New member - consiering CX5

[madar]

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.

You obviously don't do a lot of early morning driving down 309, say between Coopersburg and Tollgate Road down by WaWa in Quakertown. They hardly even plowed or salted a lot of that road in the early am this year. Really treacherous this year.

 

[inlinev]

You obviously don't do a lot of early morning driving down 309, say between Coopersburg and Tollgate Road down by WaWa in Quakertown. They hardly even plowed or salted a lot of that road in the early am this year. Really treacherous this year.

I can take 309 but avoid that road at all costs. I'm all about the back roads.

 

[madar]

I can take 309 but avoid that road at all costs. I'm all about the back roads.

LOL. I hear ya. My daily commute is from Bethlehem to Telford and it's ALL backroads.

 

[yrwei52]

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?

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.

Mazda CX-5's Active Torque Split All-Wheel-Drive system does suck MPG wise comparing to any other AWD system. Other AWD systems I've seen seems to suffer only 1 mpg but CX-5's loses 2~3 mpg according to EPA estimates.

AWD does have other benefits other than in snowing condition like Unobtanium said. I feel an SUV, just like the Jeep, should be AWD. Or you should get a hatchback like Mazda 3 or a minivan or a mini-minivan like Mazda5 IMHO.

CX-5 FWD doesn't come with limited-slip-differential. It relies on traction control (brakes) and ABS to limit tire spinning.

[table="width: 650, class: grid"]
[tr]
[td]2013 ~ 2015[/td]
[td]Mazda CX-5 SkyActiv-G 2.0L[/td]
[td]Mazda CX-5 SkyActiv-G 2.5L[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Horsepower
Torque (lb-ft)[/td]
[td]155@6,000rpm
150@4,000rpm[/td]
[td]184@5,700rpm
185@3,250rpm[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]EPA MPG[/td]
[td]MT FWD: 26 City/35 Hwy
AT FWD: 26 City/32 Hwy
AT AWD: 25 City/31 Hwy[/td]
[td]AT FWD: 25 City/32 Hwy
AT AWD: 24 City/30 Hwy[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

[table="width: 650, class: grid"]
[tr]
[td]2016 [/td]
[td]Mazda CX-5 SkyActiv-G 2.0L[/td]
[td]Mazda CX-5 SkyActiv-G 2.5L[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Horsepower
Torque (lb-ft)[/td]
[td]155@6,000rpm
150@4,000rpm[/td]
[td]184@5,700rpm
185@3,250rpm[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]EPA MPG[/td]
[td]MT FWD: 26 City/35 Hwy[/td]
[td]AT FWD: 26 City/33 Hwy
AT AWD: 24 City/30 Hwy[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

[table="width: 650, class: grid"]
[tr]
[td]2015 [/td]
[td]Honda CR-V Earth Dreams Technology i-VTEC 2.4L[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Horsepower
Torque (lb-ft)[/td]
[td]185@6,400rpm
181@3,900rpm[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]EPA MPG[/td]
[td]CVT FWD: 27 City/34 Hwy/29 Comb
CVT AWD: 26 City/33 Hwy/28 Comb[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

 

[Unobtanium]

Mazda says it is a 100%/0% split during normal use. And wow. It is stoopid inefficient for a cheese AWD. That's disappointing. I hope when it does kick in I am impressed.

 

[Ride92]

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.

I think you are missing what the guy was trying to say. I didnt read that as he was saying that winter tires don't have an advantage in the winter. I think he was saying that you won't recoup any money spent on extra winter wheels vs having a higher resale value when AWD equipped. And I'm guessing that he's saying that region doesn't get enough snow or winter conditions to warrant winter tires. Meaning they become irrelevant since they rarely see the conditions they are intended for.

 

[Unobtanium]

I think you are missing what the guy was trying to say. I didnt read that as he was saying that winter tires don't have an advantage in the winter. I think he was saying that you won't recoup any money spent on extra winter wheels vs having a higher resale value when AWD equipped. And I'm guessing that he's saying that region doesn't get enough snow or winter conditions to warrant winter tires. Meaning they become irrelevant since they rarely see the conditions they are intended for.

