Who likes/drives in SPORT mode?

[Unobtanium]

Do you have a verifiable source for your statements in the second paragraph or are you just speculating?

Well, yeah. Go look at any instrumented acceleration test for 2016 and compare it to 2015 or earlier. They are identical within the variance of a magazine test track (sometimes the '15 was faster, sometimes the '16, depends on the magazine).

 

[Lbear]

Is it just me or is Unobtanium the forum curmudgeon?

It's always negative, negative, doom, gloom, and rain on the parade.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

So, basically, it's like "towing mode". Rides around buzzing along 1 gear lower than it should all the time. That junk has no place on an econo CUV, IMO. I find it absurd. Fart can on a Tercel absurd.

My mom had a Tercel when I was young. Between circa 1992-1995.

 

[Unobtanium]

Is it just me or is Unobtanium the forum curmudgeon?

It's always negative, negative, doom, gloom, and rain on the parade.

No, I call it like I see it. You will find plenty of places where I praise the CX-5.
The race-track, and hooning around, just aren't them. I find it stupid, quite frankly. A "race" button. In a 4 banger econo compact SUV. You know what would be useful? A "SNOW" "WET" "SAND/Gravel/MUD" "ICE" button/dial that modified the ELSD's responses (that would be nice...) and how it responded to various traction situations, as well as modifying throttle input maybe, and starting in 2nd gear for "ICE", etc. etc.. Like other sensible manufacturers have. Not some retarded re-written tow-package code that has the thing buzzing around a gear too low everywhere.

 

[Unobtanium]

My mom had a Tercel when I was young. Between circa 1992-1995.

My Mom's ride during that time was a Buick Skylark with a Quad 4. 150-160bhp, with torque to match. Not shabby for an early 90's 4-banger with no turbo. About what our 2016 CX-5's get, actually...RACECAR STATUS!

 

[Kinghardcor]

No, I call it like I see it. You will find plenty of places where I praise the CX-5.
The race-track, and hooning around, just aren't them. I find it stupid, quite frankly. A "race" button. In a 4 banger econo compact SUV. You know what would be useful? A "SNOW" "WET" "SAND/Gravel/MUD" "ICE" button/dial that modified the ELSD's responses (that would be nice...) and how it responded to various traction situations, as well as modifying throttle input maybe, and starting in 2nd gear for "ICE", etc. etc.. Like other sensible manufacturers have. Not some retarded re-written tow-package code that has the thing buzzing around a gear too low everywhere.

Sport makes throttle a little more sensitive. Plus I find it useful on steep grades, helps keep it from searching for gears uphill and helps maintain speed downhill. Or I don't need to use it at all and can use manual or throttle manipulation. Nice to have options.

From a stop I can put it in manual then pull the shifter back into second and it will start in second instead of first.

 

[bmninada]

Unobtanium: its a fact where you've indeed praised CX-5 here and there, but your negative comments concerning CX-5 I think supersedes the +ve. To each his own of course and yes, you do state what's on your mind and you don't circle around the topic - you hit it with hammer with quite a large reserve of -ve verbiage. Again: do not misunderstand me, I fully appreciate your frankness and honesty. To summarize, your concern is stemming from the fact that Mazda is marketing this vehicle as a zoom-zoom or a performance or a high-speed or a quick acceleration CUV with little gizmos here and there (sports button) or some gimmic marketing brochures. In reality you feel it's just a plain ol' vanilla CUV, a "4-banger" with respectable but nothing to write home about - mileage.

To be frank - again to each his own: but I do find the SPORTS mode to be more responsive when overtaking, etc. I don't care 2 hoots of whether it's a gizmo or something else is happening under the hood like a pseudo virtual stuff. Bottom-line : I like it and it gives me option. As for the other modes: I frankly don't care like SAND/GRAVEL/MUD since I don't off-road and nor is this marketed likewise. As for ICE, I just drive slowly and carefully with snow tires.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

No, I call it like I see it. You will find plenty of places where I praise the CX-5.
The race-track, and hooning around, just aren't them. I find it stupid, quite frankly. A "race" button. In a 4 banger econo compact SUV. You know what would be useful? A "SNOW" "WET" "SAND/Gravel/MUD" "ICE" button/dial that modified the ELSD's responses (that would be nice...) and how it responded to various traction situations, as well as modifying throttle input maybe, and starting in 2nd gear for "ICE", etc. etc.. Like other sensible manufacturers have. Not some retarded re-written tow-package code that has the thing buzzing around a gear too low everywhere.

