So when can we expect the official 2014 EPA numbers?

[rcs914]

I'm having a small crisis here - my wife has been pushing me to get a new car (still rockin' the '98 Corolla), and I was really drawn to the CX-5 for mileage first, then driveability, handling, cargo room, etc. I had been planning on pulling the trigger on a FWD GT w/Tech as soon as I could get a dealer to agree to $28,500 for it.

Now I am a bit torn - if the EPA numbers for the 2.5 really are a penalty of only 1MPG, that is really pretty awesome. But I am afraid of it not really getting near that real world.

Having done a couple test drives in the current model, I didn't have much issue with acceleration, but I didn't have the chance to do a free-way on ramp. I am pretty sure that I would be happy with the 2.0, but would hate to limit myself to that if the 2.5 really is almost the same MPG.

With the cars supposedly showing up at dealers in about 1.5-2 months I would guess that the testing would need to be done soon.

 

[CX-SV]

IMO, hardly a crisis. Just plan on paying considerably more for the model year 2014. If you want more power, just wait.

Unlike Hyundai/Kia, Mazda is not know for gaming it's EPA ratings. If Mazda said it's a 1 mpg penalty, then I would expect that (rounded down from 1.5 mpg maybe, lol). Current 2.0L gets "real world" mileage near ratings, expect 2.5L to do same (both being Skyactiv engines).

 

[HandA]

I've never noticed a problem on freeway on ramps with the power. The only time I wish it had more power was the occasional time I want to quickly jump into an open space in traffic on the freeway. Then the time it takes to really wind up the motor to get it going above the flow of traffic is noticeable. Punch it on a freeway on ramp and most times you'll be yelling at the G37 that is going slow and blocking a smooth merge rather than cursing the 2.0 in your CX5

 

[rcs914]

IMO, hardly a crisis. Just plan on paying considerably more for the model year 2014. If you want more power, just wait.

Ok, a VERY small crisis (lol2) . Thanks for the info though. Still not sure if I should try and negotiate for a '13 before the '14s arrive in hopes of working a better deal, or just paying the "penalty" and getting the newer model. Hopefully pricing will be released soon, and I can make a decision.

 

[CX-SV]

rcs914 - It's certainly not fair to id you as the crisis dude, lol.

We've heard it all, here's some of the (non) crisis hype:

. OMG, the 2.5L will make resale value of the 2013 2.0 drop like a rock, feel so bad (like this segment of compact SUVs is extremely demanding of big horsepower and that's what drives these sales).
. OMG, the 2.5L will not come with a manual, I know at least a couple people that want one (like a huge number of sales are going to competitors, oh but they don't offer a manual either).
. OMG, the 2.5L gets 1 mpg less and I don't want to pay extra for it, so I need to rush out and buy a 2013 Touring or GT (like most of those buying loaded Touring and GT's are worried).
. OMG, the 2.5L will make new CX-5 prices jump up (like they weren't going to go up anyways, since they are already under market versus direct competition, like that hurts resale value).
. OMG, the 2.5L gets 1 mpg less and I am worried that Mazda lied (like Mazda is Kia).
. OMG, the 2.5L is so much more powerful than the 2.0L, (like it will make a CX-5 into a supercar).

Just kidding around...

The reality is the announcement of the new 2.5L Skyactiv engine to supplement the 2.0L Skyactive in CX-5 is positive news from Mazda.

 

[ReManG]

I have no idea when the numbers will be released, but I would not be too concerned, the comments above all seem valid. I am personally very satisfied with the 2.0G, but will test drive the 2.5G and 2.2D when they are available. This will not affect my feeling toward my current motor, but influence my next purchase, down the road, when I am ready. If you are still driving a 98 corolla, I have a feeling you are the "purchase correctly" sort of thinker. If the new motor was not coming out next year, what would you do? You have not been responsive to market issues for a while, so do not over think this one. Talk to the dealer, take a CX5 2.0 for an extended test drive if they are willing, and if not find another dealer. There are no flaws to your current logic, but if the current 2.0 is enough, then buy it, if you have doubts, wait. With my 2.0G, I can significantly lower the mileage by just driving it hard, half of my fun has been adapting to this car for the mileage, but when I want to drive it like my right foot is itchy, I am still getting 25 or so MPG.....wonderful and much more than my previous vehicle.....

 

[CX-SV]

Ok, a VERY small crisis (lol2) . Thanks for the info though. Still not sure if I should try and negotiate for a '13 before the '14s arrive in hopes of working a better deal, or just paying the "penalty" and getting the newer model. Hopefully pricing will be released soon, and I can make a decision.