I live where it can be 50-60*F and sunny and nice, and then snowing later that afternoon----or not until next year. Last time that happened, I saw a TON of FWD cars spinning and sitting in the ditch and all that. I have driven FWD in the snow on limited occassion. No, AWD won't steer for you, but what it WILL DO is when you are stopped at a light on a hill, you won't slide back into the Huracan behind you and drive your insurance through the roof when the light turns green! Or you could chew up a set of snow tires each year thinking "Will it snow in November...or will it snow in March? Better keep em on even though it's 80*F today, because it might not be next week!"

 

[yrwei52]

I think you are missing what the guy was trying to say. I didnt read that as he was saying that winter tires don't have an advantage in the winter. I think he was saying that you won't recoup any money spent on extra winter wheels vs having a higher resale value when AWD equipped. And I'm guessing that he's saying that region doesn't get enough snow or winter conditions to warrant winter tires. Meaning they become irrelevant since they rarely see the conditions they are intended for.

I live where it can be 50-60*F and sunny and nice, and then snowing later that afternoon----or not until next year. Last time that happened, I saw a TON of FWD cars spinning and sitting in the ditch and all that. I have driven FWD in the snow on limited occassion. No, AWD won't steer for you, but what it WILL DO is when you are stopped at a light on a hill, you won't slide back into the Huracan behind you and drive your insurance through the roof when the light turns green! Or you could chew up a set of snow tires each year thinking "Will it snow in November...or will it snow in March? Better keep em on even though it's 80*F today, because it might not be next week!"

You're absolutely right. We have the same situation in North Texas like you do. Instead of the hassle of putting on a set of snow tires which may be useless, I'd rather to have an AWD which can be useful during sudden adverse condition in winter months.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

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

all in good spirits

About the LSD, a member on the m3r facebook page contacted MFactory about a helical LSD for the mazda 3, which they would build if 10 people signed up. I doubt it will happen but something may appear in the future as more and more parts are coming out (in fact one of the sema new gens had an lsd in it).

 

[inlinev]

I think you are missing what the guy was trying to say. I didnt read that as he was saying that winter tires don't have an advantage in the winter. I think he was saying that you won't recoup any money spent on extra winter wheels vs having a higher resale value when AWD equipped. And I'm guessing that he's saying that region doesn't get enough snow or winter conditions to warrant winter tires. Meaning they become irrelevant since they rarely see the conditions they are intended for.

I did consider this; however, Western PA receives just as much, if not more snow that SE PA. Furthermore, winter tires are good for more than just snow traction. I think this goes to the misunderstanding that AWD = good in snow. Lastly, eventually the increased maintenance combined with the additional cost of fuel would eliminate the perceived residual resale value that AWD may add.

 

[madar]

I live where it can be 50-60*F and sunny and nice, and then snowing later that afternoon----or not until next year. Last time that happened, I saw a TON of FWD cars spinning and sitting in the ditch and all that. I have driven FWD in the snow on limited occassion. No, AWD won't steer for you, but what it WILL DO is when you are stopped at a light on a hill, you won't slide back into the Huracan behind you and drive your insurance through the roof when the light turns green! Or you could chew up a set of snow tires each year thinking "Will it snow in November...or will it snow in March? Better keep em on even though it's 80*F today, because it might not be next week!"

