Those Taking Delivery of 2014 CX-5 w/ 2.5L Power Plant

[hollis]

Test drove 2.0 in AT and MT transmissions:

AT: too underpowered, unless you can live with constant roaring engine, 0-60 ~ 9.8secs
MT: good fit and sufficient, 0-60 ~ 8.5secs

Would be interested to know what is the 0-60 for 2.5 MT, I read the 2.5 MT in mazda6 gets 0-60 in 7.3 secs,
if the above math is right I would have taken the 2.5MT for mere $152 more a year for the extra performance.

 

[MikeM.]

(It won't save you from the guy behind you, though.)

It would save you from the guy behind if everyone had SCBS!

I tend to be a very attentive driver so SCBS is not something I want or need but I would gladly pay for it on my car if it were required on all new cars. I think, for the cost of the technology, it would be a huge money saver nationwide and could end up lowering insurance premiums by an amount greater than the cost of implementation.

 

[CX-SV]

Really cxsv? That wasn't a clear comparison of the 2 engines? Who? How did you get a who from that?

Ok. Let me try again and make it easier to understand.

2.0 is better mpg by more than they claim. I say by 2.5mpg.
.

Thanks, that's somewhat better if you are trying to talk about "they implied".

I will clarify the "who" below (EPA):

Yes, MPG for comparison purposes is 2 miles to the gallon better for EPA-combined rating of 2.0L, versus your estimate of 2.5mpg, hardly significant when comparing 2 estimates.

 

[Nikoman]

2014 AWD 2.5 or FWD 2.5 only

Anything else is not worth it IMO. The reason the CX-5 got a 2.5 is because Mazda's engineering thought it was underpowered as well (aside from much customer feedback). Also, almost every major reviewer stresses the welcomed additional power with minimal MPG loss. I have a heavy foot so I'm sure there are many members here that won't notice a difference but I sure did when I test drove a couple months ago. I'm very happy with my 2.5 and yes, it does make a huge difference in stop-n-go traffic (everyday in Chicago).

 

[ALafya]

Based on a test drive, I think engine power of the 2L is reasonable, somewhat behind the competition.
The 2L Crosstrek is probably slower. The upside is a tad better fuel economy and (for 2014) lower price. I think for Europe or anywhere but the US it is still considered a 'big' gas engine. In the US it's a bit of a tough sell.
For me, waiting for the 2.5L was a no-brainer. My former ride was a 160HP 4 cylinder lighter sedan. Climbing up a mountain with the family and ski equipment with it was OK. I did not want to go down in power and up in weight.
I don't see much point in getting a FWD CX-5. Why not get a new 6 instead. If Mazda was offering the new 6 in Wagon configuration + AWD in the US it was also a no-brainer for me (are you listening Mazda?).

At first, I wanted to get a Subaru. But then, I heard of too many issues owners are having so I decided to look elsewhere. Fortunately, Mazda came out with this excellent CUV. If not for Mazda, I might have been forced to settle for a RAV-4.

 

[vroom]

I don't see much point in getting a FWD CX-5. Why not get a new 6 instead.

Well storage wise, you can't compare the CX-5 with the 6. FWD uses less gas, is lighter so more nimble, and costs less. I think storage and road visibility/hight are the main reason people get CUV/SUVs, certainly not for off roading. I did get the AWD, but only because I live in an area where we get a LOT of snow. If not, I would not have seen the point in getting the AWD at all.

 

[Nick3434]

Well I got my cx5 back today. On the 25 minute ride back from the dealership 3 things were apparent.

The 2.5 is probably a little more quick and welcome than I was giving it credit for, I guess I got used to the 2.0, but when back in mine it was more significant than I originally thought.

The mpg I think is actually worse, I know I said a debatable apparently 2.5, but I would lean towards 3 or so if driven the same. I have been driving the loaner so much harder than I drove mine and it was still better, driving mine a little sporty on the way back made it like a 3+ difference when driving in that manner.