The zoom zoom is in the beholder, not the car. A AMG Benz is not zoom zoom if it is not driven as such.

Hey, this happens if you drive a stock Mazda..

https://imgflip.com/memegenerator

 

[Unobtanium]

Unobtanium: its a fact where you've indeed praised CX-5 here and there, but your negative comments concerning CX-5 I think supersedes the +ve. To each his own of course and yes, you do state what's on your mind and you don't circle around the topic - you hit it with hammer with quite a large reserve of -ve verbiage. Again: do not misunderstand me, I fully appreciate your frankness and honesty. To summarize, your concern is stemming from the fact that Mazda is marketing this vehicle as a zoom-zoom or a performance or a high-speed or a quick acceleration CUV with little gizmos here and there (sports button) or some gimmic marketing brochures. In reality you feel it's just a plain ol' vanilla CUV, a "4-banger" with respectable but nothing to write home about - mileage. Pretty much, and most magazines have whined about how stupid SPORT mode is, as well...but yet people on here only quote magazines that slam CVT transmissions...no, I just find it absurd that people are so wrapped up in the minutia of performance of this vehicle in a dynamic sense. Sure, it is a very competently handling vehicle, and right in keeping with the market segment, but to bother with tunes and all sorts of nonsense that compromise its use as an SUV for the sake of running a 15 second 1/4 mile instead of a 16 second 1/4 mile? Really?

To be frank - again to each his own: but I do find the SPORTS mode to be more responsive when overtaking, etc. I don't care 2 hoots of whether it's a gizmo or something else is happening under the hood like a pseudo virtual stuff. Bottom-line : I like it and it gives me option. As for the other modes: I frankly don't care like SAND/GRAVEL/MUD since I don't off-road and nor is this marketed likewise. As for ICE, I just drive slowly and carefully with snow tires.

...and I just judiciously apply my right foot...so I guess you can perfectly identify with my mindset on SPORT mode, as well.

C&D "gets it"... http://www.caranddriver.com/mazda/cx-5

 

[Unobtanium]

The zoom zoom is in the beholder, not the car. A AMG Benz is not zoom zoom if it is not driven as such.

Hey, this happens if you drive a stock Mazda..

https://imgflip.com/memegenerator

Mazda has put together an efficient, reliable, and competent CUV in its price-range...I learned a long time ago to just buy something that does what I want and not dick with it. If you want performance in a CUV, Mercedes makes a GLK350 that will suffice. Or the Forester 2.0XT. Or any other number of more performance oriented vehicles in this segment. This is like going on the corvette forum and talking about lift kits.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

From a stop I can put it in manual then pull the shifter back into second and it will start in second instead of first.

Actually.... I think that has been a feature on all model year CX-5's... my '15 works that way as well.

 

[Unobtanium]

Actually.... I think that has been a feature on all model year CX-5's... my '15 works that way as well.

Its pretty common on most vehicles, come to think of it. My 1995 Trans Am was similar, actually.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

Mazda has put together an efficient, reliable, and competent CUV in its price-range...I learned a long time ago to just buy something that does what I want and not dick with it. If you want performance in a CUV, Mercedes makes a GLK350 that will suffice. Or the Forester 2.0XT. Or any other number of more performance oriented vehicles in this segment. This is like going on the corvette forum and talking about lift kits.