I could see your point for where you live, get some snow or ice and it’s gone a half day later. If it was just snow around here, all-seasons would be good enough. I’ve been through some awful weather with them before and have managed to get around fine. But if it’s a couple of inches of sleet or roads get icy, all-seasons just aint gonna cut it, don’t care WHAT you’re driving. We’ve had a few inches of sleet come down around here and I’ve seen 4wd vehicles with all-seasons just immobilized because of it, whereas I’ve been able to go around them no problem with my FWD and my Blizzaks. I have a 25 mile drive through all kinds of hilly roadways and thought more than once I was going to spend the night in the car because of bad weather. Having winter tires on instills a lot more confidence and control. Depends on where you live and how volatile your weather is what it comes down to. I started using winter tires 4 years ago and now wouldn’t think of going through winter without them. All it takes is one incident where snow tires actually keep you from getting into a serious accident that will convince someone it was actually worth the extra expense. But, to each his own. No wrong or right here.

 

[madar]

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.

Car companies go through great lengths to get the vehicle weight down to improve mileage. The drag of rear axles in bearings is probably negligent compared to the drag of the internal gears of the rear differential sloshing through gear oil at higher speeds, but that would depend on the weight of the oil. Still a drag none the less of the different components. Good point made there, though.
I had a neighbor who used his car trunk as an extension of his basement, used to keep 2 floor jacks, a bag of concrete and some cinder blocks in there for whatever reason. He was always complaining of bad gas mileage. I suggested he empty out his trunk, inflate his tires to proper specs and get a wheel alignment. He got surprisingly better mileage, I don’t remember what the improvement was. Of course, there were multiple things at play here, tires not up to proper spec will use more fuel alone.
If some people think weight doesn’t matter, throw 3 fifty lb. bags of concrete in your trunk and drive around for a few days and compare your mileage. You’ll feel a difference trying to accelerate, that difference is costing you fuel.

 

[MikeM.]

The drag of rear axles in bearings is probably negligent compared to the drag of the internal gears of the rear differential sloshing through gear oil at higher speeds, but that would depend on the weight of the oil.

Maybe we could have a class action lawsuit against Mazda for negligence?

If some people think weight doesnt matter, throw 3 fifty lb. bags of concrete in your trunk and drive around for a few days and compare your mileage. Youll feel a difference trying to accelerate, that difference is costing you fuel.

On longer highway trips I get slightly better mileage with a few hundred pounds of people/cargo vs. my car with just a driver. I attribute this to the suspension being settled down an extra inch which could improve rolling resistance due to suspension geometry (enough to overcome the natural increase in RR experienced by tires as weight is added). The second (and perhaps most significant) factor is the better aerodynamics of a loaded car, especially if the load levels the body pan with respect to the road.

 

[inlinev]

A bit off subject, but given we are discussing dead weight. the recent example of the aluminum F150 which shaved almost 700lbs, the gains in mpg were marginal. 1 in city and 2 in highway. Most test reveal an even smaller margin. I wonder how much better they could have done investing that money elsewhere.

 

[madar]

Maybe we could have a class action lawsuit against Mazda for negligence?

meant negligible...didn't mean to confuse you.....

 

[MikeM.]

A bit off subject, but given we are discussing dead weight. the recent example of the aluminum F150 which shaved almost 700lbs, the gains in mpg were marginal. 1 in city and 2 in highway. Most test reveal an even smaller margin. I wonder how much better they could have done investing that money elsewhere.

The benefits of a lighter body go far beyond simple fuel savings. First of all, if you're only getting 20 mpg, 1 extra mpg is awesome. It represents 5% less fuel expense, 5% less full-ups needed and 5% more range. 2 mpg extra represents 10% better, nothing to sneeze at. When you consider that the fuel to keep a truck running over it's expected lifetime costs just as much as the truck itself, that's significant.


Secondly, the 700 lb. savings translates unto 700 more pounds of cargo capacity (and higher tow ratings also). That makes the truck more capable.

Where would you have invested the $$ to get this many benefits?

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

meanwhile, OP's like I do not want to be part of this and buys a Subaru lol

 

[orion3311]

meanwhile, OP's like I do not want to be part of this and buys a Subaru lol

LOL. I looked at them, thought I'd hate the CVT...did a 45min test drive and had no issue with it, but...I still think I'd hate the CVT in the long run.

