Mazda CX-5 vs BMW X3 | TestDrive Showdown
- Thread starter fdew
- Start date
One of the many variances between countries
GJ-Molestor
Banned
- :
- 2011 BMW 528i, 2015 Mazda 6, 1995 Nissan Maxima Manual
the cx5 looks far better. Its a much newer vehicle, what sort of comparison is this?
Mazda seems to be pushing the whole "we're just as good as the Luxury brands" add campaign right now. There's the one with the CX-9 masked going against others in the luxury segment. The difference between the mazdas and the luxury cars is the engines. The standard X3 engine pumps out 240hp and 260 ft-lb of torgue vs the Mazda's 187hp and 184 ft-lbs of torque. I think mazda could better compete with the luxury brands if they where to offer a more powerful engine, the 2.5T in the CX-5 perhaps. I really think the mazda CX-5 could be the poor mans BMW if they offered the turbo engine. The new model is actually almost 1 second slower then the 2016's because of the added weight of sound deadening and other add ons. I like the style, I like the new interior with better seats, quitter, heated steering wheel, memory seats, all that stuff but give me some more power. Mazda if you are listening, please offer a signature CX-5 like you do with the CX-9 and give the option of the 2.5T engine in it!!! I would rather pay 35-40K for the CX-5 then 55-60K for the X3
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
Not everyone wants more and more power.
To me, 184hp is sufficient, though not optimal for a vehicle this heavy.
The test was comparing to diesel X3, which has similar horsepower with much more torque.
At cdn $20K less .... I would pick CX5.
I owned a BMW 540iA before. Tons of problems.
They don't call it "Break My Wallet" for no reason.
I actually got my money back and some from ext warranty. That does not happen often.
To me, 184hp is sufficient, though not optimal for a vehicle this heavy.
The test was comparing to diesel X3, which has similar horsepower with much more torque.
At cdn $20K less .... I would pick CX5.
I owned a BMW 540iA before. Tons of problems.
They don't call it "Break My Wallet" for no reason.
I actually got my money back and some from ext warranty. That does not happen often.
I don't believe this. On what do you base this assertion?
GJ-Molestor
Banned
- :
- 2011 BMW 528i, 2015 Mazda 6, 1995 Nissan Maxima Manual
100% agree with that.
I dont understand why Mazda sales with the 6 sedan has really been lacking because the lighter, lower sedans are better suited to the output of the 2.5 rather then the heavier cx5, which is selling well.
I also dont understand why everyone complains about the 185hp figure. Most of those people have never driven the car and fail to realize that Torque is much more important for daily driving. The 2.5 makes 185 ft/lb of torque at 3250rpm (lower rpm then all of its competitors) which is really quite impressive for a smaller sedan and it gets the car going quickly with good gearing + a short first gear.
But for the CX-5, theres no doubt that a 2.5 turbo would be better.
Mazda quote a 0-60 of 9.5 secs for my model in a 2017. Weighs over 1740kg.
One publication published an 8.4 sec #. I dont believe it as well. 0-60 times are all over the place for many vehicles. For me the 90 lbs and lower profile means a .3 second delay max.
Thats what I am going with
Relatively 'niche' automaker, it's slightly smaller than competitors (Murrica!), sedan sales falling in general to CUV sales...
I notice skyactiv engines are really different (moreso than any other engine I've experienced) post break-in period. In a good way. I suspect that the super low engine tolerances, high moly content of factory oil, and well the fact the thing needs to be broken in all make new skyactiv engines sluggish. The tranny which seems to always be in gear and engine brakes also needs to be broken in. It takes about 3 oil changes to make the engine a bit more responsive. All of this may contribute as to why all of a sudden the skyactiv engines really come to life later.
What do you guys think?
GJ-Molestor
Banned
- :
- 2011 BMW 528i, 2015 Mazda 6, 1995 Nissan Maxima Manual
Like Kaps said, 0-60 times are all over the place. Did the driver brake torque? Or just pin the throttle which is roughly .4 seconds slower to 60?
It mainly goes down to how the engine was treated when new and how well it was broken in. An engine that excessively burns oil will have noticeably worse performance and fuel economy then one with an engine that burns no oil. Aggressive driving early on in the cars life doesnt give many parts to break in properly which dulls Performance and results in slower times. This is why you have different results with over one 1 second variations in between, which is huge. Why dont you measure your own cars speed instead of reading about other ones?
90 pounds cannot cause a .3 variation in acceleration times. there are many different factors to a cars acceleration
I dont understand why people complain about inaccurate acceleration times (not you Kaps) like Do you drive in 0-60 mode every single time youre on the road? Come on...you want real daily driver torque and response. 185 ft/lb at 3250rpm might be lacking for the larger CX-5, but its ENOUGH for daily driving. Spend some time with the car revving to various RPMs and learn how an engine actually works...
That's for the diesel I assume?
I know this has been discussed many times, but the '17 2.5 gasser FWD has track results of 7.8 and the AWD has track results of 8.1 and 8.4. There is not a one second difference. See test results here: https://www.0-60specs.com/mazda-cx-5-0-60-times/
And fuel economy is much better. I'm over 10,000 miles now and my combined fuel economy over the last 1600 miles is 30.2 MPG. That is about 75% highway, mostly interstate and about 14% better than I was getting with my 2014.
Attachments
Last edited:
Diesel 0-100km/h (0-96mph) been tested here:
Isn't 100 KMH roughly 60 MPH, not 96 MPH?
