs on 87 octane. So, all-told, it looks like all that technology is worth about 10hp, and 2 mpg. Not bad, honestly. I'll take it!

The 2.0L cx-5 with the 6MT has the best HWY fuel economy of any CUV/SUV sold in the USA (including diesels and hybrids). The car came out in 2012 as a 2013 model and to this day, no other automaker has been able to beat the 35MPG hwy rating.
Only the tiny 2016 Honda HR-V with its 1.8L matches that figure.

 

[piotrek91]

How durable is it, though, in the long haul, is my question. In 100K miles will it be shot like the clutch in a manual might be, or will it plug along for 300K miles like the "rubber band transmission" in my friend's Lexus and my Dad's Chevy work van. Well, it has over 400K on it, but, you know what I mean...

That 1mpg fuel saving or so that it's worth will end up causing you to seriously pay the piper if it means a new trans every 100K miles.

The "wet clutch" that V8toilet is talking about is simply a lock-up torque converter. There is no reason to believe that the lock up torque converter will ever fail. Unlike in DCT transmissions, most of the work of the clutch is accomplished by a torque converter and the lockup only occurs at very small speed differentials.
All modern automatic transmissions use a lock up torque converter and so did your famous g20.
The only real difference between the Skyactiv transmission and other automatics is clever software and good marketing.

I would be willing to be that the Skyactiv AT will outlast any CVT.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

Knowing that Toyota is turning to Mazda for engine tech makes believe that my CX-5 will fine a decade out. Granted not sure if this includes transmission tech...but if this rig treats me with the same reliability as our old '96 Protege I have no issues.

 

[yrwei52]

I am quite happy with my CX-5, I guess I just don't appreciate everything since it's not actually fast, etc. but when you break it down like such, I can see the engineering working for me somewhat. I would point out though that the RAV-4 doesn't use a CVT and it makes similar power, and in AWD trim only gets 1-2mpg less (it is also a 3500#-ish 6-speed auto with AWD and similar aero, if I had to guess). It also runs on 87 octane. So, all-told, it looks like all that technology is worth about 10hp, and 2 mpg. Not bad, honestly. I'll take it!

Alll automakers have to meet the CAFE standard in the future. They have to push the fuel economy as much as they can no matter what the cost is. Even for 1 mpg fuel saving they still have to do it. Mazda's SkyActiv saved not just 1~2 mpg for their Mazda3, but saved 6~8 mpg! That's remarkable improvement! At this stage even a single mpg fuel saving is difficult to do!

2011 Mazda3 2.0L w/5-speed Auto (last model year without SkyActiv)
Horsepower: 148 hp @ 6500 rpm
Torque: 135 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm
Compression Ratio: 10.0:1
EPA MPG: 24 City/33 Highway
Curb Weight: 2922 lbs

2015 Mazda3 SkyActiv 2.0L w/6-speed Auto
Horsepower: 155 hp @ 6000 rpm
Torque: 150 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Compression Ratio: 13.0 : 1
EPA MPG: 30 City/41 Highway
Curb Weight: 2917/2918 lbs (Fed/CA)

How durable is it, though, in the long haul, is my question. In 100K miles will it be shot like the clutch in a manual might be, or will it plug along for 300K miles like the "rubber band transmission" in my friend's Lexus and my Dad's Chevy work van. Well, it has over 400K on it, but, you know what I mean...
That 1mpg fuel saving or so that it's worth will end up causing you to seriously pay the piper if it means a new trans every 100K miles.

SkyActiv auto tranny uses multi-plate clutch to transmit power at the speed over 5mph. It very similar to the traditional lock-up clutch used in the torque converter hence the durability should be about the same or better. Speaking about the "rubber band transmission", to be fair, modern CVT has switched to metal chain from unreliable rubber band. But I have never heard any Lexus or Chevy work van has CVT, not to mention a "rubber band" CVT lasts 300K~400K miles! You'd be very lucky a "rubber band" CVT can last 100K miles!

 

[CC58]

I really wonder how much difference the better aero and that slick 6-speed auto over the 4-speed slush box makes.

However, I did not take into account FRONTAL AREA of the SUV. I bet the SUV is "slicker" than the G20, but you can't argue with frontal area.

I am quite happy with my CX-5, I guess I just don't appreciate everything since it's not actually fast, etc. but when you break it down like such, I can see the engineering working for me somewhat. I would point out though that the RAV-4 doesn't use a CVT and it makes similar power, and in AWD trim only gets 1-2mpg less (it is also a 3500#-ish 6-speed auto with AWD and similar aero, if I had to guess). It also runs on 87 octane. So, all-told, it looks like all that technology is worth about 10hp, and 2 mpg. Not bad, honestly. I'll take it!

Compare 0-60mph times of CX-5 to RAV4 and CRV. The CX-5 is .5 to a full second faster, and they all have same 185hp rating. That is because the CX-5 torque peak is about 1000rpm lower due to 4-2-1 full length header.

 

[Unobtanium]

By "rubber band" I meant the elastic operation feel of the conventional torque converter transmission. Sorry if we missed each other on the terms.

