Test drove an awd touring and a fwd manual sport today. My opinion.......

[CX-SV]

Welcome psistolic, and congrats on the new stick CX-5!

One car for all purposes does have it's challenges. That's why my preference is to have at least 2 (different cars for different purposes). Good perspective on manual trannys too.

 

[mikeee2]

Interesting thread, just wanted to put in my 2 cents here as well. I picked up the M/T sport and have no regrets, the car I traded in was a 2009 Subaru STI, and I got a lot of laughs from my friends when I made this transition!

But here's what I learned: If you can only have one car to own as a daily driver, it made no sense to own a high horsepower sports car, even if it's a wagon - try commuting with a 17MPG car through traffic! especially where the engine requires premium gas!! Now, yes, you can take the car to the track on weekends, and I did that too, about a total of 5 times over the course of 2 years, driving 100 miles to Willow Springs raceway here in SoCal. The problem with a sports car/daily driver is that once on the track, you (or at least in my case) tend to drive it tenderly, because even though you're on a racetrack, in the back of your mind, you need to remind yourself that this same car will still need to make it's way back home at the end of the day, and then to work the next day! Even with run-offs, it's not fool proof! One of the track days, we witnessed an S2000 take a turn too aggressively and it ended up getting totaled, and unable to drive on it's own power.

One day, driving home from work, I realized that of the 50,000 miles on my STI, I estimated that only 0.1 % was used for it's intended engineering purpose as a sports car, and it just didn't make sense to me! So, to Mazda dealerships I went!

With the CX-5, I get the practicality of an SUV (and a pseudo-truck, with the roof rack), the ability to tow 2000 lbs (maybe a stripped down track-only miata soon?), awesome MPGs, and three pedals to keep my feet happy!

As a side note regarding the discussion of AT vs MT - personally, I think the appeal of an MT is not the ability to choose your own gears, it's more about the "analog-ness" of the clutch pedal, the art of modulation between "on and off" of each gear, and the satisfaction you get after perfecting a smooth heal-toe downshift (even if its during your daily commute! for the CX-5, you'll need to install some aftermarket pedals to get this right!). It just makes driving more interesting and interactive, where each trip is more event-like, and going from point A to B becomes A-C-B where C makes the drive noteworthy, rather than just a chore.

Sorry for the long post, I'm usually a forum-lurker, but decided to speak up in this thread!

Happy Shifting! =]

Interesting to go from STI to CX-5. You do know that next year a bigger engine 2.5 is coming out right? 185 horses or something. Not sure if the engine applies to the fwd m/t though. So coming from STI, do you feel it's under power?

 

[CX-SV]

I went from a 292 hp 4.6L V8 SUV Explorer to a CX-5 in March and the power difference was noticable (no surprise). I expect the STI to CX-5 power difference is noticable too. In both cases the gas mileage difference is significant.

 

[psistolic]

Interesting to go from STI to CX-5. You do know that next year a bigger engine 2.5 is coming out right? 185 horses or something. Not sure if the engine applies to the fwd m/t though. So coming from STI, do you feel it's under power?

Well, the funny thing was that because of the bad gas mileage on the sti, I tend to drive it like a granny, shifting well before the turbo spools up, hoping to bring that 17 MPG up to 19 MPG for my commute!! It was pretty pathetic to be driving the car like that!

And when moving to the CX-5, I was preparing myself for an underpowered driving experience, especially after reading about complaints about acceleration almost unanimously from online reviews. But, after living with the CX-5 for about two months now, I don't find it under-powered, it's "just right" IMO. shifting under 3K rpm, will get me fine around town and onto freeways, if you want a bit more grunt, hold the gear to the upper rpms!

I don't think I'll want a bigger motor, or even the diesel version, the current one serves my commuting purposes just fine. As for towing large loads, I don't know how the current cx-5 will respond to that, I've read some posts about it being very sluggish, and I'm thinking the diesel would be perfect for that purpose.