Wow you guys are right in my back yard - I'm in Blue Bell so 15-20 min from Quakertown and prob Malvern too.

So I did my extended test drive Monday into Tuesday - and took it to work. Here's my takeaways...tell me if I'm just being too picky or actually accurate:

1. Acceleration wasnt' too bad...definitely not GTI but I dont expect it to be either. That said, it felt like I really had to give it gas to keep it at 70-80. Maybe its just a matter of getting used to it, and I feel like knowing it wasn't a rental (brand new off the lot with 10 miles on the odo) I was purposely trying not to beat on it. My thing is, the PA turnpike (for those who drive it every day) MOVES - 80 is prob the "average" speed (hint hint nudge nudge). Am I going to really kill that much mileage at that speed, and/or will the CX5 struggle to keep up? (current car does 80+ without batting an eye and gets 27-30mpg even with 211k on the clock).

2. Maybe an AWD thing - I felt like I constantly had to "steer" it, vs just kinda keeping it aimed on the road. Maybe the alignment was off on the one I tried?

3. I did like the steering radius - in fact it took me by surprise how tight of a turn I was able to make. I also liked the keyless entry/ignition. Stereo seemed to be "ok", but I may have issues with it as I'm deaf in my right ear and like to drive with the windows wide open.

After the test drive I'm second guessing the CX5 (maybe I should look at the 3 again), but then again, I still can't find something comparable. Looked at the Toyota dealer last night and RAV4s were pretty much same price but eh, short of a Pruis (bleaugh) I didn't see any other hatches. Also passed thru a Honda dealer and saw some crazy MPG numbers on the Accord and Fit, but again, I put the fit in the same bucket as the Prius - VERY practical and cheap, but BUTT UGLY.

 

[orion3311]

Basically, I'm looking for a car that I can use for:

My daily commute of 30miles each way (20 highway) at "spirited" speeds (on the highway)
Road trips to beach/amusement parks/whatever - usually 2+ hours each way
Parents are aging so wouldn't mind something they can comfortably get in and out of.
(Dad drove me to pick up the CX5 and had no problem getting in and out of the back seat and felt it had good leg room even with the front seat all the way back.)
Going biking (usually drive to Philly to hit the bike trail - I'd prob get a hitch mount rack - current car has roof rack that will be painful to let go)
Occasional City Use (maybe one day a week at most)

And the other possible use would be to possibly tow my motorcycle (700lb Harley Vrod (Harleys red-headed stepchild)) or my little 13' ancient fish-n-ski boat (I borrow dads F250 now if I play with it), or a small utility trailer to move an occasional large item around.

If I'm off base or if someone thinks I should be looking at something else - let me know, because I'm tired of looking already lol. Open to almost all makes/models except I'm not a Ford guy.

Other cars I looked at:

Mazda 3 - Fine except for cramped back seat - definitely an alternative though
Subaru Impreza - Just not a fan of CVT. Would have gone that route if they didn't use all CVT in their cars
VW Golf/GTI/Sportwagen - Probably my most logical choice but 2015 models seem to have reliability concerns (bad water pumps/turbos, coil consumption, carbon issues) and 2016 models seem to be MIA.

 

[ALafya]

1. At 80 your MPG will suffer with a CX-5 more than a lower vehicle, like a Mazda 3. You can definitely drive 80 though.
2. Mazda builds great chassis, and steering/driving in a winding road in the CX-5 is a pleasure. Not sure what you mean by "had to steer", this is not a self-driving car Perhaps you mean that steering is not light? Enthusiasts prefer the right heft to be engineered into the steering system.

Have you considered the 6 at all? Does it needs to be a wagon/hatch style? Put your bikes on a roof mount? As you may know, Americans don't buy wagons ... it has to be raised to look appealing :-(.
I too would stay away from VW because of reliability. Volvo sells wagons too, but they are expensive / unreliable as well. I don't know how often you drive with your parents, but I personally don't purchase a vehicle for something which happens less than once a year.