Should I keep it?

[MikeM.]

Trust me, you will NOT feel the difference in a 0.84 vs 0.81 skid pad test but you WILL feel difference in 150 lbs-ft vs 185 lbs-ft of torque. 35lbs of torque is very noticeable.

I am often at my cornering limits, that's where the fun is at whether I'm rallying on a gravel road or a nice set of twisties in the mountains. On a modern car with stability and traction control it is extremely important to have balanced handling because these computer systems don't kick in until they detect an unexpected difference in wheel speeds or a yawing motion. If the front and back let go at the same time, the computer systems don't interfere with the driving pleasure. This makes a huge difference. I do a lot of driving in the mountains in the winter when the curvy roads are covered in snow and/or ice. This is where the balanced nature of the 2.0L really shines, allowing you to take the corners at higher speeds without the electronic systems becoming intrusive.

And on icy roads the 2.0L has excessive power. On bare roads, I don't care much about torque because horsepower is what gets you maximum acceleration, torque is for those too lazy to shift. When I want maximum acceleration I'm in the peak powerband, not the torque peak. Every performance driver knows this and it's what makes the revy nature of the 2.0L such a pleasure with it's lighter rotating mass and the lack of the twin balance shafts which need to spin up at twice the speed of the crankshaft. It's the sportier mill even before it's 112 lbs. lighter weight is considered. I've been fully loaded to the GVWR in the mountains a number of times, both on bare pavement and in winter conditions. The 2.0L is a joy climbing steep hills, rowing through the gears, spinning the motor in it's higher rev ranges. The only bummer is I can rarely use all the power it has because it's a rare driver that wants to drive faster than I can go. If I had 300 HP (and I wanted to put it to good use) I would either need a track or I would end up passing every vehicle I came behind. And, invariably, there's another vehicle in front of them and so on. If I were so inclined, and I had 300 HP, I would just make a nuisance of myself constantly waiting for another opportunity to pass. It's a zero-sum game.

If you think you won't feel the more neutral handling and 4% higher cornering g-force, you have another think coming! At least that's how they say it in the land down under.

 

[Dr_Watson]

Have to agree with littlebear, if I read MikeM statement without knowing what car he was talking about, the last guess would be a CX5!

MikeM, what you say it true mostly, but for the everage Joe who is buying a CX-5 which is about 99% of buyers, they will notice the extra power of the 2.5L way before the notice the 0.03g force difference in the corners. They might notice the handling is different IF they decide to rallying like you do but for the most part this will not be felt by the vast majority.

I think all your post have so much emphasis on your style of driving and your justification of the 2L. You may often be at your cornering limits, but what has that got to do with his wifes choice of car??? You often tend to forget what the original poster is looking for, Like at school, always read the question carefully. It's his wifes CX-5, they think the 2L is bog slow. 2.5L seems like a logical choice, I suggest they go and test drive it to see. Go try arguing with his wife about losing 0.03g on a skid pan and see what she says.

 

[MikeM.]

Have to agree with littlebear, if I read MikeM statement without knowing what car he was talking about, the last guess would be a CX5!

This makes sense coming from a diesel owner, the least revy of all CX-5's.

MikeM, what you say it true mostly, but for the everage Joe who is buying a CX-5 which is about 99% of buyers, they will notice the extra power of the 2.5L way before the notice the 0.03g force difference in the corners. They might notice the handling is different IF they decide to rallying like you do but for the most part this will not be felt by the vast majority.

Of course Littlebear didn't say the power would be noticed before the loss of cornering balance, he said "Trust me, you will NOT feel the difference in a 0.84 vs 0.81 skid pad test". That difference is because the 2.0L is more balanced. But I agree, some won't notice it just like some won't see me approaching an intersection on my motorcycle. But people who take pleasure in driving will notice it. And I have to believe the OP is in that class of drivers since he said " Over the last three years it has proven reliable, efficient and fun." Some people wouldn't notice how efficient it is either, that doesn't mean they don't benefit from that efficiency. And you might not notice that it stops using 9 feet less distance (until it saves you from a nasty rear end).

