New member - consiering CX5

[orion3311]

New member - Considering CX5

Hey guys and gals - been poking around here the past few days and joined up. I'm looking at a Cx5 and figured I'd ask a few questions. This will be my first "new" car, and beings that I have a long 50min/30 mile each way commute I spend a LOT of time in my car, so naturally I'm nervous about what I drop my coin on.

Most of my driving is all highway - My commute is about 20 miles of tunrnpike and 10 miles of side roads, plus I'm HUGE into road trips/amusement parks/recreational type stuff hence why I'm looking at the CX5.

My concerns are coming from a GTI - I know the cx5 is NOT going to be the same car as far as performance, but one reason I haven't bought a new car yet is pitting/abuse the front end will take from the highway miles. I know there's films and clear bra kits - does anyone have experience or regret as far as a CX5 and having the front end get pitted? (My car looks like it was sandblasted with parking lot gravel, but thats also 211k of abuse too).

I'm actually doing an extended test drive today (in the rain - go figure) and I'm still trying to get used to it. Horsepower wise its more than my current car but no turbo means no extra grunt for highway entry either, although the CX5 didn't do too bad.

Lastly - has anyone gotten a FWD model in the Northeast and found it didn't get around in the snow, etc? I'm really debating on that part - I dont think I really need the AWD but I'm sure it would come in handy in the winter.

 

[rickypicky]

With respect to "extra grunt for highway entry", try using the "Sport Mode" switch. I'm not sure if it's avaiable on the the first trim line, but it is available on the Touring and Grand Touring trims.

 

[orion3311]

With respect to "extra grunt for highway entry", try using the "Sport Mode" switch. I'm not sure if it's avaiable on the the first trim line, but it is available on the Touring and Grand Touring trims.

That worked...def a little better. Ive had a much slower car before (Vw golf 2.0) and had no problem driving that, but coming from a turbo car im really on the fence as to whether Ill be happy with the cx5. Otherwise it fits all my requirements.

 

[ALafya]

I made many successful short merge entries with my wife's former Prius, which is somewhat under-powered. There aren't many cars you can buy today in the US which are too slow for normal driving.
Of course, the desire to have a powerful car sometimes overrides logic...
I don't believe 'Sport Mode' will get you a faster 0-60. It will only feel different when not applying full throttle, where the car will maintain higher RPM 'unnecessarily'.

Regarding clear-bra, I have installed one after seeing what happened to the front-end of my previous car on ski-trips I have taken it to.

 

[inlinev]

Hey guys and gals - been poking around here the past few days and joined up. I'm looking at a Cx5 and figured I'd ask a few questions. This will be my first "new" car, and beings that I have a long 50min/30 mile each way commute I spend a LOT of time in my car, so naturally I'm nervous about what I drop my coin on.

Most of my driving is all highway - My commute is about 20 miles of tunrnpike and 10 miles of side roads, plus I'm HUGE into road trips/amusement parks/recreational type stuff hence why I'm looking at the CX5.

My concerns are coming from a GTI - I know the cx5 is NOT going to be the same car as far as performance, but one reason I haven't bought a new car yet is pitting/abuse the front end will take from the highway miles. I know there's films and clear bra kits - does anyone have experience or regret as far as a CX5 and having the front end get pitted? (My car looks like it was sandblasted with parking lot gravel, but thats also 211k of abuse too).

I'm actually doing an extended test drive today (in the rain - go figure) and I'm still trying to get used to it. Horsepower wise its more than my current car but no turbo means no extra grunt for highway entry either, although the CX5 didn't do too bad.

Lastly - has anyone gotten a FWD model in the Northeast and found it didn't get around in the snow, etc? I'm really debating on that part - I dont think I really need the AWD but I'm sure it would come in handy in the winter.

Where in PA are you? I'm near Quakertown and my wife commutes to Malvern, the CX5 is her DD. It is FWD, because personally i think AWD in SE PA is a waste of money. We see snow, but it is cleared quickly. It is mostly slush and ice in my area, occasionally you will be in 2-4 inches of snow if you are out before the plows. My wife traversed the last 9 winters in her S40 (FWD) running all season tires. With the CX-5 I get her a dedicated set of snow tires (Michelin X-ice 3) just to be safer.