I am simply distrustful of new technology, and with all the issues Ford and BMW and GM have had with DI, it scares me a little that my CX-5 has "super DI" as I call it, with a ton more pressure, etc.

You better bet I don't let my gas tank drop below 1/4. Religiously.

Why am I distrustful of new technology? I worked for Ford back when the 6.0L came out and replaced the 7.3L...I have been burned time and again on "latest and greatest", and seen it happen to others quite often, as well. That is just one example.

 

[Unobtanium]

Compare 0-60mph times of CX-5 to RAV4 and CRV. The CX-5 is .5 to a full second faster, and they all have same 185hp rating. That is because the CX-5 torque peak is about 1000rpm lower due to 4-2-1 full length header.

I could google this for myself, but maybe you know. Is the gearing across the board more or less equal?

So far, I am VERY pleased with how my CX-5 handles "acceleration in higher gears". I have owned V8 sports cars (well, one, when I was a kid, before I learned to drive stick...) that downshifted more going up hills, and my Jeep Grand Cherokee 5.7L?! HOLY CRAP! It was CONSTANTLY! unlocking and locking the torque converter going through the mountains. I mean CONSTANTLY. Nothing was "wrong" with it (other than leaking and a ton of other stuff...but I mean nothing wrong with THAT aspect of it) that caused this, that's just how it operated. And yes...it sucked fuel like crazy. I ahve been very pleased with the performance and feel of this driveline in my CX-5. It does feel very "direct", and it does accelerate VERY WELL at low rpm locked in higher gear.

 

[CC58]

The "wet clutch" that V8toilet is talking about is simply a lock-up torque converter. There is no reason to believe that the lock up torque converter will ever fail. Unlike in DCT transmissions, most of the work of the clutch is accomplished by a torque converter and the lockup only occurs at very small speed differentials.
All modern automatic transmissions use a lock up torque converter and so did your famous g20.
The only real difference between the Skyactiv transmission and other automatics is clever software and good marketing.

I would be willing to be that the Skyactiv AT will outlast any CVT.

The CX-5 transmission is very different. The torque converter is very small and only works below 5mph and above that locks-up. Above 5mph it switches over to wet clutches similar to dual-clutch transmissions. The tiny torque converter prevents vehicle from rolling backwards while at a stoplight on an incline (a problem for dual-clutch transmissions). The tiny torque converter adds very little to centrifical mass improving MPG. The loss less wet clutch system has high efficiency compared to traditional torque converter only transmissions.

 

[Unobtanium]

The CX-5 transmission is very different. The torque converter is very small and only works below 5mph and above that locks-up. Above 5mph it switches over to wet clutches similar to dual-clutch transmissions. The tiny torque converter prevents vehicle from rolling backwards while at a stoplight on an incline (a problem for dual-clutch transmissions). The tiny torque converter adds very little to centrifical mass improving MPG. The loss less wet clutch system has high efficiency compared to traditional torque converter only transmissions.

Is it weaker and more prone to damage from flooring it at a stop-light?

 

[yrwei52]

By "rubber band" I meant the elastic operation feel of the conventional torque converter transmission. Sorry if we missed each other on the terms.

Sorry, I thought you're referring to CVT as it was using rubber band/belt in the earlier days... (boom05)

I am simply distrustful of new technology, and with all the issues Ford and BMW and GM have had with DI, it scares me a little that my CX-5 has "super DI" as I call it, with a ton more pressure, etc.
You better bet I don't let my gas tank drop below 1/4. Religiously.
Why am I distrustful of new technology? I worked for Ford back when the 6.0L came out and replaced the 7.3L...I have been burned time and again on "latest and greatest", and seen it happen to others quite often, as well. That is just one example.

I have some doubts too towards all of these new technologies. But that's the fact of life right now and we have to deal with many of them. As long as there is non-turbo, non-CVT cars available, I'll choose them. SkyActiv is also having many new and different technologies, but these mostly based on very simple principles and any issues should be easy to resolve. It seems SkyActiv-D diesel has some problems with DPF Regeneration system and Mazda couldn't resolve. But so far there is less serious issues on SkyActiv-G and SkyActiv-Drive AT we have here.

Is it weaker and more prone to damage from flooring it at a stop-light?

SkyActiv-Drive AT is transferring power directly via multi-plate clutch most of time. The towing capacity at 2,000 ponds is at the high side among the similar CUV's. The design on the auto tranny should be strong and reliable.

 

[metalfab]

Mazda 5 2012+ over a CX-5 GT any day. The 5 has better acceleration, handling and capacity for people or luggage. Like you I tried very hard to like the CX-5 but its lack of the above and next to useless infotainment unit made me dislike the car more. Gas mileage was about 9.3L/100KM on the CX-5, after 1500KM on the OD my 5 is at 9.8L/100KM, not a significant amount. Made the switch back to the 5 and driving is now a pleasure again.

 

[gazelle]

The 5 has better acceleration, handling and capacity for people or luggage.

