Yes interesting article...one of the arguments was whether a premium buyer/owner would cross shop a mainstream brand - while maybe most wouldn't but I actually was one having owned a Volvo XC60 for 7 yrs. When I shopped for a replacement late last year, I looked at another Volvo, Lexus NX & RX, Acura MDX and also considered Toyota Highlander & Honda Pilot as well as the Mazda CX9.
In terms of design, tech & safety features as well as the value for money I couldn't pass up the Mazda vs the other premium models which would cost me $10-15K more easily. While there were no issues with the Volvo I had other than the outdated safety features, technology and design I just couldn't justify paying $10-15K more for the same if not better features on the CX9. I agree that the gap between the luxury and mainstream brands are now getting closer and closer but this is in no way to degrade the premium brands out there.
This is the main thing that is lacking from a premium CX-5, a more powerful engine.Thought I wanted a Volvo 60, MDX, or even the Lexus, but after some research and seeing for myself, I can't justify paying 40% to even double for the luxury brands. The CX-5 and money in the bank wins out, easily, although I am one that craves a turbo version.
Performance
0-60 mph, 7.6 seconds
(Car and Driver est.)
Wow I thought CX5 was much slower. 7.6 is same as CR-V Lelolel with all that turbo stuff.
Thought I wanted a Volvo 60, MDX, or even the Lexus, but after some research and seeing for myself, I can't justify paying 40% to even double for the luxury brands. The CX-5 and money in the bank wins out, easily, although I am one that craves a turbo version.
I have one.
But crave a petrol turbo, ironic isn't it, we don't even get the NA 2.5 offered.
That's what Mazda is trying to do. More features for this level of money.The article is FACT. We could afford a more expensive car, but politically, it's to our advantage to have the Mazda. Still, friends with last years BMW, and with this year's Lexus (sorry don't know the models) were a bit miffed at how much more car we got for the money.
Performance
0-60 mph, 7.6 seconds
(Car and Driver est.)
Wow I thought CX5 was much slower. 7.6 is same as CR-V Lelolel with all that turbo stuff.
Extra weight might make it low to mid 8sNo, the CX5's have always done 7.6-7.8 0-60 in 2.5L guise.
It's only an estimate. This can go 2 ways:
- Could actually be slower as weight has increased by up to 40kg (88 pounds)
- Maybe a bit faster due to Mazda tweaking gearbox and throttle for instaneous response and also holding the gears longer instead of short shifting
We won't know until actual tests are performed.
Extra weight might make it low to mid 8s
Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
My bad. I was referring to the changes made in part throttle. Was listening to Mazda engineer from USA.The CX5 holds the gears until redline in each gear, anyway. What are you talking about? Also, throttle response has nothing to do with 0-60. There is a 1 foot roll-out in those 0-60 times. Reaction time has zip to do with 0-60. It has to do with racing, though. The gearing might better multiply torque though, and that could help. If they changed the gear ratios. Honestly, I think it will still be a driver's race with a 2014 2.5L.
Here in Oz, 40kg or 88lbsHow much weight are we talking exactly? I don't know how much as added. If it's <100#, it will be car-to-car variance that trumps it, still.
Here in Oz, 40kg or 88lbs
Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk