Thoughts on 16 vs 17

[Xeler8ing]

Understandable, I was just saying.

No issue!

 

[Xeler8ing]

It's refreshingly ... blunt, LOL.

Just watched it. When talking about the actual car it was good. But when he digressed especially with the mechanic... meh

 

[dougal]

Review watched:
He was clear-no need to buy this unless you have a 5 y.o. CX-5 and that's really the crux,i didn't consider a 6 as a second car because of same drivetrain. 120k or so is saturation point for mazda in sales figures.
I like my mazda but if I buy a new car every 5 years I don't want same engine with more sound deadening. I want more options and others do as well:
Electric with range extender (on cards), mazda hazumi (or whatever the concept car is called)
Hybrid (Toyota hybrid in a Mazda 3 with skyactiv)
Turbos
V6
7/8 speed automatic.

This is at best a dressed up 16.5 - good value for new buyers but meh if you think of MY continuation.

Another positive he said was repeatability over kia/Honda/ford turbos. In stop n go here in Texas the puny 1.5 turbo will repeatedly get hotter and weaker on a drive. Your throttle response won't be true. Add CVT and you get vague driving feel.

The comment that people with a year or two old CX-5 don't need to rush out and buy this is also related to his high regard for the current CX-5. The CX-5 came out in 2013. This is year 2017. The 2019-2020 most likely will have the power-train updates. I bet the 3 and 6 will get them first.

 

[Red MC]

Depends on way more than you're focusing on. And VW didn't figure out crap, their 1.8T engine is a sludge bucket. Poor example.

BTW, my example was to be "different" from the current 2.5T platform...

Try the CX-9.

The old turbo recipe of using a low compression ratio and a lot of high RPM boost is what gave turbos a bad rap for so many years. Some car makers are still making turbos like this, Ford and Subaru to name two. Their current engines aren't as bad as they used to be, but they're still pretty lackluster except under full throttle acceleration. Under the rpm and throttle conditions where street engines spend 99% of their time, you aren't getting much advantage from the turbo. There's a lot of lag, responsiveness is poor, low rpm torque doesn't seem any better than a naturally aspirated engine of the same size, and real world fuel economy falls short of their ratings.

VW deserves credit for popularizing turbos with a flat torque curve. If you want to be impressed with a small turbo, drive a GTI with the 2.0T. It is really fun to drive, way more than anything Mazda offers. 250 lb-ft of torque from 1500 rpm up and minimal lag, so it feels like it has loads of grunt everywhere and downshifting is optional. Passing power in top gear is really strong. It's flat out quick too. And fuel economy is pretty good.

The 1.8T has been around for a long, long time and isn't going to win any drag races, but it is surprisingly capable of moving around a mid-size car with relative ease. The reason for that is there is boost available from the bottom of the rev range, so you can be cruising around in the 1500-2000 rpm range and when you start to push into the throttle there is torque right there without needing a downshift. It gives the impression of a bigger engine.

 

[NelsonLewis]

Try the CX-9.

The old turbo recipe of using a low compression ratio and a lot of high RPM boost is what gave turbos a bad rap for so many years. Some car makers are still making turbos like this, Ford and Subaru to name two. Their current engines aren't as bad as they used to be, but they're still pretty lackluster except under full throttle acceleration. Under the rpm and throttle conditions where street engines spend 99% of their time, you aren't getting much advantage from the turbo. There's a lot of lag, responsiveness is poor, low rpm torque doesn't seem any better than a naturally aspirated engine of the same size, and real world fuel economy falls short of their ratings.

VW deserves credit for popularizing turbos with a flat torque curve. If you want to be impressed with a small turbo, drive a GTI with the 2.0T. It is really fun to drive, way more than anything Mazda offers. 250 lb-ft of torque from 1500 rpm up and minimal lag, so it feels like it has loads of grunt everywhere and downshifting is optional. Passing power in top gear is really strong. It's flat out quick too. And fuel economy is pretty good.

The 1.8T has been around for a long, long time and isn't going to win any drag races, but it is surprisingly capable of moving around a mid-size car with relative ease. The reason for that is there is boost available from the bottom of the rev range, so you can be cruising around in the 1500-2000 rpm range and when you start to push into the throttle there is torque right there without needing a downshift. It gives the impression of a bigger engine.

