So when can we expect the official 2014 EPA numbers?

[mpnret]

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 don’t mix well. We’re not saying it’s 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 we’ve been waiting for. It’s 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.




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

Interesting, in an effort to find a kind review about the engine power you had to pick a model most (yourself included) do not own, a FWD manual. I intend to purchase AWD so I didn't even consider the model they tested. It may be a little better in that form. Even with the tested model you have to be willing to accept "weak off the line" and "a liitle slow" according to the review. If you contine through the link you provided into the long term results you will find:

"Clearly the CX-5’s 2-liter, 155-horsepower automatic drivetrain is geared for economy. Enough so that some staff and viewers have already labeled the CX-5 as slow."

"So, we were prepared to accept a somewhat lethargic performance of its 155- horsepower 2.0-liter I4, automatic, all-wheel drive powertrain."

Once again you are correct, they did not use the word "under-powered" ha, ha. You will find the words slow, lethargic performance, weak off the line and low power reserve in your linked article. I don't mean to put down the cx-5. It's a great car no one is disputing that. It's just 'under-powered" in it's current form. The 2.5 and possible diesel should fix that.

 

[ta240]

The reality is the announcement....

oh sure, throw facts and reality into the mix. You've just defeated the entire purpose of the internet

 

[ta240]

unfortunately, the timed quarter mile is the one place sporty attitude and fuel economy don’t mix well.

I call for an end to timed quarter miles and 0-60 times for non-race cars. To me it is always like when companies would build computers with 4 Ghz processors and really slow bus speeds and hardly any memory and a slow hard drive. The 4 Ghz number sounds great but in practical use the computer stunk.

A focus on 0-60 times gives us cars that are great if you are an idiot racing people away from stoplights but that are lousy in the real world. I'd rather have a fun car that would lose every drag race than a car that could make me feel like a winner for 10 seconds in a street drag race but isn't any fun the rest of the time.

Sure that V6 Camry will give the VW GTI a run in a stoplight drag race but seriously, does that make the Camry more fun?

I enjoy Top Gear but every time they are sliding around their runways talking about how amazing the car is because it does that so well I have to wonder how many people have access to a wide runway to play around on like that. Even if you take your car to a track day you aren't going to be sliding it around like that. On a track day you want the car that goes the fastest around the corner without sliding and if you don't go to a track day I'd want the car that was simply the most fun to drive. Unless you are planning to risk other drivers lives by driving like that on the street I'd prefer slightly slower and a blast to drive over crazy fast.

 

[CX-SV]

I view the 0-60 times as a convenient reference point, for easy comparison purposes. I like to review instrumented data, realizing its limitations in terms of application to my regular street driving.

It has nothing to do with how I drive on a regular basis. It does contribute to fun to drive (good 0-60 times).

Of course the 2.0L Skyactiv is modestly powered, it also has the best in class fuel economy. The more powerful compact SUVs do not achieve same level of fuel efficiency. The new 2.5L Skyactiv will give considerably more power with a small fuel economy penalty, but it's not certain if it will be best in class economy (not likely as other automakers improve compact SUV efficiency).



Oh, I forgot wtf this thread is even about, lol. Something to do with 2014 EPA numbers, more convenient data for comparison purposes.

 

[V8toilet]

Define what is slow for a vehicle? The only way to do that is compare it to its competition or slap a subjective evaluation on it. Every time competitors increase the power of their engines the vehicle with the lowest # gets labeled as slow. This will be an endless cycle as technology evolves. 50 years from now a 0-60 time of 7 seconds may be seen as lethargic.

Look at the big picture and you'll see that there are always compromises, big HP or engine = less MPG. More gears = better MPG and acceleration times but cost more and so on. You have to be careful of the EPA mileage #'s, they are improved but still not very accurate. How you drive the vehicle is also going to be way more of a factor in what your real world MPG #'s will be. One example is my sisters 2012 Honda CRV; she can't figure out how I can consistently achieve over 34 MPG average in the summer when she can only muster around 24 MPG. The truth is If I had her Honda CRV and drove it the exact same way I drive my CX5 I could probably achieve above 30 MPG on every fill up (it would be less fun though). She just doesn't know how to drive efficiently and most people don't.

 

[xtrailman]

Its what you want the car to do that matters.

My requirements are to tow a caravan, and carry all my fishing equipment, so power is my requirement, but with reasonable economy. And I'm totally sold on 4WD.

0-60 times are pretty pointless as most drivers would never punish their cars in such a way, in gear performance figures are more useful, IMO

 

[chinq6t]

I owned an '03 Civic Si with an engine that I'll compare to the CX5 when I shop. It was 2.0L i-Vtec rated 160hp and 132lb trq (something like that) 27-29 mpg mixed and it weighed around 2800 lbs. Driving around with just me was fine. It was quick and smooth. But with the car loaded with passengers it took a toll on the pull.

