I was reading the specs on the cx-5 yesterday and I was really surprised that see that the cx-5 pulls a .87 skid pad rating. This is identical to my 1986 Corvette. Granted a lot years have passed and technology has continually improved, but it is still impressive that a modern day suv has that kind of handling capability.
The CX-5 handles as well as my Corvette.
- Thread starter mtvon2
- Start date
SayNoToPistons
Wheels, not rims...
- :
- CX-5 GT AWD w/ Tech, RX-8 GT 6spd w/ 'goodies'
LOL well the C4 Corvettes never exactly handled well, so it's no surprise. Sorry, just had to go there.
Chris_Top_Her
Contributor
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
Waiting for maz to skidpad his
I miss spoke. I meant to say .84. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-mazda-cx-5-touring-awd-test-review Still pretty close to the 86 Vette. Of course the modern sports car frequently produce skid pad ratings of over 1.0. But make no mistake, in its day the 86 Corvette was one of the top rated cornering sports cars offered. Obviously, the CX-5 is not attempting to compete with any modern day sport cars, but it more than holds its own in the cornering department.
Well I agree that the CX5 handles very good for an SUV but it's no sports car.
This reminds me of when I owned my 2001 Tundra my coworker challenged me to a race from about 45 mph-80mph with his stock 245 HP 89 Corvette auto. The highway was devoid of motorists and I was younger and dumber then so I obliged. To my surprise I pulled away from him about a half car length and he was rather embarrassed, lol. To make him feel better I told him their must have been something wrong with his engine. O-I miss that truck!
This reminds me of when I owned my 2001 Tundra my coworker challenged me to a race from about 45 mph-80mph with his stock 245 HP 89 Corvette auto. The highway was devoid of motorists and I was younger and dumber then so I obliged. To my surprise I pulled away from him about a half car length and he was rather embarrassed, lol. To make him feel better I told him their must have been something wrong with his engine. O-I miss that truck!
- :
- 2014 Mazda CX-5 GT AWD w/Tech
Looks like the number has gone down a bit to .81g in their latest test.
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2013-toyota-rav4-xle-awd-vs-2014-subaru-forester-25i-touring-2014-mazda-cx-5-grand-touring-awd-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-5
Still a blast to drive though!
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2013-toyota-rav4-xle-awd-vs-2014-subaru-forester-25i-touring-2014-mazda-cx-5-grand-touring-awd-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-5
Still a blast to drive though!
Instead of all season tires that the CX-5 comes with, slap some performance tires and the skid pad numbers would be much higher.
I remember my Vette was a rattle trap. I recently sold a Porsche Cayman S that cost $78,000 brand new. It had so many rattles, buzzing and creaking noises going on. In fact the Porsche was probably the noisiest of all the cars I've owned but I didn't mind it. In contrast, the CX-5 seems very quiet to me.
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
And numbers mean nothing. My wife's Sienna has much better numbers than my old MG but the MG, even now, is 100X more fun to drive.
Same goes for the newer cars, my old CR-V and the CX-5 have better numbers than the 944 I used to drive, but again, no comparison. Numbers are numbers. Mazda knows that.
Same goes for the newer cars, my old CR-V and the CX-5 have better numbers than the 944 I used to drive, but again, no comparison. Numbers are numbers. Mazda knows that.
Last edited:
leeharvey418
Member
- :
- 2019 CX-5 Signature; 2025 CX-90 T S PP
You know... you can get Michelin Pilot Super Sports in 245- or 255/45R20.
I bet you'd pull well over 0.84 g with those on your CX-5...
I bet you'd pull well over 0.84 g with those on your CX-5...
This is a funny title! When I first saw it, I was like, "no way my CX-5 handles like my C5 vette!". Then you explained the C4. But I see what you're getting at. It's pretty amazing what 25 years of technology can do for an SUV....errr, CUV.
If numbers don't mean anything, I guess you would have to throw out 0-60, 1/4 mile, 70-0 braking numbers MPGs and the rest of the pesky numbers. I don't know how you measure a cars ability but I think I will stick with how car mag. writers, racing professionals and the car enthusiast public have been measuring performance for years and years;with numbers.
I think you would be right!
You are right. I entitled this thread to spark discussion and to see if anyone agrees on the irony. I am glad you did. Here is a CUV that is 8.5" off the ground with pedestrian tires and while not at all trying to be a sports car but it yields handling numbers of top cars known for cornering years ago.