You lost me at Subaru and Ford. I don't need to drive a 2.0T, I had a Passat not too long ago, and NEVER again will I buy a VW, or Audi for the matter. As for "to be impressed by a small turbo, drive a 2.0 GTI". Lmao, dude I have an Evo. Say no more.

 

[Studum]

The comment that people with a year or two old CX-5 don't need to rush out and buy this is also related to his high regard for the current CX-5. The CX-5 came out in 2013. This is year 2017. The 2019-2020 most likely will have the power-train updates. I bet the 3 and 6 will get them first.

^^^This

I agree the new design is more evolutionary than revolutionary - but that's not a bad thing when what you're starting with was already one of the most well regarded vehicles in it's class. Mazda did good with the last gen, now they're trying to do better. And it's working as evident by those members here who are proud to have come to Mazda from BMW / Audi / etc.

If the new one isn't worth ditching your 4-5 year old car for, that would make me stupendously happy if I were already an owner. The longer you wait to replace, when it's worth it for you, the better the car you'll get in the end. Being new to the market the 17 won hands down for us. Not because of it's face, but because of it's overall refinement as a complete package.

As a fan of taking corners and feeling the road I personally would've had no issues with a 16.5 GT myself, but when it's my wife's primary car and she sees / hears the differences night and day after driving back to back then she gets what she wants. I couldn't argue against her either as the new one is obviously smoother and quieter. Happy wife happy life... And I'm thrilled to have another Mazda rather than the POS we had before.

Mazda won't skip out on putting the new / revised drive train into this car when it's ready. My thoughts are also that it will likely coincide with a refresh in a couple of years, and that you will likely see it in the new 3 first when it's eventually released. I was actually happy to see the existing hardware in the car only slightly revised. As someone who plans to keep it for a long while it's had some time to be proven / fine tuned and down the road it will be a relatively well known power train to service. Not a bad thing at all in my books.

 

[boandlkramer]

^ As someone who plans to keep it for a long while it's had some time to be proven / fine tuned and down the road it will be a relatively well known power train to service. Not a bad thing at all in my books.

Agreed.

I don't get the issue with "performance" in this car. Perhaps I'm unique, but If I'm spending 30k for a performance vehicle, I can't imagine shopping a CUV. :dunno:


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

 

[finch204]

Agreed.

I don't get the issue with "performance" in this car. Perhaps I'm unique, but If I'm spending 30k for a performance vehicle, I can't imagine shopping a CUV. :dunno:

It's slow, when passing at or above 70 mph, which is the new norm speed limit on our Texas highways.

 

[boandlkramer]

It's slow, when passing at or above 70 mph, which is the new norm speed limit on our Texas highways.

I don't have any problems passing on the autobahn. It's not my M4, but it's adequate.

If you're trying to pass on blind curves or hill crests, well, I don't encourage that anyways.


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

 

[NelsonLewis]

Agreed.

I don't get the issue with "performance" in this car. Perhaps I'm unique, but If I'm spending 30k for a performance vehicle, I can't imagine shopping a CUV. :dunno:


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

I don't think the extra power and such being discussed is wanted just for "performance", but with a motto such as "Zoom Zoom", it couldn't hurt...

If "performance" is all that mattered, I have a $15k Honda that will ass **** your M4 in every performance category, but that's for fun, nothing else. No one is expecting that ever out of a $30k CUV, or at least I hope not...

 

[boandlkramer]

I don't think the extra power and such being discussed is wanted just for "performance", but with a motto such as "Zoom Zoom", it couldn't hurt...

If "performance" is all that mattered, I have a $15k Honda that will ass **** your M4 in every performance category, but that's for fun, nothing else. No one is expecting that ever out of a $30k CUV, or at least I hope not...

But it's still a Honda....that's cute my kids have hondas


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

 

[ColoradoDriver]

I don't have problems passing anyone at high speeds.

I really don't understand. Maybe comparing to fast cars or something?

 

[boandlkramer]

I don't have problems passing anyone at high speeds.

I really don't understand. Maybe comparing to fast cars or something?

You better not be speeding, my son just showed me on FaceTime that its snowing in the Springs right now. [emoji50][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

 

[NelsonLewis]

But it's still a Honda....that's cute my kids have hondas


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

Did I say it was anything else? And all the fan boys in my town have Bimmers.

 

[finch204]

I don't have any problems passing on the autobahn. It's not my M4, but it's adequate.

If you're trying to pass on blind curves or hill crests, well, I don't encourage that anyways.