We had a heck of a time finding the trim in FWD. They had to do a dealer trade from Maryland, but maybe you'll luck out. I have zero regrets with the FWD, and while it hasn't been snow tested I'm not worried given our past experience and the use of winter tires. On her last tank, she averaged a personal best of 35.3 mpg. Just like you, she drives a lot. So MPG was a priority for us. She drives on 422.

 

[Unobtanium]

Hey guys and gals - been poking around here the past few days and joined up. I'm looking at a Cx5 and figured I'd ask a few questions. This will be my first "new" car, and beings that I have a long 50min/30 mile each way commute I spend a LOT of time in my car, so naturally I'm nervous about what I drop my coin on.
I personally feel that a BIT more insulation would be nice, but it's not a loud ride by any means. Also, I wouldn't buy new. I've owned several new vehicles, and buying new is a waste, IMO. CPO is THE way to go. Just my .02.

Most of my driving is all highway - My commute is about 20 miles of tunrnpike and 10 miles of side roads, plus I'm HUGE into road trips/amusement parks/recreational type stuff hence why I'm looking at the CX5.
It's an SUV that rides like a taut car. I like mine.

My concerns are coming from a GTI - I know the cx5 is NOT going to be the same car as far as performance, but one reason I haven't bought a new car yet is pitting/abuse the front end will take from the highway miles. I know there's films and clear bra kits - does anyone have experience or regret as far as a CX5 and having the front end get pitted? (My car looks like it was sandblasted with parking lot gravel, but thats also 211k of abuse too).
I personally don't care. However, both my 370Z and my Z06 wore Ventureshield Ultra clear-films, and even when a girl side-swiped my 370Z and tore the front all to hell...the paint was pristine under the wrap. It's legit.

I'm actually doing an extended test drive today (in the rain - go figure) and I'm still trying to get used to it. Horsepower wise its more than my current car but no turbo means no extra grunt for highway entry either, although the CX5 didn't do too bad.
I find my 2.5 AWD CX-5 mostly adequate. Granted, I've owned cars that do 0-100 in less time than the CX-5 will do 0-60, but I find it plenty adequate.

Lastly - has anyone gotten a FWD model in the Northeast and found it didn't get around in the snow, etc? I'm really debating on that part - I dont think I really need the AWD but I'm sure it would come in handy in the winter.

I'd get the AWD model. In fact, I did. Why not? 1mpg shouldn't be the end of the world, and it's not any more maintenance really.

 

[MikeM.]

I'd get the AWD model. In fact, I did. Why not? 1mpg shouldn't be the end of the world, and it's not any more maintenance really.

I have an AWD and I am not anti-AWD but the real world difference is A LOT more than 1 mpg. The actual difference depends upon the type of usage but a closer approximation would be 1.6-2.0 mpg or about 5-6% more fuel used. Fortunately, the range does not take as big of a hit because Mazda saw fit to supply the thirstier AWD with a bigger fuel tank.


In the short term there should be no additional maintenance but in the long term.... yes, of course. More moving parts, more fluids, an extra driveline and differential and everything that entails. Plus there is the electronically operated clutch packs. These are friction clutches and in slippery conditions they get very hot indeed.

And I agree with those who say FWD is all that's needed for most winter driving. I regularly laugh at AWD/4WD's who are in the ditch because they thought they could get by with all season radials since they had AWD/4WD. It's one of the most common misconceptions about winter driving and has cost thousands of people their lives. This is not a joke. For winter driving you need winter tires (not AWD).

 

[madar]

I'm from Pa, ABE area. Love my FWD CX5 and am considering a 2016 model. Get your self a set of dedicated snows and you won't have any trouble at all. Great vehicle in the winter. I believe a set of 4 snow tires w/wheels will cost you less than the AWD option.

