It is not necessary to have EPA test every car, too expensive.
Most are close and certainly better than random websites with random postings by unnamed sources.
Motor Trend compares SUVs
- Thread starter PJO
- Start date
It is not necessary to have EPA test every car, too expensive.
Most are close and certainly better than random websites with random postings by unnamed sources.
It did from my perspective.
In almost 30 years I've never bought a car without three pedals, so for me the choice is between the base CX-5 and the base Tiguan. I'm replacing a '99 Passat that has never had a single problem (which may be a surprise to many) in 80k miles (I had a company car for the first 6 years we had it) with something that can carry a lot of stuff and can tow a reasonable amount.
I've driven both cars several times and was blown away how much better the CX-5 handled and rode - and that was compared to the Tiguan's standard 16" wheels. Also, the sight lines on in the CX-5 are far superior, and it has a lot more cargo room. In the Tiguan's favor it's much quicker with a stick and FWD than the version MT tested, and gets much better gas mileage than the EPA numbers with a manual. A friend has seen 32 mpg on the highway routinely with his MT6 Tiguan, and since getting the APR ecu flash does a bit better - and the car will break 6 seconds to 60. Another advantage for the Tiguan (seeing that the gas mileage isn't that much worse than the Mazda) is that with the Westfalia hitch system that VW doesn't sell here, the Tiguan will tow 2200 kilograms -that's the rating outside of the US. Also, there's a rebate on them; a dealer in RI had one on their website for $4000 off msrp. That's less than $20k...
Since I won't be towing that much or that often, the CX-5 will probably get the nod. It's not that quick, but the drivetrain is very smooth and elastic and the gearbox is awesome. The interior was a happier place to be and the worst thing I can think of is that I'll have to send the wheel out since the MSRP on a leather wrapped wheel at the parts dept. is about $450 (I'll use http://dallassteeringwheel.com/ for a nicer wheel at a fraction of the price).
I see both cars being equal with a mediocre 3 year warranty and lame dealer networks and customer service. Although this will be my first Mazda, I've thought about a 5 door Mazda3 for a long time and have lurked here for about 4 years, as well as on the 3revolution, where I made a few posts. I've read that 3 owners seem to have a lot of complaints about rattles, which I haven't had with my VWs (my first being an '83 GTI I bought new and am preparing to sell) but are common to new VWs as well. The fact that Mazda N/A ECUs aren't tunable has been a disappointment, but I think the CX-5 should respond okay (better throttle response, a few more hp, and better mpg) to an intake and replacement of that big heavy muffler under the cargo floor.
I'm a bit disappointed (along with others) that the manual CX-5 is color-limited and has no options, but I've investigated a Katzkin interior and a Signature Auto Products (the old ASC/Inalfa people) sunroof, and if I get tired of silver I'll wrap it red or white with some 3M 1080 film.
Sorry for the rambling first post.
After having the car for a week now, I've noticed that the auto trans likes to up-shift a little early, probably to get better fuel economy, but it kind of makes the car fall on its face in light foot driving. By using the manual mode, it helps the feel quite a bit because you can hold the gear longer. Our old car had this feature and I never used it, but the mazda feels a lot better and makes for (little) better driving experience.
Yes, I've noticed that too, and some of this is related to Atkinson cycle effect for fuel efficiency (the feeling of larger throttle opening needed in light foot driving). Of course the end result is best in class fuel economy so far.
CX-5 v. Escape test drives
The CX-5 is a great CUV, but its biggest weakness imo is lack of powertrain options here in the US and Canada. After test driving a CX-5 AWD GT and a 2013 Escape AWD Titanium, I liked both but preferred the 2.0L Escape, mainly due to the more powerful 2.0L option. As someone who values acceleration a bit more than handling, and given the Escape's handling was for me close to the CX-5, I found the Escape more fun to drive. Yes, the Escape's interior is too busy, but did have some nice touches like both SD card USB audio system inputs, non-driver-blinding map light placement on the sides and for me better driver seat with more lateral support. I'm not thrilled with the Escape's exterior (looks a bit like a shrunken minivan to me) and don't like its higher price, but I suspect Ford will have big discounts especially around end of year, especially for higher trim models. I loved the CX-5's handling, looks, and much cleaner interior, but around town it felt slow. My V6 Tribute feels quicker (at least in straight line
. If only the CX-5 had the SkyActive-D option here - superior torque and fuel efficiency in one package...