The other part of the equation is debt. They already have the 2.0L and know that it's fun and reliable. The smart financial move is to keep it a while longer, not go out in search of 29 more hp that they obviously don't need.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Dr watsons could put 300 into his cx5 and get a 6 second 0 60 and out perform us in any gear.

 

[MikeM.]

Dr watsons could put 300 into his cx5 and get a 6 second 0 60 and out perform us in any gear.

Yes, in a straight line.

 

[ALafya]

We own a Mazda 3 with the 2L SkyActiv as well as the CX-5 with 2.5L.
The 3, with a 700+ lb weight advantage (600+ lb compared to a 2L CX-5 GT AWD same as the OPs) to me feels good/adequate, not overpowered and I am not hesitant to WOT or have it run in high RPMs. With the 2.5L, I definitely feel the better torque at lower RPMs. These lower RPMs are not easily avoidable, especially if you keep it in D and while commuting in slow traffic but then need to quickly take advantage of an opening in the next lane. The 2.5L also sounds better at higher RPMs.

That said, most of the world gets the 2L gas engine as the top gas engine (and the Mazda 3 1.5L is the standard base engine elsewhere).
Also, changing cars too often is a waste of money when you get them new. If you are already comfortable with your vehicle and it seems like a good deal to keep, so seems like a no-brainer.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

And that was the reason I suggested a tune. It didn't sound like they were itching to get rid of it and the $ situation on it is ideal. So I suggested a simple service (which has proven to be reliable and effective) that will address his main issue. The ONLY solution to his issue sans getting another car.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Have to agree with littlebear, if I read MikeM statement without knowing what car he was talking about, the last guess would be a CX5!

MikeM, what you say it true mostly, but for the everage Joe who is buying a CX-5 which is about 99% of buyers, they will notice the extra power of the 2.5L way before the notice the 0.03g force difference in the corners. They might notice the handling is different IF they decide to rallying like you do but for the most part this will not be felt by the vast majority.

I think all your post have so much emphasis on your style of driving and your justification of the 2L. You may often be at your cornering limits, but what has that got to do with his wifes choice of car??? You often tend to forget what the original poster is looking for, Like at school, always read the question carefully. It's his wifes CX-5, they think the 2L is bog slow. 2.5L seems like a logical choice, I suggest they go and test drive it to see. Go try arguing with his wife about losing 0.03g on a skid pan and see what she says.

I know there are many vendors in Europe offering skyd tuning and the remap that makes the 150ps put out 170ps; have you considered this?

 

[V8toilet]

Dr watsons could put 300 into his cx5 and get a 6 second 0 60 and out perform us in any gear.

You think a tune is going to shave 2.5 seconds off the 0-60 time of a 2.0 CX5? (lol)

You are one optimistic person!

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

You think a tune is going to shave 2.5 seconds off the 0-60 time of a 2.0 CX5? (lol)

You are one optimistic person!

umm he has the 150ps 2.2d as listed on his avatar

 

[littlebear]

Even though the CX5 rated #1 or close to #1 in most of the car mags, the biggest gripe they had was the CX5 with the 2.5L felt a little under powered. All the reviewers said they wish the CX5 had a little more power. Mind you, this is with the 2.5L

Before I decided on the CX5, my biggest hurdle was the lack of power of the CX5. The Ford CUV's all have optional 250 HP, 280 HP and even a 315 HP engine options with torque pushing 350 lbs.ft

So the argument over the 0.83g is sort of ridiculous. 99.99% of CUV owners will never push their CUV to those limits. Even so, a good set of tires can change the handling g's of the 2.5L to above 0.83g but again, it's stupid to even talk about because nobody drives like that. It's a CUV, meant to tow, carry, haul and do off-road stuff, which requires HP and Torque, not arguing over 0.03 g's which is indistinguishable without specialty equipment to measure it.

 

[V8toilet]

Oops, sorry Chris! (hand)

 

[MikeM.]

It's a CUV, meant to tow, carry, haul and do off-road stuff, which requires HP and Torque, not arguing over 0.03 g's which is indistinguishable without specialty equipment to measure it.

The 4% higher g-force in the skid pad test is simply the objective evidence that the handling is better with the 2.0L, not a number to obsess about. Car and Driver said the performance of the 2.5L was hampered by the stability control kicking in too often. This is directly attributable to understeer induced by the extra weight in the engine bay.