 

[inlinev]

I'm from Pa, ABE area. Love my FWD CX5 and am considering a 2016 model. Get your self a set of dedicated snows and you won't have any trouble at all. Great vehicle in the winter. I believe a set of 4 snow tires w/wheels will cost you less than the AWD option.

It absolutely will. The AWD adds an additional $1250, say negotiate a hundred off, still more expensive than a dedicated set of winters. I got a set of Michelin snow tires and steel wheels for $725 after Michelin rebate and credit card cash back.

Edit was 820 prior to discounts.

 

[Unobtanium]

I have an AWD and I am not anti-AWD but the real world difference is A LOT more than 1 mpg. The actual difference depends upon the type of usage but a closer approximation would be 1.6-2.0 mpg or about 5-6% more fuel used. Fortunately, the range does not take as big of a hit because Mazda saw fit to supply the thirstier AWD with a bigger fuel tank.


In the short term there should be no additional maintenance but in the long term.... yes, of course. More moving parts, more fluids, an extra driveline and differential and everything that entails. Plus there is the electronically operated clutch packs. These are friction clutches and in slippery conditions they get very hot indeed.

And I agree with those who say FWD is all that's needed for most winter driving. I regularly laugh at AWD/4WD's who are in the ditch because they thought they could get by with all season radials since they had AWD/4WD. It's one of the most common misconceptions about winter driving and has cost thousands of people their lives. This is not a joke. For winter driving you need winter tires (not AWD).

1) how in the world does a reactive disconnected awd system sap 2mpg!? If it does...wow. mazda needs to throw it away and do it again correctly this time. I MIGHT buy 2 mpg if it were all time. Maybe. But even my all time awd jeep which had a lot heavier rotating mass and a 2 speed transfer case and front and rear diffs, two drive shafts,etc and split 52/48% in normal driving all time was 1mpg hit or less. I can't believe a light duty on demand system is twice as inefficient. Do you have data for this allegation?

2)ice is just one low traction environment. Gravel, rain, sand, and gutter debris also come to mind. Awd is not without value. Snow tires or no.

3)does the FWD model come with an lsd?

 

[Sekmor]

We also went with the FWD and we have our share of winter up here. With winter tires, it handles the snow and ice very well and the wife has no problems getting around. If we had to replace the vehicle, it would be with another FWD.

Our last car also had the sandblasted frontend after 200,000kms. So before I drove the CX5 off the lot, I had the full 3M pkg installed. The front is quite blunt so it would take a beating and after one year it still looks in excellent shape. That was money well spent.

 

[frenchbiker]

It absolutely will. The AWD adds an additional $1250, say negotiate a hundred off, still more expensive than a dedicated set of winters. I got a set of Michelin snow tires and steel wheels for $725 after Michelin rebate and credit card cash back.
Edit was 820 prior to discounts.

A set of snow tires & wheels are indeed cheaper than the AWD upgrade but demand and resale (or trade) value of an AWD will always be higher than a FWD so you'll recoup some of your investment while an additional set of tires & wheels will bring virtually zero additional value. Also, I don't know how far from Philly you live but here in Western PA, unless you live in the country, snow tires are pretty much useless. Just my opinion.

As for lower MPG with an AWD, the system only kicks in when you lose traction so I don't see how someone could claim that AWD costs 2 MPG. I'd like to see facts.

Just my opinion.

 

[madar]

A set of snow tires & wheels are indeed cheaper than the AWD upgrade but demand and resale (or trade) value of an AWD will always be higher than a FWD so you'll recoup some of your investment while an additional set of tires & wheels will bring virtually zero additional value. Also, I don't know how far from Philly you live but here in Western PA, unless you live in the country, snow tires are pretty much useless. Just my opinion.

As for lower MPG with an AWD, the system only kicks in when you lose traction so I don't see how someone could claim that AWD costs 2 MPG. I'd like to see facts.

Just my opinion.

Two mpg difference is on their website. AWD weighs 156 pounds more. Doesn't matter when it kicks in, you're hauling more weight.