The CX-5 is a great CUV, but its biggest weakness imo is lack of powertrain options here in the US and Canada. After test driving a CX-5 AWD GT and a 2013 Escape AWD Titanium, I liked both but preferred the 2.0L Escape, mainly due to the more powerful 2.0L option. As someone who values acceleration a bit more than handling, and given the Escape's handling was for me close to the CX-5, I found the Escape more fun to drive. Yes, the Escape's interior is too busy, but did have some nice touches like both SD card USB audio system inputs, non-driver-blinding map light placement on the sides and for me better driver seat with more lateral support. I'm not thrilled with the Escape's exterior (looks a bit like a shrunken minivan to me) and don't like its higher price, but I suspect Ford will have big discounts especially around end of year, especially for higher trim models. I loved the CX-5's handling, looks, and much cleaner interior, but around town it felt slow. My V6 Tribute feels quicker (at least in straight line
. If only the CX-5 had the SkyActive-D option here - superior torque and fuel efficiency in one package...Yeah, I have no idea why mazda didn't give us the diesel option. Seems like that combo would be a win-win-win (handling, torque, MPG) combo. If it comes here next year, I'd strongly consider trading ours in for one.
Ive driven the diesel jetta, and loved the low torque! But the idea of owning a VW scares the crap out of me. LOL
Ive driven the diesel jetta, and loved the low torque! But the idea of owning a VW scares the crap out of me. LOL
I did the math and it's $5K (US dollars) more expensive in the UK for the popular TT version of diesel engine.
I'm reading early 2013 for US to get diesel. I'm not estimating that it will be the highest volume or predominate selling version in US market, but it's still a important addition to product line that needs to happen. Certainly VW has done well in US market selling diesels in volume.
The main car magazine here in Australia did a far more comprehensive 15 car review. The gave first place to the CX-5 mainly on the basis of comparing only the best available engine in each car selection. They stated that the gasoline/petrol CX-5 is so underpowered that it would have pushed the CX-5 into 3rd place if it has been considered.
As per Motor Trend:
"SkyActively slow!" I shouted during my loop in the newest soft-roader from Mazda. Admittedly, not only is my phrase not very funny, but this comparison test isn't the first time I've uttered it. The CX-5 is really slow, especially in passing situations."
"Two, if Mazda could add a little extra power to the CX-5, well, winner, winner, Mazda chicken dinner."
I've said it time and time again..... I really can't wait for the Mazda US to realise they made a mistake and import the diesel.
It does 0-60 in 8.0 seconds instead of 9.4.
Furthermore in passing, it's far quicker than anything in this comparison.
Motor Trend lists passing as PASSING, 45-65 MPH. In Australia we have higher highway speeds, so need even more oomph. We list 80-120km/h instead - which is 50-75mph.
Taking the times I have in km/h and bringing them down to 45-65mph, I would estimate the CX-5 diesel as being about 3.8 seconds compared to the petrol's 5.2.
There is a world of difference.
In terms of getting off the line and highway acceleration, the diesel performs roughly like a small V8 or a large V6.
As per Motor Trend:
"SkyActively slow!" I shouted during my loop in the newest soft-roader from Mazda. Admittedly, not only is my phrase not very funny, but this comparison test isn't the first time I've uttered it. The CX-5 is really slow, especially in passing situations."
"Two, if Mazda could add a little extra power to the CX-5, well, winner, winner, Mazda chicken dinner."
I've said it time and time again..... I really can't wait for the Mazda US to realise they made a mistake and import the diesel.