Currently I'm driving an 07' Cooper S (1.6T 175hp,175lb trq something like that) and about the same weight and 30 mpg mixed but I have to fill up with 91 oct. The performance difference is obviously different, but with passengers (as many as I can fit in this thing) it can pull not great but fine for merging etc.

Fast forward to my test drive in the CX5 (what I plan to trade in my Mini for) I felt it performed like my Honda. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt I hadn't learned how to drive it as it was intended, but I drove how I normally drive. Also it's 400lbs heavier and I intend to include AWD. When it becomes loaded with passengers I predict the pull will be the same or even worse. That's my dilemma.

I'm NOT saying it's a bad thing, but it's not what I'm looking for. This is just the prospective I have and the 'crisis' that I am in as I'm being pushed to purchase a 4 door and am waiting for news on the new engine from Mazda. If I could take the engine from my Mini and plop it into the CX5 that'd be okay. Now I see why Mini uses the same engines across all of its products even with the range topping Countryman. I'm just saying the power/weight distribution is important to me as well as how well the engine can pull with a loaded vehicle.

Any way, the 2.0 will still be offered for 2014 so no need to fret.

* I forgot to mention my wife has an '07 VW Rabbit with 2.5L engine that I'll use to compare too. It weighs around 3200lbs and it handles fairly well. If the CX5 is just a bigger version of that with AWD then I'll take it.

 

[MikeM.]

It's a great car no one is disputing that. It's just 'under-powered" in it's current form.

Actually I would not consider it a "great car" if it were under-powered. I have the AWD auto and it's not slow off the line. Sure, it's not going to spin it's wheels and make smoke but I'm not 15 years old anymore. An under-powered car could not be called a "great car" by any rational person. Slower than most? Yes, Under-powered, no.

When you consider that it's a lot faster in 0-60 and 1/4 mile than the performance V-8 available in the sporty Ford Falcon of the '60's that was praised for it's excellent power to weight ratio (and it was lighter, less roomy and far less safe than the CX-5), then you realize just how good we have it. I have a 260 hp Volvo sedan weighing slightly more than the CX-5. Is it fast? Yes, very. Is all that power useful? Hardly ever.

It's only spoiled auto journalists who need to compare specs that are concerned with the speed of modern cars. Funny thing is, compared to other AWD vehicles in it's class, the CX-5 looks pretty good and once you drive the others there is no comparison in terms of ride quality, handling, efficiency and, yes, fun. Makes the Oldsmobile 442 convertible I had (with mild street cams, HD transmission and upgraded suspension) look like a fools exercise.

Does anyone remember how to have fun?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go skiing. I hope the CX-5 has enough power to get me up that steep mountain pass. Oh, I almost forgot, last week I already tested it on that road (with four men and all their gear). Zoom-zooom! I only wish the rest of the skiers wanted to drive as fast as the CX-5 wanted to go.

 

[CX-SV]

I'm not going to make comparisons to cars of the 60's/70's/80's/90's, because I have no plans to own any of them. I have 2 much quicker and current sport sedans to compare to on a daily basis.

And plenty of economy cars of this decade are slower than the CX-5.

 

[CX-SV]

oh sure, throw facts and reality into the mix. You've just defeated the entire purpose of the internet

Sorry. lol, no wonder Mazda doesn't bother with most of what's posted on the internet (examples: the 2.5L is a crisis situation)

 

[meeus]

In my personal opinion the problem with 2.0L is not that it is actually slow or underpowered, but in the fact that it feels slow (to me).
I test drove it three times (with both automatic and manual) and each time I was trying to convince myself that the power was sufficient.

It wasjust not effortless, it felt like the engine was working hard. And that was on a flat road with one extra guy in the cabin.
Loudness at higher rpm was annoying too. I agree with the guy from Automobile magazine review:

"I think the loud engine only adds to the feeling of slowness because the high decibel level doesn't correlate to the speed of travel. It's too bad because the handling, steering, and braking make it feel sporty, but the fairly uninspiring acceleration and loud engine take away from that feeling"

Our old 2002 Protege certainly feels a lot more nimble (I know, I should not be comparing to a small sedan, but still)

Anyway, I can't wait to test drive the 2.5L...

 

[CX-SV]

In my personal opinion the problem with 2.0L is not that it is actually slow or underpowered, but in the fact that it feels slow (to me).
I test drove it three times (with both automatic and manual) and each time I was trying to convince myself that the power was sufficient.

It wasjust not effortless, it felt like the engine was working hard. And that was on a flat road with one extra guy in the cabin.
Loudness at higher rpm was annoying too. I agree with the guy from Automobile magazine review:

"I think the loud engine only adds to the feeling of slowness because the high decibel level doesn't correlate to the speed of travel. It's too bad because the handling, steering, and braking make it feel sporty, but the fairly uninspiring acceleration and loud engine take away from that feeling"

Our old 2002 Protege certainly feels a lot more nimble (I know, I should not be comparing to a small sedan, but still)

Anyway, I can't wait to test drive the 2.5L...

