A thirsty twin turbo v6 and still only doing low 6's? For 50K? Yeesh. Must be a really heavy suv.
Mazda want more CX-5 sales in the USA?. Make it a bit wider and longer
- Thread starter Mazdauser100
- Start date
A thirsty twin turbo v6 and still only doing low 6's? For 50K? Yeesh. Must be a really heavy suv.
785 pounds heavier than CX5T, but it does 5.7 0-60 according to Car&Driver.
Last edited:
Okay those are better numbers.....I was about to say damn! thats slow. The ST got me interested when I saw the commercials. The real world mpgs would increase total cost of ownership outside my budget unforunately.
edit: ST model..you'd think it would be lighter?
Thats my point theyre are still big hulking CUV so there is that much more mass to overcome to make it handle and drive nice. Versus a car ..... which 3 major automakers have basically quit making. Im not saying CUV should not exist. Rather it shouldnt be the only thing that exists.
You could get an Focus ST (or GTI) for under 30k. A CUV that even comes close performance wise is a lot more money.
Were ending up with less choices and mediocre performance at the price points most people can afford.
For those of us who want Zoom Zoom anyway.
You could get an Focus ST (or GTI) for under 30k. A CUV that even comes close performance wise is a lot more money.
Were ending up with less choices and mediocre performance at the price points most people can afford.
For those of us who want Zoom Zoom anyway.
Last edited:
- :
- Denver, CO
He said that because the CX-5 could benefit from wider tires and wheels on the grip department for taking those corners.
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
They put 22's on the damn thing, made it heavier on purpose...lol
"can't lose with 22's", umm YES you can...
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
I will be the first to admit that MPG is probably one of the main reasons we don't get wider tires and wheels as well. I will also admit, again, that MPG isn't that big of a deal to me, hell anything above 20 is golden and appreciated...
Yea I think youre probably right about that.
It's bigger than the CX5, but smaller than the CX9, but heavier than CX9 by 230 pounds and costs at least $5K more than CX9 Signature which is $46,700.
But it does beat the CX5T by a half second and the CX9 by 1.5 seconds 0-60.
CX5 wheelbase 106
Edge ST wheelbase 112
CX9 wheelbase 115
CX5 length 179
Edge ST length 189
CX9 length 199
CX width 73
Edge ST width 76
CX9 width 78
I agree that it would be nice if Mazda could figure out how to get at least 300 HP out of the 2.5T for the CX5 GTR and Signature and keep the weight close to the same and add some 19X8.5 wheels and 245 tires. But the GTR and Sig are both superb for the price as they are. Everyone always wants more. Maybe someone will make a big turbo and tune at some point.
Nobody pays that though. They are being advertised here for as little as $40.5
That V6 was designed for trucks, with a priority on low end torque. I sampled it in the Fusion Sport back when I was thinking of buying one of those. It doesn't have a lot of top end, it's not that fast revving, and first gear is tall, so I'm not surprised about the 0-60 time. But it has a lot of highway passing power available without a downshift. Or if you're just cruising the backroads and give a little push on the pedal, you get a nice push in the back with minimal noise or fuss. It's also a heavy engine, and the extra front end weight spoiled the nice handling balance of the Fusion, so I didn't buy it.
My previous car was a Focus ST. I had to get rid of it and buy something that could comfortably fit two kids in car seats. When I got the '17 CX-5, my first thought was to put wider wheels on it that could accommodate sportier rubber. But the brakes are just adequate as is, and the suspension on the '17 is borderline soft, tuned for the stock level of grip I think. I figured if I put stickier tires on it, that would expose the limits of the stock brakes and suspension. So I started looking at dampers, stiffer anti-roll, bigger brakes... But I ended up not doing any of that. In the end it's still a crossover, with 185 HP, and an auto trans.
The auto press loves to talk up the CX-5 as being sporty, fun, driver focused, an enthusiast's SUV. It is better than your average crossover in that respect, leading the mainstream class even, but when the class is full of turd sandwiches, that's not saying much. I think I let myself get sucked in by the press hype a little bit, and then came back to reality. I could throw money at it to make it drive better, but it still wouldn't drive like a car, and I missed driving a car.
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
...
When I checked they were $42K MSRP stock. But if you add the ST Performance Brake Package $2695, you are forced to get the 401A Package that adds another $5585 and gets the MSRP over $50K. Maybe they are discounting over $10K, I didn't know that. $40K would seem fair if you get all that included.
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
No way...The current CX-5 GTR And Sig will hang right with a 15-17 Focus ST that he traded in. Sure, it may not hang as well at the track or twisties, or if you add some mod goodies, but other than that, nah, and I*d rather have the CX-5...
I mean more from the handling perspective. The ST being FWD it cant really use all its power anyway. But yea a CX-5 with some upgrades!
Probably the biggest thing that bothers me is all the body lean.
Anyway..... the Edge ST would be a better if they figured out a better transmission IMO
I do know one person who has one and seems pretty happy with it.
Probably the biggest thing that bothers me is all the body lean.
Anyway..... the Edge ST would be a better if they figured out a better transmission IMO
I do know one person who has one and seems pretty happy with it.
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
I agree, Edge isn*t even an option for me, being a Ford and trannie to boot, lol, pass...
Give me a Mazda version of the X3 M40i and let me give you $45-50k for it and let*s be done with it...LOL. That*s one sweet ride, but no way would I buy it (driven the s*** outta one though)...
Yup and RWD biased please. Thats one thing about the X3 vs CX-5 that you cant easily fix.
I don't think I could comfortably fit my kids with car seats in the Macan anyway. The rear seat doesn't look any bigger than my Focus and the cargo space is tiny. Besides, if I had $60k laying around to spend on a sporty car, I'd buy the Caterham Seven I've always lusted after.
You're right. I checked again and the one advertised at $40k was a 400A with MSRP $45 something. The 401A models are $49-51k MSRP and advertised $45-46k.
They're close in straight line acceleration, which isn't my priority. My AWD Fusion will easily run away from my CX-5 in the twisties, and feels much better being driven quick. It isn't close, and that's just a family sedan. We can pat ourselves on the back for having a "driver focused" CUV, but it's still a CUV and it's kind of soft by Mazda's (old) standards.
NelsonLewis
Banned
- :
- 16.5 CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech BRMica
Yep, Red, between this post and the one before it, ^this guy gets it!^
Ive said it many times before, but Im almost certain the Alabama crossover will aim for that space. Itll be a giant leap toward premium.