What I do miss was the great Subie community, I've had countless waves and smiles from fellow subarus while driving in the sti, but the sad thing is that with older subarus being cheaper to buy, the community has been plagued with the "ricer" disease, making a lot of owners wanting to dissociate themselves from that brand, I've seen my share of it as well!

But, I'll be more than receptive to fellow CX-5s that I see on the road, and if one happens to give a wave, I'll definitely reciprocate!

So far, I've been enjoying the friendly people on this forum, and am glad to be part of it!

 

[psistolic]

Welcome psistolic, and congrats on the new stick CX-5!

One car for all purposes does have it's challenges. That's why my preference is to have at least 2 (different cars for different purposes). Good perspective on manual trannys too.

Thanks for the welcome! Loving the car, and this forum so far!

 

[watermelon]

Interesting to go from STI to CX-5. You do know that next year a bigger engine 2.5 is coming out right? 185 horses or something. Not sure if the engine applies to the fwd m/t though. So coming from STI, do you feel it's under power?

Mike, speaking to what you mentioned earlier in the thread, you will be dissatisfied with the CX-5 with either the 2.0 or the 2.5 (projected 185 HP & Torque).

These are still low volume inline four engines and the power characteristics of a decent V6 can only be replicated with the use of turbo chargers.

You sound like you really want to like the CX-5, but are afraid of HP deficit. A test drive in the 2.5 will answer your question for you, but I don't think you'll like it either.

Coming for a 170hp 2900lb car - even the acceleration in this one wasn't that great, It was just enough, but I would still have to redline it to make a decent highway pass while cruising at higher speeds. The 2.5 is only going to give about 30 more HP for what's still a 3300-3400lb car. I predict the 2.5 CX performance to be very close to what my previous car was like.

At any rate, I've said before, in my experience now, I've quite happy with the 2.0 155hp 3300lb package. This car still feels punch and lively to me, so it'll tide me over quite nicely over the next 4-5 years until another car upgrade is in the wings.

good luck with your car purchase decision. Maybe start looking at all the CUV V6 options that are out there. They'll all have way more punch, but, really, I don't think any of them will be as nice as the CX-5 unless you're going to buy a premium brand car.

 

[mikeee2]

[Q hUOTE =watermelon;6052107]Mike, speaking to what you mentioned earlier in the thread, you will be dissatisfied with the CX-5 with either the 2.0 or the 2.5 (projected 185 HP & Torque).

These are still low volume inline four engines and to the power characteristics of a decent V6 can only be replicated with the use of turbo chargers.

You sound like you really want to like the CX-5, but are afraid of HP deficit. A test drive in the 2.5 will answer your question for you, but I don't think you'll like it either.

Coming for a 170hp 2900lb car - even the acceleration in this one wasn't that great, It was just enough, but I would still have to redline it to make a decent highway pass while cruising at higher speeds. The 2.5 is only going to give about 30 more HP for what's still a 3300-3400lb car. I predict the 2.5 CX performance to be very close to what my previous car was like.

At any rate, I've said before, in my experience now, I've quite happy with the 2.0 155hp 3300lb package. This car still feels punch and lively to me, so it'll tide me over quite nicely over the next 4-5 years until another car upgrade is in the wings.

good luck with your car purchase decision. Maybe start looking at all the CUV V6 options that are out there. They'll all have way more punch, but, really, I don't think any of them will be as nice as the CX-5 unless you're going to buy a premium brand car.[/QUOTE]

You hit it right on the money. I like the car but afraid the low power will get to me quicker than I expect it to. Then I will be stuck with it. It may be closer to 190 horses for the 2.5. I forgot the exact horses. Yes it probably won't make a big difference but should make some difference. This could mean shifting less (more torque) and pull better merging into highway.