As to off-road performance, the need for HP and torque is over-rated by those with little off-road experience. What matters is torque to the drive wheels and this is achieved through gearing, off-road speeds are low. In first gear even the little 2.0L is putting plenty of torque to the trail, traction is almost always the limiting factor, not torque. Nowhere is this more true than in the FWD version.

But very little of this applies to the original poster's question which, in essence, is mostly an economic question. And the smart answer to that is to keep the sweet little 2.0L as the residual is much lower than it's value. If the 2.0L didn't have enough power to get the job done, and his wife was arriving home late from work due to lack of power, then the case could be made that it made economic sense to buy a new car (or at least one with more power). But that is obviously not the case here.

Americans in general have very poor saving habits because they are always trying to spend their money before they earn it. The solution is to not feel like you always "need" more.

 

[Unobtanium]

Even though the CX5 rated #1 or close to #1 in most of the car mags, the biggest gripe they had was the CX5 with the 2.5L felt a little under powered. All the reviewers said they wish the CX5 had a little more power. Mind you, this is with the 2.5L

Before I decided on the CX5, my biggest hurdle was the lack of power of the CX5. The Ford CUV's all have optional 250 HP, 280 HP and even a 315 HP engine options with torque pushing 350 lbs.ft

So the argument over the 0.83g is sort of ridiculous. 99.99% of CUV owners will never push their CUV to those limits. Even so, a good set of tires can change the handling g's of the 2.5L to above 0.83g but again, it's stupid to even talk about because nobody drives like that. It's a CUV, meant to tow, carry, haul and do off-road stuff, which requires HP and Torque, not arguing over 0.03 g's which is indistinguishable without specialty equipment to measure it.

Yeah, .03g isn't a big deal, IMO either, but SUV's are ALL about handling in my book. Emergency avoidance maneuvers. Surprise corners (I live in NWA, and some corners are VERY sharp and not labelled as such. If you didn't know the road, you may indeed push your SUV into a 4-wheel slide unwittingly if you are in a hurry.)

 

[Unobtanium]

The 4% higher g-force in the skid pad test is simply the objective evidence that the handling is better with the 2.0L, not a number to obsess about. Car and Driver said the performance of the 2.5L was hampered by the stability control kicking in too often. This is directly attributable to understeer induced by the extra weight in the engine bay.

As to off-road performance, the need for HP and torque is over-rated by those with little off-road experience. What matters is torque to the drive wheels and this is achieved through gearing, off-road speeds are low. In first gear even the little 2.0L is putting plenty of torque to the trail, traction is almost always the limiting factor, not torque. Nowhere is this more true than in the FWD version.

But very little of this applies to the original poster's question which, in essence, is mostly an economic question. And the smart answer to that is to keep the sweet little 2.0L as the residual is much lower than it's value. If the 2.0L didn't have enough power to get the job done, and his wife was arriving home late from work due to lack of power, then the case could be made that it made economic sense to buy a new car (or at least one with more power). But that is obviously not the case here.

Americans in general have very poor saving habits because they are always trying to spend their money before they earn it. The solution is to not feel like you always "need" more.

Well, on that we agree. It's been a struggle for me, and I think I'm doing damn well. In the last 5 years I've gone from a $75K 505bhp vehicle that I drove once a month, to a $21K 184bhp vehicle that I drive every day (no second fun-car, either). I am slowly but surely learning to compromise and about "want vs. need", but dammit if I ever buy the 2.0...

 

[Unobtanium]

Yes I agree. The 2.5 engine really feels more brawny down low. Too bad it is a little more thirsty as well(cheers)

It's worth it. Today I went out to my property, and met with a neighbor, who "controls" the gate to the bottoms by the creek on the far side of my property. Anyway, she told me "I wouldn't drive that road..." while looking at my CX-5. (I wanted to show her where I wanted a dozer to access my property to clear a range out for myself next month, and she did not know the place I spoke of/was uncomfortable with talk of a dozer being let loose without knowing WHERE. So, I wanted to show her where my property abutted the road).