The third (non engine) is how different the ride is from 17s to 19s.

As far as fwd, it is a bigger world than you imagine I guess. I live in Florida and needed a good fuel economy not car. Why would I want the added cost of awd, the added maintenance of awd and the slightly lowered performance and fuel economy of awd????? I would imagine anyone in a flat stable climate would feel the same way and hence why it is offered.

 

[CX-SV]

This is spot on! I had a 13 sport for 16 moths and now have had a 14 touring for 5 weeks. The real world mileage difference seems to be somewhere between 1 & 2 mpg less with the 2.5 depending on the driving. I just did some 0-60 testing with my broken in 2.5 on my G-Tech in the same location and weather conditions I got 0-60 in 8.44 seconds with the 2.0. The results surprised me. As soon as I can get my laptop fixed I'll post a full review. I have 5 weeks of mileage tracked in my fuelly for the 2.5. You can compare those #'s to the 2.0.

V8toilet - Looking forward to your review and comparison of the 2 engines/versions of CX-5. Your thousands of miles of experience with both vehicles provides a perspective that will be appreciated.

 

[V8toilet]

Pressures on, just got the computer parts today. I'm hoping by the weekend I have a moment.

Thanks

 

[ALafya]

Well storage wise, you can't compare the CX-5 with the 6. FWD uses less gas, is lighter so more nimble, and costs less. I think storage and road visibility/hight are the main reason people get CUV/SUVs, certainly not for off roading. I did get the AWD, but only because I live in an area where we get a LOT of snow. If not, I would not have seen the point in getting the AWD at all.

Most of the extra storage in the CX-5 is with the addition of vertical volume compared with the 6 sedan. The 6 wagon has more cargo room, is more fun to drive, uses less fuel, weighs less and costs about the same. It has less ground clearance and no AWD.
If you don't care that much about vertical volume and hauling large boxes (and you don't need AWD) then the 6 sedan is the next best thing, if you are deprived of the wagon.
Can even be had with a Diesel engine in the US ...

 

[vroom]

I agree with you 100% on the fact that the 6 is a great car, and meets the needs of many. Just saying that calling the FWD option of the CX-5 basically useless is not fair to the many who have made that choice after much thought... My first kid was born just before I got mine, and the vertical space for hauling all the big toys and child equipement is an absolute godsend, and the 6 wagon is not available here. So if I had lived anywhere south of the 40th latitude, the FWD CX-5 would have been the ideal vehicle for me. So yes, there is a point to the FWD CX-5.

That, and the fact that many just like the looks and sitting height of the CX-5 more than the 6.

 

[CX-SV]

That, and the fact that many just like the looks and sitting height of the CX-5 more than the 6.

Exactly, ride height is important in this high growth segment of compact SUV/crossovers, a big plus in suburban/urban jungle driving conditions. Most North American buyers intentionally select this configuration versus a station wagon. I already have 2 V6 sport sedans, so something different was required.

 

[CX-SV]

Would be interested to know what is the 0-60 for 2.5 MT, I read the 2.5 MT in mazda6 gets 0-60 in 7.3 secs,
if the above math is right I would have taken the 2.5MT for mere $152 more a year for the extra performance.

Not thinking that config was available in CX-5 (2.5 MT), if not available then nobody can know actual 0-60.

 

[gova]

Fair is fair, please share your thoughts and experiences with the new 2.5L engine.

Traded in my Sport 2013 for Touring 2014. It is not a fair comparison as this is MT vs AT tranny, but to me it is night and day difference in favor of 2.5 engine.

I did 17K miles on MT 2013 model and now I am very nicely surprised by 2.5 AT. Excellent improvement in acceleration. Even early AT shifts don't bother me that much with this engine. It is very smooth and MUCH 'torquier' than 2.0 with MT.

We liked it so much that wifey got 2nd CX-5 AWD and traded in her 07 Honda Oddysey.

I'll post MPG comparison once I get a couple of fill ups.