I agree with Deepfriedsushi's comments, the CX-5 would never be my choice of an only car. Sure the 2.0 has only adequate power, but the efficiency was best in class. But the trait I did not enjoy was the sound and coarseness in upper rev range which was not especially sporty to me.
I Hate My CX-5
- Thread starter NinjaNoises
- Start date
NinjaNoises
Member
- :
- CX-5 Sport MT
Hey guys, OP here.
Thanks for all of the input. They really helped me to make my decision. I take the experiences of other people as well as my own, and try to learn from them.
I finally sold my CX-5 and cannot be happier.
In all fairness to vast majority of other CX-5's on the road, the automatic in the same 2.0 engine probably makes a fine car. The 2.5 can only be better. My girlfriend has the same 2.0 engine with automatic in her Mazda 3, and I don't mind driving that at all. It's not apples-to-apples comparison, but it's what I got.
Thanks, guys. Zoom-zoom on!
(rockon)
Thanks for all of the input. They really helped me to make my decision. I take the experiences of other people as well as my own, and try to learn from them.
I finally sold my CX-5 and cannot be happier.
In all fairness to vast majority of other CX-5's on the road, the automatic in the same 2.0 engine probably makes a fine car. The 2.5 can only be better. My girlfriend has the same 2.0 engine with automatic in her Mazda 3, and I don't mind driving that at all. It's not apples-to-apples comparison, but it's what I got.
Thanks, guys. Zoom-zoom on!
(rockon)
if you don't mind sharing,
how hard was it to sell the manual CX-5? trade in? or private sale?
what millage did it have and how much did you get for it?
I'm not looking to sell mine anytime soon (hoping to keep it till 200k+), just curious if the rumors about a manual CUV being impossible to resell are true.
It's not a motorcycle, it's a mini bike. Any bike that struggles to barely reach 60mph cannot be called a motorcycle. Heaven forbid you find yourself on a freeway on-ramp.
NinjaNoises
Member
- :
- CX-5 Sport MT
piotrek91, I'll send you a PM.
In response to Mike, it is really classified as a motorcycle. But when I tell people about it, I call it a mini-bike as well. You're not alone in that people have a tough time with the concept of a motorcycle that is smaller and not highway legal. It's splitting hairs. We've ventured into these grounds with cars as well with SUVs vs. CUVs vs. Crossovers.
I suppose the lesson here (which I learned the hard way) is the same as that of the original thread. If you judge the CX-5 based on it's ability to be a sports car, it will fail miserably. CX-5 is not a sports car and will never perform like one.
The Grom is fun to toss around, cheap to buy and insure, and most guys just feel too macho to be seen with one. Kind of like describing a Miata, isn't it?
Last edited:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I'm saving the equivalent of 4 cases of 5.56x45 per year having gone from my Hemi powered Jeep to my 2.5 cx5 in fuel consumption alone. I am fine with the performance....it's an economic suv that by all accounts is reliable. As far as handing, it's front heavy and plows in the corners unless you are manually shifting and use a heavy foot on corner exits. This vehicle feels to me like it is not! happy at the limits and I feel that snap understeer could be an issue in stock trim....but none of that is why I bought it. I bought it because it's the glock 19 of vehicles. Reliable. Cheap to feed. Sensible. A joy to use, but not enough so that your friends will all beg to run it. It doesn't cost much either.
OP: play with the miata and use the cx5. Simple as that. Dont try to make your cx5 into what it's not. You wouldn't try to haul your snowboards up the ski mountain in your miata...or shouldn't.
I will say this thiugh....the 2.5 cx5 in the real world accelerates like the 2.0 does on paper. You will get around 9 seconds 0 to 60 or so with it. Some cars you have to beat th3 crap out of to match magazine test data. This is one of them.
You will never see a 0 to 60 in 7.8. More like 8.8 or 9.8. I can only imagine how slow the 2.0 is in the real world. I agree with others that the 2.0 sacrifices too much.
OP: play with the miata and use the cx5. Simple as that. Dont try to make your cx5 into what it's not. You wouldn't try to haul your snowboards up the ski mountain in your miata...or shouldn't.
I will say this thiugh....the 2.5 cx5 in the real world accelerates like the 2.0 does on paper. You will get around 9 seconds 0 to 60 or so with it. Some cars you have to beat th3 crap out of to match magazine test data. This is one of them.
You will never see a 0 to 60 in 7.8. More like 8.8 or 9.8. I can only imagine how slow the 2.0 is in the real world. I agree with others that the 2.0 sacrifices too much.
Last edited:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I fully agree with this comment.
I wonder how much of the lack of character that some people experience on the manual cx-5 comes form the fact that the ECU tries to be too smart for it's own good. When driving around town and shifting under 4k, the throttle response and rev-hang can be very inconsistent. A tune would be able to address these concerns while potentially adding a descent number of ponies.
Re trading up to a 2.5L:
I really don't think that adding an automatic, 25hp, 250lbs and $2500 will somehow suddenly transform the Cx-5 that Ninja feels no passion for into a sports car.
It's the torque.
Swapping the 2.5L into a manual CX-5 would solve the "make you special" part of the equation and it would be easier than swapping a manual into an automatic CX-5.