The only performance element a factory forester xt has is a stronger motor, and if it's the same as wrx, better AWD system that's it. Strong motor is nice but so is handling CX-5 has a wider wheel base and track, with a lower height (and that's with lesser ground clearance). Subaru gets you a CVT and boxy high roof styling, and not that it looks bad, but it looks like it could easily have a Toyota badge on it. GLK Mercedes isn't even in the same ballpark.... its like 7k more , and it has a boxy high roof style; I prefer the swooping roof for a lower cg, not to mention the ease of owner maintenance/modding I have. And tbh I don't like the look of the GLK. Sorry but even comparing the turbo forester to the top end CX-5 you start paying more quickly. The CX-5 is a gem because the chassis it's built on; lots of aftermarket availability because of the interchangeability of parts between models. Even though the motor is NA 9it's high output as is, and even more tuned) it has huge potential, which I guarantee will manifest it self publicly within the first half of this year. My car as is never gives me a feeling of "about to tip over" even at the limit when if I executed a maneuver poorly; part mods and the relatively low profile roof. I feel about as connected to the engine and road in my car that I can be for it being an automatic (with an EXTREMELY practicable manual shift). It's only going to get better when I make the time to add my front sway bar/lower torque mount. I don't have $50k+ to buy a vehicle that would satisfy my want's right off the lot, so I buy what I can afford and change what I want to MY liking (meanwhile most people buy something, then complain about this and that, instead of changing it (if practicable). Until I have the $$$ to grab a Porsche Mecan that's how it will be. That's the great thing about Mazda, whether it's some teenager with gen 1 mazda 3 modding it, or a retiree /career person buying a brand new MX-5, getting a tune on it, getting custom exhaust and headers etc within 1 month of owning it. If you think I'm lying go look at the Mirage forum.

 

[Unobtanium]

The only performance element a factory forester xt has is a stronger motor, and if it's the same as wrx, better AWD system that's it. Better brakes, arguably. Strong motor is nice but so is handling CX-5 has a wider wheel base and track, with a lower height (and that's with lesser ground clearance) By 0.2 inches.... Subaru gets you a CVT One of, if not the best CVT's out there with a stellar reliability track record. and boxy high roof styling It's less effeminate than the cute little CX-5, but noone buys a CUV for sex appeal, so this is a moot point, IMO, and styling is personal, anyway., and not that it looks bad, but it looks like it could easily have a Toyota badge on it Nothing wrong with that.. GLK Mercedes isn't even in the same ballpark.... its like 7k more , and it has a boxy high roof style; I prefer the swooping roof for a lower cg, not to mention the ease of owner maintenance/modding I have. And tbh I don't like the look of the GLK. Sorry but even comparing the turbo forester to the top end CX-5 you start paying more quickly Yes, the top end CX-5 is more money than the 2.0XT starts at.. The CX-5 is a gem because the chassis it's built on It does have a competent chassis, I agree.; lots of aftermarket availability because of the interchangeability of parts between models. Even though the motor is NA 9it's high output as is, and even more tuned) it has huge potential, which I guarantee will manifest it self publicly within the first half of this year I think people would be well advised to not mess with it. The valve timing is not just about emissions and power, but also durability and reliability.. My car as is never gives me a feeling of "about to tip over" even at the limit when if I executed a maneuver poorly It's probably got similar ground clearange to a Mustang GT, though...which negates the whole point of having a CUV, as most larger cars have similar/more cargo space.; part mods and the relatively low profile roof. I feel about as connected to the engine and road in my car that I can be for it being an automatic (with an EXTREMELY practicable manual shift) The transmission in the CX-5 is literally the best automatic I've ridden in (you don't DRIVE a car with an automatic...you ride in it, lol!). Bar none.. It's only going to get better when I make the time to add my front sway bar/lower torque mount. I don't have $50k+ to buy a vehicle that would satisfy my want's right off the lot, so I buy what I can afford and change what I want to MY liking (meanwhile most people buy something, then complain about this and that, instead of changing it (if practicable). Until I have the $$$ to grab a Porsche Mecan that's how it will be The Mecan is great. Friend of mine bought one and raves about it. I just couldn't justify spending that much money on a compact SUV that was aimed at on-road use, regardless of my financial ability. I do not understand the point.. That's the great thing about Mazda, whether it's some teenager with gen 1 mazda 3 modding it, or a retiree /career person buying a brand new MX-5, getting a tune on it, getting custom exhaust and headers etc within 1 month of owning it. If you think I'm lying go look at the Mirage forum.

