Post CX-5 Reviews...

Just received July's (always a month ahead) WhatCar magazine. In the test between the CX, Audi Q3 and Land Rover Freelander, the CX came first. Mazda beating an Audi in this country is unheard of. It was the manual diesel, 148bhp. 30 - 70 mph through the gears was 9.3 s. 50 - 70 in third was 5.4 s. The overall statement was, " The CX-5 isn't the perfect family car, but it's not far off - it's a fantastic deal."
 
Awl, we don't get that Multimedia Commander Dial gadget here in the States, do we?

Apparently not, but then you don't pay $45000 for a loaded CX-5! You win some, you lose some ;o)
 
^ Yes, I have that C&D test, it's one of the most thorough tests of the US awd gas version.
 
^ Yes, I have that C&D test, it's one of the most thorough tests of the US awd gas version.

Nice, it's pretty darn positive overall. It's just these, "Freeway on-ramps require a wide-open throttle to merge comfortably" kind of statements I keep reading that make me hesitate a little from getting one, even though I adore everything else about it. But it's pretty amazing that in spite of everyone saying how underpowered it is, they also always say it's a "driver's car."
 
Nice, it's pretty darn positive overall. It's just these, "Freeway on-ramps require a wide-open throttle to merge comfortably" kind of statements I keep reading that make me hesitate a little from getting one, even though I adore everything else about it. But it's pretty amazing that in spite of everyone saying how underpowered it is, they also always say it's a "driver's car."

Lol, rarely do I get a chance to use wide-open throttle on freeway on-ramps, because I don't want to rear-end the clowns in front of me.

The article is better than most at pointing out both pros and cons and giving instrumented test data too.

Yes, but as we mentioned before this kind of modest engine performance is typical of many top selling high gas mileage cars including the common Prius, Civic, Yaris, Corolla, Cruz, Xb, CRV, Sportage, Tuscon, etc.
 
Nice, it's pretty darn positive overall. It's just these, "Freeway on-ramps require a wide-open throttle to merge comfortably" kind of statements I keep reading that make me hesitate a little from getting one, even though I adore everything else about it. But it's pretty amazing that in spite of everyone saying how underpowered it is, they also always say it's a "driver's car."

Take a couple test drives and merge onto the freeway would be my recommendation. Everyone has different interpretations of what fast or quick or even slow is. As CX-SV said the opportunity to do a full throttle freeway merge is a rare instance. But it is all personal preference. When I watch Top Gear UK I often find myself wondering as Clarkson slides a car around the track "but when in real life would you get a chance to do that?" Same thing with 0-60 in 4 seconds, is that really beneficial on anything but a track day? Or if you want to race kids at stoplights? A sure sign that I'm getting old is when I think "sure, that car is fast, but take it off the track and go get a bag of groceries"

Are there times when I wish it had a bit more power, of course. Am I thrilled at the mpg, definitely. Is it fun to drive yet still comfortable, yes.

I test drove the one we bought twice and one at another dealer and rode in yet another on a test drive. So I say, drive them and drive them some more and make up your own mind.

No car can be all things to all people so just make sure it is the right things for you before you buy.
 
Last edited:
Short review by Top Gear, here

Entertaining enough, from a UK perspective.

They keep touting it as a family car, but when they bring up nonsense like "But not striking. It's no Evoque.", that doesn't make sense. Of course the Evoque looks cool, but it's too small and impractical to serve as a family car, so it's no wonder Mazda didn't go that radical route on styling.
 

Best review yet. These guys really get it. They highlight just about everything that makes the CX-5 Sport with Skyactiv-MT great. Great manual transmission, handling, fuel economy, styling, and well equipped even in a low priced Sport trim.

The power in not lacking. Sure, on paper it has a few less horses than it's direct competitors. But do you think the majority of CUV drivers can even tell the difference? Do you even need those extra ponies most of the time? The more powerful Ford Escape has the same 45-60 time according to Motor Trend! If you're buying a diaper hauler, fuel economy and cargo utility are probably of great concern.

I'm tired of all the auto writer lemmings that just repeat that this vehicle lacks power and therefore it's crap. It just tells me they completely missed the point. Heck, if all they judge CUVs mainly on horsepower and 0-60, they shouldn't be reviewing cars at all. What if they evaluated sports cars based mainly on passenger volume and fuel economy instead? Ridiculous.
 
Agree with the above. It was the best review yet. I only use half the power in my BMW anyway. I look forward to revving the snot out of this thing just like I did my '90 Miata, '93 SE-R and '03 Protege.
 
For the way I use the CX-5 power is adequate. My weekend car has twice the HP for kicks, but the CX-5 is much more comfortable for driving in traffic.

Yes, good article focused on MT version.
 
Last edited:
Lack of Power? not...

This guy really hammers the CX-5 about its power or lack of. What do you all think?
http://youtu.be/mKZNp-tVX88

The MX-5 is a zippy little roadster that delivers surprising power in the upper range of revolutions and the critics have always loved it. The new 2 liter engine in the CX-5 is a different animal, designed to deliver ample torque at low RPMs, matched to a high gear ratio for excellent mileage... however... the six speed transmission of the CX-5 provides a sporty capability considering the size of the cabin and relatively high center of gravity of a car made to haul quite a few people and their stuff. This torque range is equal to engines with larger displacement that suck down a lot more fuel to achieve the same result. It's a different animal. It's not a screamer like the MX-5, but neither is it slow to respond to the stomping of the accelerator if you're in the right gear. And it has a suitable range of gears that match the engine and transmission well, so it takes a bit more of an astute critic to understand the apples and oranges comparison without seeing the vehicle as under-powered. It's not a roadster, it's an all-purpose vehicle that still has the zoom-zoom DNA in a newer, more efficient configuration.
 
Back