Anyway, I told her "I bought it for driving, not looking at. I've been warned, let's do it!" She got in, and off we went. Ground clearance wasn't bad, I think I may have scraped a large rock (moved it with the undercarriage really) once, but the taute suspension SUCKED for offroad use, and I could feel the back end walking all around going down hill because of it. Bouncing from rock to rock is what it felt like. Anyway, going down the hill was the easy part. I would say it was at 30-40* angle, 45* at parts. All on loose river rock/stones/gravel. Going UP the hill was my concern. Anyway, we got to the bottoms, looked around, she understood my goals, and we began back up the hill. I am happy to report that it made it up just fine. Even she was impressed. I was turning 13-1400rpm going up those hills, too. The 2.5L wasn't stressed in any way what-so-ever. I would have loved to back-to-back tested the little 2.0 on that jaunt!

 

[Unobtanium]

I am often at my cornering limits, that's where the fun is at whether I'm rallying on a gravel road or a nice set of twisties in the mountains. On a modern car with stability and traction control it is extremely important to have balanced handling because these computer systems don't kick in until they detect an unexpected difference in wheel speeds or a yawing motion. If the front and back let go at the same time, the computer systems don't interfere with the driving pleasure. This makes a huge difference. I do a lot of driving in the mountains in the winter when the curvy roads are covered in snow and/or ice. This is where the balanced nature of the 2.0L really shines, allowing you to take the corners at higher speeds without the electronic systems becoming intrusive.

And on icy roads the 2.0L has excessive power. On bare roads, I don't care much about torque because horsepower is what gets you maximum acceleration, torque is for those too lazy to shift. When I want maximum acceleration I'm in the peak powerband, not the torque peak. Every performance driver knows this and it's what makes the revy nature of the 2.0L such a pleasure with it's lighter rotating mass and the lack of the twin balance shafts which need to spin up at twice the speed of the crankshaft. It's the sportier mill even before it's 112 lbs. lighter weight is considered. I've been fully loaded to the GVWR in the mountains a number of times, both on bare pavement and in winter conditions. The 2.0L is a joy climbing steep hills, rowing through the gears, spinning the motor in it's higher rev ranges. The only bummer is I can rarely use all the power it has because it's a rare driver that wants to drive faster than I can go. If I had 300 HP (and I wanted to put it to good use) I would either need a track or I would end up passing every vehicle I came behind. And, invariably, there's another vehicle in front of them and so on. If I were so inclined, and I had 300 HP, I would just make a nuisance of myself constantly waiting for another opportunity to pass. It's a zero-sum game.

If you think you won't feel the more neutral handling and 4% higher cornering g-force, you have another think coming! At least that's how they say it in the land down under.

Having owned a 370Z and a WS.6 LS1 car, I can somewhat agree with you on torque, etc. The 370Z made up for it with TONS of mechanical advantage via gearing. It felt identical to my WS.6, even though it had over 100# less torque. Paper numbers of 5-60, and 0-60 also agree that it was the literal equal of the WS.6. They weighed within 200# or so of each other, as well (I weighed them both).

Anyway, I think that 99% of owners out there are going to be less concerned over the electronic nannies being too invasive while they hoon around in their CX-5's than they are get-up-and-go from a traffic light in city traffic. When I went to San Antonio a couple of weeks ago, I can tell you I would NOT want anything weaker than my 2.5, and even that kept me from grabbing some lanes I needed from time to time.

 

[Unobtanium]

*sigh*

If you want a fast-but-cheap CUV, get a Forester 2.0XT. It was tuned on the 'ring, it's faster than any modded CX-5 that's anywhere NEAR warranty-eligible, and it looks good (to me, totally subjective). The CX-5 is a bit girly, but I bite my lip and deal with that because really, it's transportation, not a personal expression of myself. The Forester has a more manly appeal by far. Again, my opinion.

 

[fdew]

If I were in that spot I would buy the 13 because it is a known good car at a good price. Then I would drive a 14 and a 15 and decide if I liked the bigger engine enough to change. If you do you are in the best possible spot. You have a 13 you can sell for more them you paid for it, and you can take your time and find the right replacement at the right price.

 

[P5stillalive]

Thanks fellas, this is really great intel. In the end, it just seems to make sense to keep it. Ive got a 911 in the stable to pacify me when i need a little spirited driving!