Good observations.

Atkinson cycle is that dead gas pedal feel when it's most economical (large throttle openings, high gears), which is why this mode is rarely used on engines other than hybrids. Or as you said, "not effortless". Though best in class fuel economy is the result.

In short, the loud engine is typical of inline 4's in this class of vehicle, not my favorite sound either.

2002 Protege should feel more nimble, it's a lot smaller and lighter, a lot less substantial and safe too.

 

[mpnret]

Actually I would not consider it a "great car" if it were under-powered. I have the AWD auto and it's not slow off the line. Sure, it's not going to spin it's wheels and make smoke but I'm not 15 years old anymore. An under-powered car could not be called a "great car" by any rational person. Slower than most? Yes, Under-powered, no.

When you consider that it's a lot faster in 0-60 and 1/4 mile than the performance V-8 available in the sporty Ford Falcon of the '60's that was praised for it's excellent power to weight ratio (and it was lighter, less roomy and far less safe than the CX-5), then you realize just how good we have it. I have a 260 hp Volvo sedan weighing slightly more than the CX-5. Is it fast? Yes, very. Is all that power useful? Hardly ever.

It's only spoiled auto journalists who need to compare specs that are concerned with the speed of modern cars. Funny thing is, compared to other AWD vehicles in it's class, the CX-5 looks pretty good and once you drive the others there is no comparison in terms of ride quality, handling, efficiency and, yes, fun. Makes the Oldsmobile 442 convertible I had (with mild street cams, HD transmission and upgraded suspension) look like a fools exercise.

Does anyone remember how to have fun?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go skiing. I hope the CX-5 has enough power to get me up that steep mountain pass. Oh, I almost forgot, last week I already tested it on that road (with four men and all their gear). Zoom-zooom! I only wish the rest of the skiers wanted to drive as fast as the CX-5 wanted to go.

Sad that you had to go back 40 years to try and prove the power of the CX-5. But I guess you go where you got to go to make your dreams come true. I prefer to compare the CX-5 to it's current competion. You know the models that the journalists write about and you can actually find at a dealer. Of course if you don't agree with the journalists you can insult them and call them "spoiled" and "pimply faced kids". Good to know that your CX-5 has enough power to get up up that mountain pass. My old Pontiac Vibe used to do the same. Some people find the Vibe accepatble, some may find the CX-5 acceptable, others may want a little more or even in some cases a lot more. So if you find yourself in a pack of 40 year old cars on your ski trip and you feel the need to break out, go for it. Just watch for the CR-V, Escape, Kia Sportage, Volkswagen Tiguan, Nissan Rogue. They were all faster in the MT publication you referenced to try and prove your point.
The CX-5 is a great car, just not much power with the 2.0.

 

[meeus]

From the information about the Canadian launch (not sure how trustworthy)

http://www.auto123.com/en/news/2014-mazda-cx-5-to-roll-out-next-month?artid=150533

It appears that the loss of fuel efficiency from going to 2.5L is about 6 to 8% which is on average about 2mpg.

 

[ta240]

Just watch for the CR-V, Escape, Kia Sportage, Volkswagen Tiguan, Nissan Rogue.

I'd think the CX-5 could give some of those quite a run on a curvy road.

Whenever I come up on the back of another 'faster' car that is in my way and really slowing me down I'll often think (and sometimes say) "It is a good thing those people aren't driving a slow CX5"

But in all reality, if it feels slow to someone then I recommend they buy another of the choices. No one car can be all things to all people.... well, maybe with the 2.5 engine the CX-5 could be

And I still think it was a mistake not offering the 2.5 right from the start. The only negative comments I hear on the CX-5 are about the power and they could have avoided all of that.

Our old 2002 Protege certainly feels a lot more nimble

We replaced a P5 with the CX-5 and while it might have felt slightly more nimble it drove me crazy when going up into the mountains as the P5 engine just seemed to be working so hard and struggling. The CX-5 by comparison didn't seem to complain nearly as much. I think the sound deadening is better so I don't hear the engine as much but I like the sound of the CX-5 Engine when I step on it.

And as has been mentioned before on here a lot of it is driving style. If you are an aggressive driver, always looking for an opening and jumping into it then the 2.0 CX-5 is not a good choice. Not only will it have to work hard but your MPG will suffer a lot. Whenever I have to really stand on it to get where I need to go I can see the MPG drop quickly. If you are a mellow highway driver that likes to fling around corners sometimes then it is a great choice.

