Undecided: CX-5 vs Escape/Edge

[yrwei52]

I decided that I will get the CX-5. I love my Mazda's and while the CX-5 is not as "fast" as the Ford Edge with turbo. The CX-5 gets great reviews and places #1 on most CUV reviews. The Ford may be faster but I don't want to be dealing with turbo problems later on. Naturally aspirated engines always tend to be more trouble free.

Your decision of choosing a naturally aspirated engine on CX-5 at least makes you have one less major component to worry about in the long run. I suggest you to get a CX-5 GT trim with Tech Package as the cool LED lighting with AFS alone will worth the extra money you have to pay!

 

[CC58]

How, exactly, does one have a heavy foot with cruise control?
Also, interestingly, my fuel mileage is IDENTICAL to CR, C&D, Edmunds, AW, and others. I think mine isj ust fine.

It also doesn't explain how I am the problem if half a dozen of my last cars had NO PROBLEM meeting their EPA ratings...but now I'm the problem. Okay...riiiiighttt....

The CX-5 is about half a second faster than the RAV4 and CRV. Where did you find a full second? Anyway, I feel that it's adequate for it's purpose and all that. I am just frustrated that even consumer reports, a typically very conservative testing group, as well as Edmunds, both fail miserably to meet EPA mileage, as have I. Oh, well. In fact, NOONE who has tested it has come close to EPA rated performance. They all get about what I do, especially on road-trips.

Just go to fuelly.com and read real world MPG from real people owning the CX-5.

 

[Unobtanium]

Your decision of choosing a naturally aspirated engine on CX-5 at least makes you have one less major component to worry about in the long run. I suggest you to get a CX-5 GT trim with Tech Package as the cool LED lighting with AFS alone will worth the extra money you have to pay!

Well, one must take into account the 2800psi injectors and the HPFP and the failure of either which would result in a cooked motor FAST! That is pretty much a wash with a decent turbo, IMO

 

[CC58]

Well, one must take into account the 2800psi injectors and the HPFP and the failure of either which would result in a cooked motor FAST! That is pretty much a wash with a decent turbo, IMO

How would a failed injector or fuel pump "cook" a motor fast?

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

How would a failed injector or fuel pump "cook" a motor fast?

+1... I think I will need to be educated on that one.

I could see potential in a multi-cylinder two stroke but that isn't what we are talking about here. I've experienced a meltdown in 2-stroke snowmobiles before....that gave me an opportunity to learn how to rebuild one of those motors.

 

[GP 2004]

How would a failed injector or fuel pump "cook" a motor fast?

Some engine designs use the incoming fuel to cool the piston top. I have no idea if the Mazda 2.5 engine needs the fuel for cooling the pistons or not.

 

[MikeM.]

Some engine designs use the incoming fuel to cool the piston top. I have no idea if the Mazda 2.5 engine needs the fuel for cooling the pistons or not.

Of course it doesn't need the fuel to cool the piston crown. Without fuel there is no combustion hence no need for cooling.

 

[Ride92]

I know. I was shocked to learn how focused some buyers are on published specs or add on options.

I always recommend potential buyers go drive a bunch of different cars, put them through their paces, how YOU intend to use your car, and see which one you like best. Don't worry what the 0-60 times are. You will know when you drive it if it's going to satisfy you. Choosing the best car based on published specs is like choosing the best wife based on her measurements. (RTM)

I completely agree with you, there is so much more to driving then just stomping on the gas pedal. The mazda philosophy to driving, all aspects of driving, especially going thru corners, really sets them apart from much of the competition. I think it's also why they are maybe not as popular, the tighter suspension and heavier steering doesn't appeal to the mass peons and soccer moms driving the small CUV's right now. They prefer the soft numb rides of the CR-V, Escape, and Rav-4

 

[Unobtanium]

How would a failed injector or fuel pump "cook" a motor fast?

Ask a 335i BMW owner.

 

[Unobtanium]

Of course it doesn't need the fuel to cool the piston crown. Without fuel there is no combustion hence no need for cooling.

With a failing injector or fuel pump, that piston gets a hole in it, especially given the 13:1 compression ratio.

 

[Unobtanium]

Some engine designs use the incoming fuel to cool the piston top. I have no idea if the Mazda 2.5 engine needs the fuel for cooling the pistons or not.

It doesn't, but it DOES need to run at a proper 13:1 A/F ratio (average) to keep from burning a hole in the pistons, just like every other motor out there.

 

[Ricsta]

I didn't realize the Ford Escape/Edge had so many issues. I really like the Mazda it terms of looks and reliability and the infotainment is better than the Ford system.

I like naturally aspirated engines for long-term reliability and ease of maintenance. Turbos are great power adders but I cringe at the 80k miles mark when things can start breaking and turbo systems are complex and expensive to fix.