The MX-5 has a cult following, and for a very good reason. It is a very "focused" vehicle that delivers EXACTLY what it is supposed to...just like the CX-5. However, if I go to the MX-5 forum, I doubt many people are putting lift-kits and trailer hitches on their MX-5's and driving them like CX-5's...the same cannot be said of the CX-5 forum, apparently. That is why I am over here shaking my head.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

The MX-5 has a cult following, and for a very good reason. It is a very "focused" vehicle that delivers EXACTLY what it is supposed to...just like the CX-5. However, if I go to the MX-5 forum, I doubt many people are putting lift-kits and trailer hitches on their MX-5's and driving them like CX-5's...the same cannot be said of the CX-5 forum, apparently. That is why I am over here shaking my head.

No, but you will find people v8 swapping (which usually far exceeds the car value) turboing and supercharging them. And you'd be surprised what you see for towing. .. the general idea being improve the cars ability in handling, power or both. It's not doing "opposite" of the cars oem but enhancing performance. People going low with body kits and high offset wheels don't need oem ride height (or can deal with the low) in their mx5 and benefit from it if not for looks only. Its funny that you mention lift.. i actually came across something the other day to raise a miata about 1.5 or 2 in for winter driving. It was wither on the mx5 club fb page or a forum

 

[Unobtanium]

No, but you will find people v8 swapping (which usually far exceeds the car value) turboing and supercharging them Yes...making them better at what they were intended to do.... And you'd be surprised what you see for towing. .. the general idea being improve the cars ability in handling, power or both. It's not doing "opposite" of the cars oem but enhancing performance You've killed ground clearance, and likely harmed either long-term reliability, or efficiency. Both of which are directly against the purpose of a CUV. People going low with body kits and high offset wheels don't need oem ride height (or can deal with the low) in their mx5 and benefit from it if not for looks only. Its funny that you mention lift.. i actually came across something the other day to raise a miata about 1.5 or 2 in for winter driving. It was wither on the mx5 club fb page or a forum

Interesting. I would think that a lift kit on a miata for winter driving is as absurd as a SPORT button or lowering springs in a CUV and be similarly put off by it. I wonder, do they have a resident on that forum that tries to sell everyone the lift kit as soon as they join" "When you gonna get a lift kit?" LOL . Just buy a CX-5 for winter driving. That's what it was made for. Safe, reliable transportation in various weather conditions. Hence being offered in AWD, and with almost 9" of ground clearance.

 

[banjos-n-beer]

When I was in college some dude had a Trans-Am with a lift kit.

 

[Unobtanium]

When I was in college some dude had a Trans-Am with a lift kit.

When I was in college, my upstairs neighbor had a thing for abusive men, the guy across the sidewalk was a pot dealer that cut up blocks into dime bags with his front door open, and the upstairs neighbor was a coke dealer. But I'm not going to use them to plan any life decisions.

 

[Chris_Top_Her]

all this talk about placebo mode look below for some ideas on how you can make the car more zoom zoom to you

 

[yrwei52]

All of this talk about how awesome Sport mode is...people do realize that it has no effect on passing power, or 0-60, or whatever, right? It's like voting for your favorite candidate. It feels good, but really isn't changing anything.

...and I just judiciously apply my right foot...so I guess you can perfectly identify with my mindset on SPORT mode, as well.
C&D "gets it"... http://www.caranddriver.com/mazda/cx-5

I agree with Unobtanium and Car and Driver's comments. Sport mode can only "help" you conveniently making CX-5 more responsive. But everything can be achieved without this "Sport" switch! The ultimate numbers, such as passing power, or 0-60, won't change. Of course then you'd pay for the price, less fuel efficiency.