I now have owned both, and timed both. The RDX is broken in, per Acura, and so I ran it, filmed the run, and looked at the times. From the time it began moving forward unti it broke 60 was 6.45 seconds. Throwing out the 1ft rollout, that is 6.15. The cx5, conversely, took 6.7 seconds to reach 60mph, and removing the 1ft rollout takes us to 6.4. Here are the videos. When viewed in slow motion, the rdx begins moving at 0.3 seconds, as does the cx5. They reach 60 at 6.75, and 7.0 seconds, respectively, as best I can tell from the cx5s speedometer. It is digital so viewing angle shouldnt affect its readout. The cx5 was running 93 and the rdx, 91 octane. Both were tested at a near identical temperature as you can see, but the cx5 sis have a hair more fuel in its tank, fwiw.Where were all these videos and deeper analysis of the C&D testing methods when you were continually talking down on the RDX in other threads? Lol.
There are a few other websites that report a .3-.4 second difference in 0-60 in favour of the 2.5T CX-5.
In the end it doesn't really matter what websites say, or even what other people say. If you're happy behind the wheel of whatever car you're driving at the time, specs don't matter. Hope your RDX is the one!
6.45 seconds including 1ft roll-out. No modification to vehicle.
Neat thing, both vehicles moving at 0.3 seconds video time. You can see that at 1,2,3,4,5 seconds video time, they are very near each other, but then go to 6 seconds and it's clear the RDX is pulling at an indicated 55mph while the CX5 is doing 53mph. By 7 seconds video time, the RDX has already reached 60 and the video ended (at 6.76), while the CX5 is just a hair from 60.
Also interesting is that in the first second (0.7 seconds of motion), both vehicles are at 5mph, irregardless the CX5's torque advantage.
Based on this comparison, the vehicles are evenly matched up to around 50-55mph, where the RDX will walk away from the CX5 turbo. In the corners, I found absolutely no comparison. The RDX would slaughter the CX5.