 

[CX-SV]

[Q hUOTE =watermelon;6052107]

You hit it right on the money. I like the car but afraid the low power will get to me quicker than I expect it to. Then I will be stuck with it. It may be closer to 190 horses for the 2.5. I forgot the exact horses. Yes it probably won't make a big difference but should make some difference. This could mean shifting less (more torque) and pull better merging into highway.

2.0L turbo Escape or Evoque might be better for your needs and worth consideration (more horsepower, more torque, less shifting, better merging power). Gas mileage will be significantly lower than the 2.0L CX-5, but so are all the other compact SUV's.

 

[mikeee2]

2.0L turbo Escape or Evoque might be better for your needs and worth consideration (more horsepower, more torque, less shifting, better merging power). Gas mileage will be significantly lower than the 2.0L CX-5, but so are all the other compact SUV's.

Evoque is wayyyyyyyyy too expensive. But neither of these have m/t. The transmission is more important than the horses. I probably would see if the 2.5 is offer for the m/t next year or if i would to get the cx-5 this yr, may end up getting an automatic and make it my wife's car and i'll just keep my g35. If it's my wife's car, automatic and whatever horses is fine with me because I am not driving it. LOL

As for mpg, I get on avg about 16 mpg on my car now so anything is an upgrade I think (unless exotic car mpgs).

 

[CX-SV]

Evoque is wayyyyyyyyy too expensive. But neither of these have m/t. The transmission is more important than the horses. I probably would see if the 2.5 is offer for the m/t next year or if i would to get the cx-5 this yr, may end up getting an automatic and make it my wife's car and i'll just keep my g35. If it's my wife's car, automatic and whatever horses is fine with me because I am not driving it. LOL

As for mpg, I get on avg about 16 mpg on my car now so anything is an upgrade I think (unless exotic car mpgs).

Is the G35 a stick?

 

[mikeee2]

Is the G35 a stick?

No, it's an awfulmatic. My first automatic car so I am in need of going back to m/t. It was all m/t until I got the G35 and it was downhill from there. Nice car to drive with but all I do is steer and it's quite boring. It's AWD G35 and mpg is horrible. I need another car because my wife's beater car is crapping out. Thus, I wanted to get a m/t for myself and give her the G35. Been looking at other options as well. Looked at a couple acura tsx (I know...not suv but suv m/t is harder to find than hitting lotto).

 

[Suddueth13]

We drove a Sport manual a few months ago and both my wife and I felt that power was adequate. I don't know how some of you pass people on the interstate but we could pass fine in 6th gear. Downshift to 5th if you need to do it a little more quickly. Merging onto the interstate is fine. If it's a circle ramp, 3rd gear worked just fine. A straight merger was accomplished in 6th and was at 65mph by the bottom of the ramp. We are looking at possibly getting one next year but I'm holding out for the diesel.

 

[mikeee2]

We drove a Sport manual a few months ago and both my wife and I felt that power was adequate. I don't know how some of you pass people on the interstate but we could pass fine in 6th gear. Downshift to 5th if you need to do it a little more quickly. Merging onto the interstate is fine. If it's a circle ramp, 3rd gear worked just fine. A straight merger was accomplished in 6th and was at 65mph by the bottom of the ramp. We are looking at possibly getting one next year but I'm holding out for the diesel.

The "power" thing is quite subjective. It depends on where you live, what you classify as enough power, etc. After all, cx-5 is a suv so I am not expecting corvette speed/handling. With that being said, I live in NYC so if you don't merge in within one nano-second, someone behind you is gonna pull a shotgun on you (exaggerating of course). In NY, people don't have patience, you do not have all day to merge. At 65mph, I really can't imagine the cx-5 having any pull on 6th gear. I drive my brother's v8 mustang and even his 412 horses in 6th gear doesn't pull that strong. 6th gear is for gas mileage. Now, if you live in a rural area, where the next car coming up to you on the highway is about 1/4 mile away then obviously merging is not an issue in any gear with any car.