Waiting will insure that you will probably end up paying higher price for the 2014, the possibility of decent selection of 2013's diminishes about the same time as new pricing is released.

 

[MikeM.]

Having done a couple test drives in the current model, I didn't have much issue with acceleration, but I didn't have the chance to do a free-way on ramp. I am pretty sure that I would be happy with the 2.0, but would hate to limit myself to that if the 2.5 really is almost the same MPG.

Freeway on-ramps are not a problem - the CX-5 with the 2L is plenty peppy and it doesn't sound like it's straining when wrapping it up between 3-5K rpms for extra acceleration. Only a beginner or unskilled driver would want or need more power to merge safely.

Yesterday I drove up a steep mountain pass highway with four adult men and all their ski/snowboard gear. Never once did I need to use all the power available even though I was driving quite briskly and the engine was not overly loud and had a pleasant sound. Waiting for a CX-5 with more power is kinda pointless unless you need more performance at speeds that are illegal anywhere in North America.

And, no, I don't believe Mazda can make the engine 25% bigger with only a 3% drop in MPG.

 

[mpnret]

Still the little engine has a certain buzz that reminds me of my old Pontiac Vibe. I hope the new engine is smoother like the other 2.5s out there.

 

[MikeM.]

Still the little engine has a certain buzz that reminds me of my old Pontiac Vibe.

Really? I found the CX-5 2.0L to be one of the most pleasant inline 4 cylinders I've had the pleasure to experience. I like it better than the growl of almost all V-6's which have a certain unpleasantness to my ear. The CX-5 sounds manly but businesslike and is really smooth when wrapping it out until right before redline (where it does get an unpleasant buzz). Fortunately the six speed tranny means I don't ever need to take it all the way to the red line.

I'm interested to hear what others perceive in this department.

 

[mpnret]

I thought the lack of power was a given being that every test report out there mentions it. Even the conservative consumer reports.

 

[meeus]

I thought the lack of power was a given being that every test report out there mentions it. Even the conservative consumer reports.

Apparently all those reviewers are either beginner drivers or love speeding in their vehicles (boom02)

Sorry, could not resist

 

[CX-SV]

Really? I found the CX-5 2.0L to be one of the most pleasant inline 4 cylinders I've had the pleasure to experience. I like it better than the growl of almost all V-6's which have a certain unpleasantness to my ear. The CX-5 sounds manly but businesslike and is really smooth when wrapping it out until right before redline (where it does get an unpleasant buzz). Fortunately the six speed tranny means I don't ever need to take it all the way to the red line.

I'm interested to hear what others perceive in this department.

An inline 4 is an inline 4, with or without balance shafts, it always sounds like a inline 4 to me.

My opinion is a few 4 bangers are better sounding than this Mazda 2.0L 4 banger (many Honda's and Mercedes latest turbo 4 bangers are better), it's above average for this kind of engine.

I own 2 premium V6's, they are both smoother, better-sounding when revved, just as I expected. (Also the flat 6 Porsche engines are way better obviously in this department.)

 

[MikeM.]

I thought the lack of power was a given being that every test report out there mentions it.

After test driving the CX-5 I lost a lot of respect for the car reviewers who claimed it was under-powered. Motor Trend however, after they road tested it, made a special point of not calling it under-powered. Apparently, they are not all adrenaline crazed, pimply faced teenagers who think the point of every car is to beat their classmates away from the red light. I think a lot of reviewers and young and relatively inexperienced (especially with in-line 4 cylinders) and they lose sight of what cars are for (hauling people and cargo places). The purpose of a car hasn't changed since the 1960's and the hills have not gotten any steeper nor the speed limits any higher. But look at what people were saying about cars from the 1960's:

Other features included a heavy-duty suspension and rear axle, free-flow muffler and air cleaner and four-speed floorshift manual transmission were all standard on Sprints, which cost only some $130 more than their regular Futura counterparts: $2,320 for the hardtop, $2,600 for the convertible.

And there was more: a 164-bhp "Challenger V-8," the high-revving, 260-cid "thinwall" unit introduced the previous year with the new mid-size Fairlane. Optionally available for any 1963 Falcon, the V-8 transformed a dowdy grocery-getter into a budget bomb with 0-60 times of just under 12 seconds. Falcon was now a step ahead of Valiant and the orthodox, year-old Chevrolet II, neither of which had anything so potent.
The V-8 was a natural for the Sprint, making it as fleet-footed as its name. Car Life called the combination "La Petite Sport," praising a high power-to-weight ratio (21 lbs/bhp) and the easy way the engine could exceed its 5,000-rpm redline despite a "choking" two-barrel carburetor.

