POLL, are you happy with the power of your engine
- Thread starter V8toilet
- Start date
- :
- 2015 Mazda CX-5 Touring FWD
From 1982 - 1985 I drove a 52 HP Jetta Diesel. From 1985 - 1990 a 68 HP Jetta Turbo Diesel. From 2003 - 2007 a 90 HP Jetta TDI, so yes I am happy with my 155 or so HP. It seems like plenty to me. I still walk away from 90 some % of the people at stoplights & entrance ramps because most people are scared of the right pedal. It helps being a left foot braker with my right poised over the throttle.
doughboyr6
Member
- :
- 2013 CX-5 GT
i went from a 2.3L mazda3 with 163HP to a cx-5 with 155HP. carrying way more weight, the car seems very sluggish.
Looks like 64% of everyone likes the power of the 2.0 so far or 9 out of 14 total. I didn't realize the Diesel results would skew the percentages for the gasoline engine. Nothing some simple math can't figure out but maybe a moderator can adjust this.
exactly, If I wasn't happy with it I wouldn't have bought it after the test drives
Well said and that is how I felt. Still I think the power is very usable for an every day average commute. I still can't believe the kind of MPG numbers I get from this CUV/SUV when just a few years ago it would have been good to get these numbers from a small economy car. We're up to 75% for the 2.0.
Last edited:
+1
It is not a speed-demon and will not win any races, that's for sure. Coming from a chipped/tuned VW Passat where if I wanted to pass, I did, the CX5 will take some getting used to. Only got it last week and still have less than 100KMs on it so only time will tell if I'm really happy with the power. Took it out a little this weekend around Laval and had no issues merging on HW or on local city streets.
It is a different kind of driving experiencing and I found that I simply 'drove' it differently and adjusted to it. Plenty of power for what I need it to do.
While low speed acceleration is completely adequate, I voted no and here's why.
Where i live, if your not driving up hill your driving downhill only to drive back up hill again. With my daily commute consisting of 70% highway, maintaining speed or passing up a long grade can be trying. Sometimes a 2 gear downshift is needed to get the job done. Some long steep hill's require the engine to be humming over 3k in fifth gear just to keep up with traffic.
Conveniently, the CX-5 is fun to shift and is a willing dance partner when rowing the gears and responds crisply to quick rev matched downshifts. And there's no flat spots in power threw the rev range. But i can't help but think that another 30-40hp/tq would go along way to making the 5 a better highway cruiser especially when loaded with passengers and cargo with little penalty at the pump. Like most others, i got the 5 for great gas mileage and it does exactly that.
But if Mazda gives us a manual option with the 2.5 i may just trade up.
Where i live, if your not driving up hill your driving downhill only to drive back up hill again. With my daily commute consisting of 70% highway, maintaining speed or passing up a long grade can be trying. Sometimes a 2 gear downshift is needed to get the job done. Some long steep hill's require the engine to be humming over 3k in fifth gear just to keep up with traffic.
Conveniently, the CX-5 is fun to shift and is a willing dance partner when rowing the gears and responds crisply to quick rev matched downshifts. And there's no flat spots in power threw the rev range. But i can't help but think that another 30-40hp/tq would go along way to making the 5 a better highway cruiser especially when loaded with passengers and cargo with little penalty at the pump. Like most others, i got the 5 for great gas mileage and it does exactly that.
But if Mazda gives us a manual option with the 2.5 i may just trade up.
- :
- Mazdaspeed6
"Happy" is a stretch.
If I could vote for the option of "Satisfied", I would.
If I could vote for the option of "Satisfied", I would.
would I want more power with the same fuel economy ? Yes who would not, but honestly I think Mazda came with the best compromise possible right now, that is why I am happy or satisfied with it. I got what I wanted, fuel economy in a fun package. As technology evolves, I think they will extract more power from it or more fuel economy from the 2.5 or else. We will see.
On a side note, for those not satisfied, what did you expect ? you did not test drive before ?.... As soon as I tested it from the dealer I knew it I would not win a straight line race in it, but I was OK with it, since it was not my objective.
On a side note, for those not satisfied, what did you expect ? you did not test drive before ?.... As soon as I tested it from the dealer I knew it I would not win a straight line race in it, but I was OK with it, since it was not my objective.
- :
- Mazdaspeed6
Well, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out a 2.0 NA gas engine in a 3300 lb CUV is going to leave a little to be desired!
it depends on what you were driving before. For the most part, the CX5 is great. read an article yesterday about the likely #s of the 2.5 gas engine in Australia (Q1 2013), and it's about 15% more gas hungry. As gas mileage is important for me, I think I would choose the 2.0 over the 2.5. Ask me again when i'm pulling something, or have a full load, and I might respond differently ;p
I didn't care for the power when mated to the automatic that I test drove, but when I drove the manual, it changed my mind. I just drove back from the Willamette Valley over the Santiam pass (5000 ft elevation) into Bend, Oregon yesterday, loaded with 3 cases of wine and luggage, and I had no trouble maintaining the posted speed limit. I never had to rev the engine above 3000 rpm. Still got slightly better than 30 mpg. That said, I will definitely test drive the 2.5 skyactiv if it is offered next year, just to see if it really makes a big difference.
^^^
This. I found it adequate for its class when I test drove it as an automatic, but much more satisfied when I test drove the manual. That's why I did a 400 mile round trip just to buy one of the harder-to-find manual CX-5 Sports.
Also I came from a crossover which started life with a 1.8L rated at 130hp and I modified to 160hp, but it had ZERO torque compared to this direct injection engine. More torque AND better MPG? yeah... the CX-5 is still an upgrade for me.
EDIT: Let me just add this, there is still enough power to get you up to irresponsible speed if you're not careful. Sometimes having more horsepower, just for the sake of bragging rights, is foolish.
Last edited:
- :
- Mazdaspeed6
Was this speculative? That is a what, 20% increase in displacement between the two? I guess 15% fuel consumptions increase sounds about right.
I'll bet they would change up some gearing in the trans to accommodate the new powerband, though. Cound potentially mitigate that loss of mileage through the drivetrain.
More importantly, I would assume that the 2.5 in the new 6 would likely come close the the mileage seen of the 2.0 in the CX-5, seeing as there is supposedly around a 300 lb. weight difference between the two...
Just thinking aloud. Looking forward to the new 6 with the 2.5l in it, and perhaps owning one.
MazdaDriverNJ
Contributor
- :
- 2024 Mazda CX5 Turbo Premium and
2025 Mazda CX30 Turbo Premium+
Exactly. Going from ML350 to the little CX-5 -- of course I feel the difference, but that's what I did with a clear mind, noone twisted my arms. Happy with the fuel economy, accepting of the 2.0 engine. All in all, I love this little car!
Me too!
I just wish that the tranny would refrain from being stuck in 5 or 6th gear all the time. A Sport/Econ mode on the AT would have gone a long way of making the car perfect.
