Two sides to that argument: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/07/suit-alleges-toyota-keyless-start-to-blame-for-carbon-monoxide-d/
So long CX5...
- Thread starter Woodys2718
- Start date
Two sides to that argument: http://www.autoblog.com/2011/02/07/suit-alleges-toyota-keyless-start-to-blame-for-carbon-monoxide-d/
Your comparing apples to oranges. It's all lawyer BS. Bathtubs kill more people per day than someone leaving their car running in a garage due to a key FOB will in a year.
People drown daily in swimming pools, fall down flights of stairs in their homes, etc.
FOBs are not dangerous. Plus I was talking about the GM debacle where the ignition switch was faulty and people died. GM got sued and admitted it knew the ignition switch was faulty. That's a totally different issue than what you referenced.
No, I was just pointing out that FOBs (keyless) technology is not without safety criticism. I don't think the GM "debacle" is as sinister as reported as ALL cars can stall on the highway for any number of reasons. The keyless start technology brings another safety issue in that unlike a physical key, you can leave the engine running without the fob.
Woodys2718
Member
- :
- 2016 CX 5 GT AWD, Tech & IActivesense
It has a 5.5 gallon DEF (diesel exhaust fluid) tank. I just looked at Walmart and they sell 2.5 gallon jugs for just under $20. I don't know how fast it is used. I have ~325 miles on the truck and the DEF fluid gauge reads 99%
Looking around I see some people state generally 1K miles per gallon of DEF.
Woodys2718
Member
- :
- 2016 CX 5 GT AWD, Tech & IActivesense
I can live with that.
OK, I looked at a 2016 Chevy Colorado Trail Boss. Night and day difference vs the CX5. Here are the cons:
As far as the gas version goes. The trans acted horribly and shifted awkwardly and didn't know what it was doing. It would hunt and change gears like it was bi-polar. The DIESEL version was a lot better. The low torque made the trans act better.
The diesel version was A LOT slower than the CX5. Sure it had torque but the CX5 is faster 0-60 and faster overall.
The CX5 vs Colorado are 2 different vehicles of course. One is meant to tow/haul and the other is meant to drive more occupants and have more interior storage room. The CX5 is a fun vehicle to drive, the Colorado is just a truck but it does handle decent for a truck since its not full sized. The Colorado actually drove decent for a truck. It almost had a car/CUV feel to it, so that's a positive.
The 4x4 on the Colorado is NOT intuitive and it's meant for off-road. So the CX5 AWD will do a lot better in snow and rain vs the Colorado. The Colorado will do better in off road bad terrain but 99% of people don't drive in such off road terrain.
You gain towing with the Colorado but lose everyday livability, passenger room, interior storage room, comfort and daily driver AWD capabilities. Two different vehicles with two different agendas.
- The Colorado has HORRIBLE rear seat leg room. Barely can fit a full sized adult back there. It's 28" of legroom vs the CX5 with has 39". Not good if you have more than 1 passenger. Big negative.
- The interior fit & finish is not that great. Compared to the CX5 the Chev uses cheap plastic, poor controls and poorly laid out. The steering wheel is out of 1995.
- No LED headlights. Even on a fully optioned ($42k) Colorado, it comes with cheap incandescent lights. They are yellowy and don't light up as well as the LEDs on the highly optioned CX5.
- No center console controls. The CX5 offers the ability to keep your hand down low and operate the InfoTainment via the center console control. The Chevy had no such option and makes it awkward as you have to lean and touch the screen. It's distracting vs the CX5 controls.
As far as the gas version goes. The trans acted horribly and shifted awkwardly and didn't know what it was doing. It would hunt and change gears like it was bi-polar. The DIESEL version was a lot better. The low torque made the trans act better.
The diesel version was A LOT slower than the CX5. Sure it had torque but the CX5 is faster 0-60 and faster overall.
The CX5 vs Colorado are 2 different vehicles of course. One is meant to tow/haul and the other is meant to drive more occupants and have more interior storage room. The CX5 is a fun vehicle to drive, the Colorado is just a truck but it does handle decent for a truck since its not full sized. The Colorado actually drove decent for a truck. It almost had a car/CUV feel to it, so that's a positive.
The 4x4 on the Colorado is NOT intuitive and it's meant for off-road. So the CX5 AWD will do a lot better in snow and rain vs the Colorado. The Colorado will do better in off road bad terrain but 99% of people don't drive in such off road terrain.