In the day, Car Life Magazine praised the high power to weight ratio of the 164 bhp V-8 equipped 1963 Falcon Sprint. Never mind that inefficiencies in the power train caused it's 1/4 mile time to be slower than the CX-5 by over a full second (18.2 secs. vs. 17.1 secs.). And a 0 to 60 time of 11.9 seconds of the Challenger V-8 was enough to rave about it being a "budget bomb" while the CX-5 can do 0 to 60 in only 9.5 seconds. That's 2.4 seconds faster than the smaller, lighter but more powerful Ford with a performance orientated V-8! This is due to the more efficient transmission of the modern Mazda (as well as lighter tires/wheels). Not only does it waste less power due to friction but it has more gears to apply more torque to the drive wheels. In short, it accelerates faster with more weight, more interior space and a less powerful engine. Sure, the Falcon Sprint was from 50 years ago but the speed limits are no higher, the hills no steeper and the Sprint was considered a relatively fast, sporty car in it's day. I am not trying to compare these cars from five decades apart head to head, merely illustrating how spoiled modern editors have become by testing passenger cars and grocery getters with ridiculously high power to weight ratios. The requirements for driving on modern roads have not changed since the 1960's.

The editors who call the CX-5 under-powered either don't know how to drive it how it was meant to be driven or they have no clue what the power requirements are for a car designed to move people and cargo along public roads.

 

[loughman]

Agreed with Mike M. The CX-5 with the 2.0 is no rocket ship, but has enough power for it's intended purpose and gets decent mpg while doing it. I would love to have 30 more hp from the 2.5 skyactiv, but not at the penalty of 1-2 mpg. Sounds like Mazda is saying no change or maybe 1 mpg less, but I suspect realy world numbers will be 2-3 mpg less. The CX-5 is one of the few cars I have read about where most consumers are either meeting or beating the EPA ratings. We only have about 700 miles on ours, but are averaging 27-28 mpg with about a 40/60 city/highway mix of driving. As far as engine sound, the skyactiv 2.0 sounds as good (quiet and smooth) as a honda to me (traded a 2011 Accord with 2.4) and quieter/smoother than our 2005 RAV4 with 2.4

 

[mpnret]

After test driving the CX-5 I lost a lot of respect for the car reviewers who claimed it was under-powered. Motor Trend however, after they road tested it, made a special point of not calling it under-powered. Apparently, they are not all adrenaline crazed, pimply faced teenagers who think the point of every car is to beat their classmates away from the red light. I think a lot of reviewers and young and relatively inexperienced (especially with in-line 4 cylinders) and they lose sight of what cars are for (hauling people and cargo places). The purpose of a car hasn't changed since the 1960's and the hills have not gotten any steeper nor the speed limits any higher.
The editors who call the CX-5 under-powered either don't know how to drive it how it was meant to be driven or they have no clue what the power requirements are for a car designed to move people and cargo along public roads.

That's funny. I thought I read every cx-5 test report and they all called it under-powered. After your mention of MT I went back for another look. They reviewed it 3 times and here is a quote from each of their reviews:

"SkyActively slow!" I shouted during my loop in the newest soft-roader from Mazda. Admittedly, not only is my phrase not very funny, but this comparison test isn't the first time I've uttered it. The CX-5 is really slow, especially in passing situations. Besides being slow, it's a great little trucklette."

"The CX-5's Skyactiv-G (G is for gas) 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine is rated at 150 hp and 155 lb-ft of torque and propelled our tester from 0-60 mph in 9.5 seconds. It reached a quarter mile in a leisurely 17.1 seconds at 81.8 mph -- not exactly zoomy."

"There's no mistaking the CX-5 for a MazdaSpeed creation. The 155-hp Skyactiv 2.0-liter four-cylinder needs plenty of throttle and a whole lot of gearshifts from the Skyactiv-Drive six-speed automatic to get the 3312-pound CX-5 moving. From a standstill, 60 mph arrives in 9.4 leisurely seconds; a quarter mile comes in 17.1 seconds at 79.9 mph."

Your right. Nowhere did they use the word under-powered as everyone else does.

 

[MikeM.]

I own 2 premium V6's, they are both smoother, better-sounding when revved, just as I expected. (Also the flat 6 Porsche engines are way better obviously in this department.)

