Isn't 100 KMH roughly 60 MPH, not 96 MPH?
Woops I meant 0-62mph! Corrected it!
I was thinking 0-60mph is equivalent to 0-96km/h
Isn't 100 KMH roughly 60 MPH, not 96 MPH?
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?
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.
![]()
Yes that's for a 2017 175ps AWD auto sport. at over 1740kg
From the Mazda brochure, the spec shows its slower and thirstier I believe than my 2016 car which weighs 1703kg in UK spec.
Its the in gear acceleration times I focus on, 0-62 times are only useful for comparison through the range.
My car is shown as 0-62 in 9.4 secs. Manual version is 8.8 secs.
So only a difference of 0.1 sec between 2016 and 2017 cars.
Torque is much more important for daily driving.
1. the skyactiv engine does not have super tight clearances.
2. all engines and transmissions need to be broken in, not just skyactiv. the 3 oil changes hold true for any engine.
I owned a BMW 540iA before. Tons of problems.
They don't call it "Break My Wallet" for no reason.
Didn't you spend quite a lot of time last week telling me power was more important than torque?
The 2017 Mazda6 2.5 4 cylinder slayed its competition http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ving-impressions-review-car-and-driver-page-4
0-60 in 7 seconds flat. The Accord 4 cylinder with CVT had 0-60 in 7.6 seconds. The 6 also braked better and had better lateral numbers. Interior and exterior looks better but is subjective. Just slayed the Accord.
The reason I bring this up is there is a discretion for those times compared to 14-16 Mazda6 models previously tested. Same engine. It could be because the 17 model they tested was more broken in? Also if you compare a magazine's 0-60 test of a car (new) vs their long term test (30k miles or more later), the 0-60 times often decreases a tiny bit like 0.1 or 0.2 seconds....on the exact same car.
The 2017 Mazda6 2.5 4 cylinder slayed its competition http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ving-impressions-review-car-and-driver-page-4
0-60 in 7 seconds flat. The Accord 4 cylinder with CVT had 0-60 in 7.6 seconds. The 6 also braked better and had better lateral numbers. Interior and exterior looks better but is subjective. Just slayed the Accord.
The reason I bring this up is there is a discretion for those times compared to 14-16 Mazda6 models previously tested. Same engine. It could be because the 17 model they tested was more broken in? Also if you compare a magazine's 0-60 test of a car (new) vs their long term test (30k miles or more later), the 0-60 times often decreases a tiny bit like 0.1 or 0.2 seconds....on the exact same car.
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?
In the UK the Mazda 6 isn't highly thought of, winning no group tests, the accord was the same when it was on sale.
Each country's reviewers are biased a different way - UK/Europe are mostly towards European vehicles.. at least that is my impression from reading numerous reviews. USA reviewers praise in most cases USA vehicles. We were the same here but since in less than a years time no cars will be made here, this will change.
So no surprise the CX-5 doesn't win
It's all good and great that some people are perfectly happy with the standard 2.5 in the CX-5 and the 187hp 184ft-lbs specs. I like my 2016 just fine and plan on keeping it for now. Nothing about the 2017 really stands out as a must have for me to race to the dealership and get a trade going for a 2017. Sure I like the new interior but could do with out the tablet style dash. The memory seats, heated steering wheel and better armrests and seats all appeal to me. But I like faster cars. problem is my wallet doesn't. If one looks at other luxury small cross overs, BMW X3, Audi Q5, MB GLC300, Volvo XC60 they all have roughly the same specs for their base engines, around 250hp and about 260-270 ft-lb of torque. Now if you look at the specs for the cx-9 with the 2.5 they list it as 250 hp with 310 ft-lbs of torque. If mazda truly wants to be compared to the luxury segment in fit and finish and styling then they should offer something that competes with them in engine performance. They already have a great handling chassis that is fun to drive. A 227-250hp 2.5T in the CX-5 would be a very smart purchase for anyone considering any of the german crossovers, but it would cost much less. When I first drove the CX-5 I had just driven an X3 and I felt like the CX-5 was very similar in driving dynamics it just didn't have the same pick up as the more powerful X3 but was about 20K less.
Cx-5 wins every one, Mazda 6 wins none.
So I don't see any bias to other makes.
I think it's all in your head, honestly. At least, all the test-data seems to show that it is, when you compare the 0-60 times on long-term test autos magazines get including Skyactives.
Mazda 6 has won hereCx-5 wins every one, Mazda 6 wins none.
So I don't see any bias to other makes.
The Mazda 6 has been widely appraised and slaughtered its competition with both numbers and praise over at car and driver. It’s not selling because it’s brand image is lacking.
the 6 bests all of its competition just as well as the CX-5 does, only the CX-5 makes it more apparent because of the even more dull competition.