You gain towing with the Colorado but lose everyday livability, passenger room, interior storage room, comfort and daily driver AWD capabilities. Two different vehicles with two different agendas.
Last edited:
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
Nah, that is closer to 40K. I don't get the point of this thread. The OP clearly bought the wrong vehicle to start with. The CX-5 and the Colorado have nothing in common (except for similar gas milage). One has nothing to do with another.
He got the diesel version with the Trail Boss edition. It's closer to $42k - $45k plus TT&L
Timing belts are often made from highly saturated nitrile rubber with kevlar and/or fiberglass reinforcements. However, all engines designed from the ground up after 2001 are on the timing chain standard. Individual manufacturers don't randomly choose whether to make a belt or chain the standard, the industry (in response to changing regulations) decides that.
That said, no the Sky-D doesn't use a timing belt.
The OP clearly stated that his needs changed and he purchased another vehicle. Following that, he reflected on what he liked and disliked about both and so forth.
Why does that bother some of you? I found it interesting and informative. I don't understand the whole issue about "unfair comparisons", "market segments" and such.
I was cross-shopping trucks and CUVs myself before I bought my CX-5. To me, the CX-5 and Tacoma were more of a decision than say, a CX-5 and RAV4. Why? I wanted a manual transmission and needed to haul stuff. The RAV4 was out of the equation (no manual).
I am driving the CX-5 and using a utility trailer for my occasional hauling needs, but I could easily substitute a compact truck if I decide to.
- :
- 2020 CX5 Signature
Same here, I was shopping an F150 before I decided to go the small SUV, utility trailer route. It was a couple month process to decide what type of var/truck I was going to buy. Then I had to find the one that I liked the best. It could have easily been a full size pickup though.
I usually buy used cars. In order for the car I want to be out there someone has to have made a decision opposite the one I would make. Other person. This car is three years old, time to buy new again. Me, This car is three years old, perfect, I'll take it.
I am glad that other people think differently.
I am glad that other people think differently.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
If you saw my posts prior to this one, I was referring GM's 2.8L Duramax diesel using the obsolete timing belt, not the Mazda's SkyActiv-D. And if you have any experience on VW's engines with timing belt, you'll be afraid of timing-belt equipped engines due to many early failures than scheduled replacement interval. I also said later urea is used on this GM's 2.8L Duramax diesel.
Every manufacture switched once popular and cheaper timing belt to timing chain due to free of scheduled maintenance. The only timing-belt equipped engines in the market right now is Honda's V6. Now this GM's 2.8L Duramax diesel.
The problem with RUBBER timing belts is that AS LONG as they remain dry and don't get contaminated with oil, gas or coolant, they can last maybe 100k miles but if they get contaminated, they will fail much sooner. That's the unknown. Nobody knows if they get contaminated because they are sealed and you can't see the belt. You find out the hard way by the belt breaking. If the belt gets contaminated, then it can fail at 25k miles or drop its life by 1/4th. The oil, gas and coolant soften the belt and destroy the rubber causing it too fall apart.
Rubber timing belts are dumb and everyone switched to steel chains. I hated rubber timing belts. I had one in a GM 3.4L DOHC. It needed to be replaced every 50k miles and it cost over $1k to replace it.
The problem is that one can't FAIRLY compare vehicles like that. That's is WHY the car magazine experts don't compare a truck vs a CUV or a sports car vs family sedan.
Saying the CX5 can't tow 7,000 lbs and ripping on the CX5 because it can't tow 7,000 lbs while a 3/4 ton truck can tow it. That's why it bothers me because it's not a fair or LOGICAL comparison.
It's like saying the CX5 is junk because it can't do 0-60mph in 3.5 seconds like the $100k Z06 can.
I went back and re-read the OP and I did not read anything about anyone "ripping" on the CX-5, merely a helpful discussion of why one of our members is moving on. You are bothered by weird things. I can compare apples to oranges and not be bothered as I may be evaluating them in a non-competitive manner, much like the OP did. Geez.
Kind of interesting how the timing chain vs. timing belt debate has gone full circle. Back in the 80's, most of the Japanese engines had the "new, quiet, hi-tech" timing belts, whereas timing chains were considered "old, noisy, crude, American" and best suited for agricultural engines and trucks.
My last timing belt car was a '96 Protege LX (1.5L).