V6's are smooth, that's one of their main attributes. I just don't like the rhythm of the exhaust tempo as much as other engine configurations such as inline 4's, V-8's, inline 6's, opposed 6's, 90 degree V-twins, even the somewhat raspy note of a straight 5 cylinder is more pleasing to my ear than a V6. V6's are offered as the base engine on so many models of cars and light trucks for two main reasons:

1) The are cheap to manufacture for their power level due to the short crankshaft that can service 6 cylinders.
2) The are compact and light (again, due to the short crankshaft).

But they feel and sound bland to my ear.

In any case, isn't the recently announced 2.5L also an inline 4 cyl? I'm completely happy with the power (and exceptional range/fuel economy) of the 2.0L Skyactive engine so I won't be tempted to trade in for extra power that is completely superfluous to my needs but I would hate to see them put a V6 in such a fine vehicle Then, I wouldn't know which CX-5's to wave to anymore!

And I'll eat my undies if they manage to increase displacement by 25% without consuming more than 3% more fuel (especially in city driving).

 

[CX-SV]

V6's are smooth, that's one of their main attributes. I just don't like the rhythm of the exhaust tempo as much as other engine configurations such as inline 4's, V-8's, inline 6's, opposed 6's, 90 degree V-twins, even the somewhat raspy note of a straight 5 cylinder is more pleasing to my ear than a V6. V6's are offered as the base engine on so many models of cars and light trucks for two main reasons:

1) The are cheap to manufacture for their power level due to the short crankshaft that can service 6 cylinders.
2) The are compact and light (again, due to the short crankshaft).

But they feel and sound bland to my ear.

In any case, isn't the recently announced 2.5L also an inline 4 cyl? I'm completely happy with the power (and exceptional range/fuel economy) of the 2.0L Skyactive engine so I won't be tempted to trade in for extra power that is completely superfluous to my needs but I would hate to see them put a V6 in such a fine vehicle Then, I wouldn't know which CX-5's to wave to anymore!

And I'll eat my undies if they manage to increase displacement by 25% without consuming more than 3% more fuel (especially in city driving).

My preference is 6's and 12's for engine sound quality (smoothness difference is obvious), realizing that's highly subjective and most of my favorite cars owned were 6's. I've owned every config mentioned but a Vtwin. I'm glad technologies to mask coarseness of modern inline 4's and 5's is as good as it is today, I can live without it. My Lexus IS350 V6 with F-sport exhaust creates a sound under load at mid to higher revs that's semi-exotic.

Not worried about ever seeing a V6 in a compact SUV like the CX-5, demand isn't there, does not meet fleet fuel economy goals. A DOHC in-line4 is still cheaper than a DOHC V6 to produce.

Yes, the 2.5L will be inline 4, so more of the same as far as I'm concerned. IMO, I suspect Mazda will hit the 1-2 mpg penalty with more aggressive use of Skyactiv technologies (since they already let the cat out of the bag after doing mileage testing). No undies eating though, lol.

 

[MikeM.]

That's funny. I thought I read every cx-5 test report and they all called it under-powered. After your mention of MT I went back for another look.

My error, I intended to write "MotorWeek" not MotorTrend".

Here's a link:

http://www.motorweek.org/reviews/road_tests/2013_mazda_cx_5

And a quote:

We took our front wheel drive, manual equipped CX-5 Sport gaser to the track to see what it was capable of. And, unfortunately, the timed quarter mile is the one place sporty attitude and fuel economy dont mix well. Were not saying its underpowered, but it is definitely weak off the line. But, rev it like a Mazda, and power does sneak up on you.

and their conclusion:

The 2013 Mazda CX-5 is the true Mazda crossover weve been waiting for. Its stylish, with a well designed and roomy interior, and it exudes competent ride, handling, and braking. Yes, it is a little slow, but no one on our staff complained about getting over 30 MPG in a utility. So, if this is the future of the CUV, we bet a lot of you can get used to less reserve power, and spending less time at the pump, especially when you can still have so much fun.

Your right. Nowhere did they use the word under-powered as everyone else does.

Actually, everyone else does not call it "under-powered". MotorWeek for one.

 

[MikeM.]

IMO, I suspect Mazda will hit the 1-2 mpg penalty with more aggressive use of Skyactiv technologies (since they already let the cat out of the bag after doing mileage testing). No undies eating though, lol.

I'm thinking 2 MPG in city rating, real world difference may be closer to 10% less city miles per gallon. No thank-you. I do hope they make the fuel tank bigger so the range doesn't take a hit too.