2002 Protege should feel more nimble, it's a lot smaller and lighter, a lot less substantial and safe too.

Yeah, I feel a ton more safe in the CX-5. The P5 was a slot car but wouldn't have fared as well in a crash. And even with layers of added sound deadening and really great tires was still somewhat loud on the freeway.

 

[mpnret]

And I still think it was a mistake not offering the 2.5 right from the start. The only negative comments I hear on the CX-5 are about the power and they could have avoided all of that.

I totally agree with that. The CX-5 has a ton of reviews out there. All of them that I could find are extremely positive except for the power thing and maybe the nav a bit. If it came out in the US with the 2.5 all of this could have been avoided. It seems the Mazda engineers new what the minimum power requirements were and got it right with a 14:1 compression ratio 2.0. What killed it was the marketing decision to drop the compression to 13:1 and along with that the hp for the US market. It's only a bit more power but European reviews are not nearly as critical on the power. Even the ones written by american journalists driving the European spec model.

 

[chinq6t]

And I still think it was a mistake not offering the 2.5 right from the start. The only negative comments I hear on the CX-5 are about the power and they could have avoided all of that.

I'd be in a brand new Mazda already if it were.

 

[UtCal]

Sad that you had to go back 40 years to try and prove the power of the CX-5. But I guess you go where you got to go to make your dreams come true. I prefer to compare the CX-5 to it's current competion. You know the models that the journalists write about and you can actually find at a dealer. Of course if you don't agree with the journalists you can insult them and call them "spoiled" and "pimply faced kids". Good to know that your CX-5 has enough power to get up up that mountain pass. My old Pontiac Vibe used to do the same. Some people find the Vibe accepatble, some may find the CX-5 acceptable, others may want a little more or even in some cases a lot more. So if you find yourself in a pack of 40 year old cars on your ski trip and you feel the need to break out, go for it. Just watch for the CR-V, Escape, Kia Sportage, Volkswagen Tiguan, Nissan Rogue. They were all faster in the MT publication you referenced to try and prove your point.
The CX-5 is a great car, just not much power with the 2.0.

I also had concerns about the power of the CX-5 before I bought it. But the following data removed my worries:
- Consumer Reports lists 0-60 and 45-65 times for AWD CX-5 at 10.0 and 6.4 seconds
- Consumer Reports lists 0-60 and 45-65 times for AWD 1.6T Escape as 9.9 and 6.5 seconds
- Consumer Reports lists 0-60 and 45-65 times for AWD 2.4 Sportage as 10.3 and 6.4 seconds
Consumer Reports thinks acceleration is a major issue for the CX-5 but not for the Escape and the Sportage. Go figure.

In the Motortrend comparison of FWD crossovers, the CX-5 had the same 45-65 (more important than the 0-60 time in my opinion) time as the 1.6 T Escape. And the acceleration of the Escape is considered perfectly fine.

Is the CX-5 on the lower end in the segment in terms of acceleration? True.
But has the issue been blown out of proportion? True again.

Of course I bought the FWD CX-5 which has better acceleration numbers than AWD 1.6 Escape and AWD 2.4 Sportage. People are not harping about the acceleration numbers of those two vehicles, so I figured I have little to worry about.

 

[mpnret]

I also had concerns about the power of the CX-5 before I bought it. But the following data removed my worries:
- Consumer Reports lists 0-60 and 45-65 times for AWD CX-5 at 10.0 and 6.4 seconds
- Consumer Reports lists 0-60 and 45-65 times for AWD 1.6T Escape as 9.9 and 6.5 seconds
- Consumer Reports lists 0-60 and 45-65 times for AWD 2.4 Sportage as 10.3 and 6.4 seconds
Consumer Reports thinks acceleration is a major issue for the CX-5 but not for the Escape and the Sportage. Go figure.

In the Motortrend comparison of FWD crossovers, the CX-5 had the same 45-65 (more important than the 0-60 time in my opinion) time as the 1.6 T Escape. And the acceleration of the Escape is considered perfectly fine.

Is the CX-5 on the lower end in the segment in terms of acceleration? True.
But has the issue been blown out of proportion? True again.

Of course I bought the FWD CX-5 which has better acceleration numbers than AWD 1.6 Escape and AWD 2.4 Sportage. People are not harping about the acceleration numbers of those two vehicles, so I figured I have little to worry about.

Both the Escape and Sportage you used for comparison are available with better perfoming engines for those that desire it. Hopefully once the CX-5 is available with the 2.5 it will be better positioned to compete with them. I have no doubt the lesser engines will always get you there, just a few more revs, a little more downshifting and some less passing power. Probably not as much of a concern with your FWD. Being I need AWD I will wait for the 2.5.

 

[CX-SV]

Both the Escape and Sportage you used for comparison are available with better perfoming engines for those that desire it.

Yes, good to have those upgrade options, even if the high output turbo 2.0L versions are very small percentage of Escape and Sportage sales.