In the US CX-5 is 183 hp and 64.8 cu ft for luggage
The 5 is 157 hp and 44.4 cu ft
While acceleration may differ by country your luggage statement is not valid
There are some things that I don't like about my CX-5 but there's no way you can hate it for acceleration handling and capacity

 

[metalfab]

In the US CX-5 is 183 hp and 64.8 cu ft for luggage
The 5 is 157 hp and 44.4 cu ft
While acceleration may differ by country your luggage statement is not valid
There are some things that I don't like about my CX-5 but there's no way you can hate it for acceleration handling and capacity

Either vehicles engine and capacity specs are the same in Canada as the US.

The way the 5 uses the space means you have more storage. Ive done a few 2 week family road trips to confirm this. We scaled down the amount we took in the CX-5. The 2nd row has much more leg room, the seats recline and have arm rests.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Either vehicles engine and capacity specs are the same in Canada as the US.

The way the 5 uses the space means you have more storage. Ive done a few 2 week family road trips to confirm this. We scaled down the amount we took in the CX-5. The 2nd row has much more leg room, the seats recline and have arm rests.

That motor has turbo options.

 

[metalfab]

That motor has turbo options.

Not without voiding a 5 year unlimited mileage warranty

 

[yrwei52]

I Hate My CX-5 - Mazda5 vs. CX-5

Mazda 5 2012+ over a CX-5 GT any day. The 5 has better acceleration, handling and capacity for people or luggage. Like you I tried very hard to like the CX-5 but its lack of the above and next to useless infotainment unit made me dislike the car more. Gas mileage was about 9.3L/100KM on the CX-5, after 1500KM on the OD my 5 is at 9.8L/100KM, not a significant amount. Made the switch back to the 5 and driving is now a pleasure again.

In the US CX-5 is 183 hp and 64.8 cu ft for luggage
The 5 is 157 hp and 44.4 cu ft
While acceleration may differ by country your luggage statement is not valid
There are some things that I don't like about my CX-5 but there's no way you can hate it for acceleration handling and capacity

Either vehicles engine and capacity specs are the same in Canada as the US.
The way the 5 uses the space means you have more storage. Ive done a few 2 week family road trips to confirm this. We scaled down the amount we took in the CX-5. The 2nd row has much more leg room, the seats recline and have arm rests.

To be fair, Mazda5 is a mini-minivan with a 3rd-row seat. It's pretty popular in Asia as it can carry more passengers conformably and has more cargo room if you fold the 3rd seatback. Mazda5 does have more cargo room at 44.4 cu ft with the 3rd seatback down but CX-5 has only 34.1 cu ft with the 2nd seatback up! But these are about a few benefits the Mazda5 can have.

Mazda 5 is based on older technology hence the 2.5L engine, which has the same displacement as CX-5 SkyActiv 2.5L, has only 157 hp. Not to mention the old 5-speed automatic which is less efficient than SkyActiv-Drive 6-speed automatic. The EPA fuel economy is lagging behind at 21 city /28 highway mpg than CX-5's 26 city /33 highway mpg for a FWD. Acceleration and handling? There is no way to compare these from a mini-minivan to a CUV!

I haven't mentioned soccer-mom image on a minivan... Minivan, although once very popular and very useful and efficient as the people and cargo mover, is simply a dying breed in the US. (boom08)

That motor has turbo options.

Not on the Mazda5 unless you're taking about aftermarket add-on.

 

[metalfab]

To be fair, Mazda5 is a mini-minivan with a 3rd-row seat. It's pretty popular in Asia as it can carry more passengers conformably and has more cargo room if you fold the 3rd seatback. Mazda5 does have more cargo room at 44.4 cu ft with the 3rd seatback down but CX-5 has only 34.1 cu ft with the 2nd seatback up! But these are about a few benefits the Mazda5 can have.

Mazda 5 is based on older technology hence the 2.5L engine, which has the same displacement as CX-5 SkyActiv 2.5L, has only 157 hp. Not to mention the old 5-speed automatic which is less efficient than SkyActiv-Drive 6-speed automatic. The EPA fuel economy is lagging behind at 21 city /28 highway mpg than CX-5's 26 city /33 highway mpg for a FWD. Acceleration and handling? There is no way to compare these from a mini-minivan to a CUV!

I haven't mentioned soccer-mom image on a minivan... Minivan, although once very popular and very useful and efficient as the people and cargo mover, is simply a dying breed in the US. (boom08)

Not on the Mazda5 unless you're taking about aftermarket add-on.

Skyactiv is just another marketing term. Just like CUV, etc.

Just like the gas mileage ratings on the window are exaggerated from All car makers. I had the 2012 5 for a year and the CX5 for about the same. Gas mileage is very similar.

You can compare drive, handling, acceleration, etc very easily. Just drive both and youll see the 5 outclasses the CX5.

Soccermom label is unfortunate, lol, however, there is more utility in a minivan or in this case, a wagon, over a CUV. A true minivan generally has more cargo area than most SUVs. The "utility" name is definately misused.