It was mainly the HP issue but if the 2.5L CX-5 can do a decent job of moving up a hill or grade with 2-3 people in the car with 185HP, I am all for the CX-5

Coming from a 2003 highlander which had 220HP I was a bit concerned about 184HP. Although the highlander was heavier it still had lower LB per HP, 17.6 vs 19.5 for the CX5, a 10 percent difference on paper. However, after driving the CX5, it felt just as powerful as the highlander. I think this is because the CX-5 maximum torque is available at lower RPM (3,250 vs 4.400) which is more useful and practical. So my advice to you is to test drive both rather than make a decision based on specs.

 

[Unobtanium]

Coming from a 2003 highlander which had 220HP I was a bit concerned about 184HP. Although the highlander was heavier it still had lower LB per HP, 17.6 vs 19.5 for the CX5, a 10 percent difference on paper. However, after driving the CX5, it felt just as powerful as the highlander. I think this is because the CX-5 maximum torque is available at lower RPM (3,250 vs 4.400) which is more useful and practical. So my advice to you is to test drive both rather than make a decision based on specs.

Transmission, power delivery, etc. definitely made up for the raw numbers on one side of the spreadsheet. The '03 Highlander 200ish more pounds to lug around, and a much less effective transmission to do it with. Survey says, performance numbers are identical to the CX-5, almost, with a bit of a nod to the CX-5, especially on the big end.
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2003-toyota-highlander-limited-v-6-4wd-page-4

Not shabby for vehicles within 200# of each other, considering one is a 4-banger!

 

[boandlkramer]

Like I said. Adequate.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ricsta]

Transmission, power delivery, etc. definitely made up for the raw numbers on one side of the spreadsheet. The '03 Highlander 200ish more pounds to lug around, and a much less effective transmission to do it with. Survey says, performance numbers are identical to the CX-5, almost, with a bit of a nod to the CX-5, especially on the big end.
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2003-toyota-highlander-limited-v-6-4wd-page-4

Not shabby for vehicles within 200# of each other, considering one is a 4-banger!

Agreed 100%. That was my point.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

With a failing injector or fuel pump, that piston gets a hole in it, especially given the 13:1 compression ratio.

Probably common on other cars as well but I notice in FSM that any fuel pressure anomaly will put it into fail-safe fairly quickly.

• Stops high pressure fuel pump control
• Limits intake air amount

Little OT... saw this not of one thing that will trip a DTC and fail-safe.

"With the transmission in 5th gear or lower gear, an engine speed of 6,100 rpm (SKYACTIV-G 2.0)/5,800 rpm (SKYACTIV-G 2.5) continues for 6 min."
Fail Safe: Limits intake air amount"

 

[CC58]

With a failing injector or fuel pump, that piston gets a hole in it, especially given the 13:1 compression ratio.

The CX-5 components are forged instead of cast; pistons, crank, and rods. This is unusual for this class of vehicle and used to endure the high compression. Racers routinely used forged components to endure superchargers and nitrous. They are tough. FYI, I ran a 8psi supercharger on a 5.0L Ford Mustang for over ten years. It had forged pistons, and they never failed.

I highly doubt a CX-5 will suffer from a hole in a piston, and haven't heard of anyone experiencing this.

 

[Unobtanium]

The CX-5 components are forged instead of cast; pistons, crank, and rods. This is unusual for this class of vehicle and used to endure the high compression. Racers routinely used forged components to endure superchargers and nitrous. They are tough. FYI, I ran a 8psi supercharger on a 5.0L Ford Mustang for over ten years. It had forged pistons, and they never failed.

I highly doubt a CX-5 will suffer from a hole in a piston, and haven't heard of anyone experiencing this.

Forged or not, running lean kills motors. That said, with the Comp ratios run, I bet like others have posted, mazda has some stoopid complex failsafes. Nice to know it's fully forged though!

 

[littlebear]

The CX-5 components are forged instead of cast; pistons, crank, and rods. This is unusual for this class of vehicle and used to endure the high compression. Racers routinely used forged components to endure superchargers and nitrous. They are tough. FYI, I ran a 8psi supercharger on a 5.0L Ford Mustang for over ten years. It had forged pistons, and they never failed.

I highly doubt a CX-5 will suffer from a hole in a piston, and haven't heard of anyone experiencing this.

I did not know they were forged. I thought the crank and pistons were cast but it's great to hear that the 2.5L has a forged bottom end. Forged parts are more $$ but they are a lot stronger. Any supercharged/power adder engine needs forged parts or it will fail.

 

[V8toilet]

Are they forged or hypereutectic pistons? what source are you using? Not saying you're wrong but I'm more curious since as someone said its rare for a mass produced engine to use forged pistons. Forged pistons have drawbacks like a higher expansion and higher emissions as a result when cold. To compensate they need to be fitted loose when cold so when they warm up they fit snug. This can make them noisy when started cold. I bet the Ford Escape uses hypereutectic pistons in its turbocharged engines but things have also changed a lot from the days when I used to know a lot about this stuff so they could be Forged too.