 

[Unobtanium]

Two mpg difference is on their website. AWD weighs 156 pounds more. Doesn't matter when it kicks in, you're hauling more weight.

Then Mazda really crapped the bed. A half-ass sometimes-AWD system that costs more mileage by 200% than a real one. Somehow I just don't buy it, even still. I wonder if each passenger also costs 2mpg. Take your 3 normal adult friends on a road-trip, and you get what, 22mpg? LOL!

 

[frenchbiker]

Then Mazda really crapped the bed. A half-ass sometimes-AWD system that costs more mileage by 200% than a real one. Somehow I just don't buy it, even still. I wonder if each passenger also costs 2mpg. Take your 3 normal adult friends on a road-trip, and you get what, 22mpg? LOL!

22mpg only if they don't supersize their drive-thru McDo meals. LMAO.

 

[jojackso]

22mpg only if they don't supersize their drive-thru McDo meals. LMAO.

I live in Colorado and the AWD system has come in handy. I last had a FWD car was able to get around, however the AWD CX5 makes it so much easier. Just leaving when the traffic light turns green is way easier. I look around me and see all of the FWD cars spinning their wheels to gain traction while I pull away. That by itself makes it worth while. I and getting almost 30MPG (combination of city and highway driving) which works for me.

 

[inlinev]

A set of snow tires & wheels are indeed cheaper than the AWD upgrade but demand and resale (or trade) value of an AWD will always be higher than a FWD so you'll recoup some of your investment while an additional set of tires & wheels will bring virtually zero additional value. Also, I don't know how far from Philly you live but here in Western PA, unless you live in the country, snow tires are pretty much useless. Just my opinion.

As for lower MPG with an AWD, the system only kicks in when you lose traction so I don't see how someone could claim that AWD costs 2 MPG. I'd like to see facts.

Just my opinion.

I don't personally see the merit of buying something for myself today with the hopes that it satisfies a potential buyer 5+ years from today. The return on value in such a proposition is questionable.

Snow tires help with more than acceleration. They help with cornering and braking. I think you are the first to tell me winter tires are useless in winter conditions.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JGfvyPtYR0Y

The AWD in the cx-5 runs with a 90/10 torque slip, so some power is always sent to the rear. This increases drivetrain loses. Even a 4wd when switched to 2wd experiences drivetrain loses because while the power may not be going to all wheels, the friction losses associated with 4wd/AWD are still there.

The MPG sheets Mazda provides notes a 3mpg hit on the highway between AWD and FWD, 30 vs 33. That's a 10% loss.

 

[MikeM.]

Two mpg difference is on their website. AWD weighs 156 pounds more. Doesn't matter when it kicks in, you're hauling more weight.

True, but the extra weight is less than half the reason. A FWD car does not have drive shafts going to each rear wheel. These shafts (and associated bearings) turn and cause drag whether AWD is kicking in or not. FWD cars have just wheels turning on wheel bearings. AWD always has more drag, even when traveling at a steady speed. And when accelerating there is more rotational inertia to bring up to speed.

That said, no one here said AWD has no benefits (although some did opine that the benefits did not outweigh the costs). And if I were on a tighter budget or did not travel in such deep and steep conditions on such a regular basis, I would agree that the benefits do not outweigh the risks.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

If you like to enjoy your commute, and the turns on the pike, for the price segment cx-5 is the way to go. The wrong wheel driver version will be more peppy over all, but the AWD is great on (power on)turns. There are a lot of suspension parts to make it more sporty to get some of that gti feel back. Engine tuning too, netting 35-40+ ft lbs and 25-35HP on 91 octane.

 

[madar]

If you like to enjoy your commute, and the turns on the pike, for the price segment cx-5 is the way to go. The wrong wheel driver version will be more peppy over all, but the AWD is great on (power on)turns. There are a lot of suspension parts to make it more sporty to get some of that gti feel back. Engine tuning too, netting 35-40+ ft lbs and 25-35HP on 91 octane.

"Wrong wheel driver version"?? Your unique way of saying you don't like FWD?