I think drivers on the autobahn or in Germany in general, are more lenient than drivers in Texas. I mean have you tried driving in Houston? LOL. In Houston, you've got to be decisive or you are not going to be able to switch lanes to get off the highway. You could slow down, but there's no guarantee the car behind you will give you the lane. This is less an issue driving in Dallas but I still want that extra power for when I need it. I also somewhat consider it a safety issue. If I'm passing an 18 wheeler, the less amount of time I spend beside it while passing, the safer I will be.

I do think for 90% of my driving, the car has adequate amount of power. Once it's going, it is adequate. I think part of the issue is that it needs more power to go from cruising to brisk acceleration. Like it needs more power to overcome the inertia of cruising. In its defense, other mainstream CUVs aren't any better really and most are even less responsive than the CX-5 when it comes to 70 mph highway passing power. Other than the Forester 2.0 XT or Escape with high power ecoboost engine that is.

 

[boandlkramer]

I think drivers on the autobahn or in Germany in general, are more lenient than drivers in Texas. I mean have you tried driving in Houston? LOL. In Houston, you've got to be decisive or you are not going to be able to switch lanes to get off the highway. You could slow down, but there's no guarantee the car behind you will give you the lane. This is less an issue driving in Dallas but I still want that extra power for when I need it. I also somewhat consider it a safety issue. If I'm passing an 18 wheeler, the less amount of time I spend beside it while passing, the safer I will be.

I do think for 90% of my driving, the car has adequate amount of power. Once it's going, it is adequate. I think part of the issue is that it needs more power to go from cruising to brisk acceleration. Like it needs more power to overcome the inertia of being cruising. In its defense, other mainstream CUVs aren't any better really and most are even less responsive than the CX-5 when it comes to 70 mph highway passing power. Other than the Forester 2.0 XT or Escape with high power ecoboost engine that is.

I'll make a go pro video once the 17 gets here. Sport mode gives me the additional "oompf" when I need it, at least it did in my '16 CX-5


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

 

[NelsonLewis]

I think drivers on the autobahn or in Germany in general, are more lenient than drivers in Texas. I mean have you tried driving in Houston? LOL. In Houston, you've got to be decisive or you are not going to be able to switch lanes to get off the highway. You could slow down, but there's no guarantee the car behind you will give you the lane. This is less an issue driving in Dallas but I still want that extra power for when I need it. I also somewhat consider it a safety issue. If I'm passing an 18 wheeler, the less amount of time I spend beside it while passing, the safer I will be.

I do think for 90% of my driving, the car has adequate amount of power. Once it's going, it is adequate. I think part of the issue is that it needs more power to go from cruising to brisk acceleration. Like it needs more power to overcome the inertia of cruising. In its defense, other mainstream CUVs aren't any better really and most are even less responsive than the CX-5 when it comes to 70 mph highway passing power. Other than the Forester 2.0 XT or Escape with high power ecoboost engine that is.

I agree, but mainly I think it could use a little more power for when it is loaded with passengers, cargo, etc. especially when the air is at full blast as well. Bottom line is, they can and prob will get a little
More performance without compromising dependability and fuel efficiency. That is the key...

 

[finch204]

I'll make a go pro video once the 17 gets here. Sport mode gives me the additional "oompf" when I need it, at least it did in my '16 CX-5

Sounds good, I'm looking forward to it. I should make my own video showing highway passing on our 2016 CX-5 as well just for comparison.

 

[boandlkramer]

Sounds good, I'm looking forward to it. I should make my own video showing highway passing on our 2016 CX-5 as well just for comparison.

Sure, that would be cool.

Look All I'm saying is that the 16 CX-5 met all the requirements I had of it. I suppose I don't have as much of a sporting requirement/expectation of it as others. To each their own.

I enjoy the CX-5. It's leaps better than the Land Rover Freelander I had about 10 years ago


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

 

[ColoradoDriver]

You better not be speeding, my son just showed me on FaceTime that its snowing in the Springs right now. [emoji50][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone 7+ using Tapatalk

Yep, snowing here in Littleton too! Big wet snow too, but doesn't seem to be sticking on the road luckily.

Which is good since I have to go to the airport tonight and DIA is basically in West Kansas. (rofl)

To my earlier point though, I just meant I've never understood everyone's complaints about passing power, etc. I have a lead foot, and the CX-5 has risen just fine to the occasion of my lead-footed tendencies.