It does 0-60 in 8.0 seconds instead of 9.4.
Furthermore in passing, it's far quicker than anything in this comparison.
Motor Trend lists passing as PASSING, 45-65 MPH. In Australia we have higher highway speeds, so need even more oomph. We list 80-120km/h instead - which is 50-75mph.
Taking the times I have in km/h and bringing them down to 45-65mph, I would estimate the CX-5 diesel as being about 3.8 seconds compared to the petrol's 5.2.
There is a world of difference.
In terms of getting off the line and highway acceleration, the diesel performs roughly like a small V8 or a large V6.
Regarding the US cost of diesel, it's NOT going to be $5,000.
If I look at the price difference in Australia of all components and add-ons, we're paying about 50% extra on top of US prices.
To get a diesel costs us $3000 extra.
I would estimate the additional cost would be $2000.
For the performance increase though, it's a complete bargain.
Google any comparison between the two in news articles in Australia and you'll see the same thing repeated.....
The gasoline is an "slow elephant" where as the diesel is a "sports performance car like SUV".
The diesels' sales are so high everywhere mainly due to how bad the petrol is.
The CX-5 is now the 7th biggest seller in Australia, with nearly 70% of all sales being the diesel.
Unfortunately the diesel is NOT available on the base vehicle - which was expected to be the main seller. So in effect, instead of paying $3000 to get a diesel, many are having to spend the extra $10,000 to go up a model wrung and then option the diesel.
But go into any Mazda showroom after people do a side by side comparison and their response is the same. The petrol is "slow"!.
Heck.... Motor Trend said it themselves and they don't have a diesel to compare with.
Regarding the Tiguan....
The same Australian car magazine that trashed the petrol CX-5 and praised the CX-5 diesel, also went to say the reverse of the Tiguan. They reckon the turbo petrol is far better than the Tiguan diesel.
I think the main reason for the CX-5's diesel success is two factors:
1. Use of twin turbo (one for 1000rpm and one for high rpm)
2. Radical change to compression ratio to allow higher rpm - the Tiguan engine is old school and lardy in comparison
The torque and power of the CX-5 diesel are much higher than the Tiguan, and the performance puts it well ahead of even the turbo petrol Tiguan (which is considered to be a good performer).
The Turbo-petrol Tiguan has a slightly fast 0-60 speed. But on the highway overtake, the diesel CX-5 smashes the Tiguan.
Motor Trend compares:
Tiguan Turbo Gasoline:
0-60: 7.8 seconds
PASSING: 4.2 seconds
Mazda CX-5 Gasoline:
0-60: 9.4 seconds
PASSING: 5.2 seconds
Using Australian figures:
Mazda CX-5 Twin-turbo Diesel
0-60: 8.0 seconds
PASSING: 3.8 seconds
Last edited:
smithsm1984
Member
I can't stand Ford's interiors right now.
Oh, sure, they LOOK amazing. And they feel good, too. But that big center console cuts room out of the driver's space and the controls seem confusing just because someone fashionable on the design team decided more buttons = BETTER! And My Ford Touch is only the best iteration of a terrible idea (putting a touch screen in a car).
I was looking at a new Focus originally but I could not stand the interior. Which is why I ended up looking in the CX-5's direction.
Oh, sure, they LOOK amazing. And they feel good, too. But that big center console cuts room out of the driver's space and the controls seem confusing just because someone fashionable on the design team decided more buttons = BETTER! And My Ford Touch is only the best iteration of a terrible idea (putting a touch screen in a car).
I was looking at a new Focus originally but I could not stand the interior. Which is why I ended up looking in the CX-5's direction.
Went down to the dealership to grab my free 20.00 target gift card and a "chance to win a new escape!" and looked a little closer at the escape. They had a SEL that seems to be equipped pretty darn close to the Touring model, but it also costs 28,6XX w/ the 1.6 eco boost. It's a nice vehicle.