Used, low mileage 2.5L's car be had with a warranty on car-part.com for 1,800 and the labor to swap the engine in would definitely be under 1000. That would make a slightly special CX-5
Matters a ton more in a high-strung little 4-banger in a heavy vehicle.
http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/69-6033_dyno.pdf
vs.
http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/69-6032_dyno.pdf
The 2.0 doesn't break 100# of torque to the tires until well past 3K rpm. The 2.5 is over 100# at 2K rpm. That is a MASSIVE! difference in daily driving. As in, world-changing. By 2,000rpm, the 2.5L is making more torque than the 2.0 will EVER make. The peak torque with the 2.5L is a hair over 150, a touch after 3K rpm. The 2.0, a touch over 110 at 4500rpm-ish. The torque and how it's delivered is what makes the 2.5 feel so much better in day-to-day life than the 2.0. Neither of these vehicles are fast in any sense of the word, so "livable and functional" are the key words, here, and the 2.5L is a LOT more of both.
Last edited:
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
A JBR or C/S rear sway bar will help with that a lot.
- :
- Mazdaspeed6
OP, there was definitely enough there to be appealing, or you wouldn't have plunked 25 or 30K to bring one home.
Tastes change, as do cercumstances.
Or, if the CX-5 didn't meet expectations in the sense of driving experience or driving pleasure, then the next new car purchase is deserving of more careful research and consideration.
It's a fine automobile for all intents and purposes and does well to achieve Mazda's very balanced design goals.
It doesn't deserve scrutiny regarding its driving abilities from existing owners. It simply beckons the question, what went wrong? Save the criticism instead for the originally unforseen - reliability, failure to achieve claimed efficiency, or high cost of ownership.
Tastes change, as do cercumstances.
Or, if the CX-5 didn't meet expectations in the sense of driving experience or driving pleasure, then the next new car purchase is deserving of more careful research and consideration.
It's a fine automobile for all intents and purposes and does well to achieve Mazda's very balanced design goals.
It doesn't deserve scrutiny regarding its driving abilities from existing owners. It simply beckons the question, what went wrong? Save the criticism instead for the originally unforseen - reliability, failure to achieve claimed efficiency, or high cost of ownership.
Wow! First time I've seen torque/hp curves of both 2.0 and 2.5 side by side. You really have to spool up the 2.0 to get it moving. Almost no torque at 2500rpm (60ftlb) while the 2.5 is already making 130ftlb. No wonder the 2.0 feels so anemic.
the 2.0 torque curves look made up.. or at least very poorly measured. Maybe they were using automatic cars on the dyno and didn't know how to operate the kickdown switch?
The 2.0 makes 135ftlb at 2500 and a hair under 150ftlb at 3000. The drop in torque from 4000RPM to 2500 RPM is only 15ftlb.. not 50+ as shown on that dyno.
Last edited:
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
the 2.0 torque curves look made up.. or at least very poorly measured. Maybe they were using automatic cars on the dyno and didn't know how to operate the kickdown switch?
The 2.0 makes 135ftlb at 2500 and a hair under 150ftlb at 3000. The drop in torque from 4000RPM to 2500 RPM is only 15ftlb.. not 50+ as shown on that dyno.
crank hp on the published stuff, whp on a dyno
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I understand, but a corvette or similar is a better solution. I was just fully critiquing it beyond its scope of usage, to be fair. CUV's are not sports cars. Sports cars are not CUV's.
It's apparent you have never driven a CX-5 with the sweet little 2.0L engine. With 100 lbs. less between the front wheels it has very balanced handling with no plowing of the front end. I usually have about 40 lbs. of cargo in the trunk and the car is very neutral handling. I know this from having drifted corners in the snow and ice, it's very composed.
All cars need to be driven at their limit to match the numbers the magazine editors get because that's how they get those numbers, by accelerating as fast as they can make it go.
My 2.0L AWD does 0-60 in 9.4 seconds (and I weigh 210 lbs.). So not much slower than the best you are seeing with your 2.5L. But I do have some of the lightest 17" wheels available. CX-5's with 19" wheels will be slower. Of course public roads are not race tracks and few of us will ever take our CX-5's to the track. Let's face it, by modern automotive standards, both cars are slow as molasses. Let's not even contemplate comparing them to a real motorcycle. But both the 2.0L and 2.5L engines have more than enough oomph for regular driving in traffic without needing to rev the snot out of them. If I am at a traffic light with a pack of other cars cued up behind me, when the light turns green, a moderate acceleration (never exceeding 2500 rpm) will always open a big gap between me and the pack. In three years time I've rarely needed to use all the power of the 2.0L, let alone want more than the little 4 cylinder is capable of. I arrive at my destination the same time as a 2.5L owner would and enjoy a lighter, more balanced handling driving machine.
Powerful engines in passenger cars are over-rated because 99.9% of the time they are just loafing along, wasting gas while the extra engine weight impairs handling and driving pleasure while creating the need to stop for fuel more often. I would only opt for the 2.5L (or the problematic diesel) if I needed to tow a heavy trailer and/or one with a lot of frontal area (poor aerodynamics). Otherwise, the 2.0L has a sporty nature and it's hard to argue with the balanced handling and extended range it provides.
Last edited:
dragonteeth
Member
- :
- '15 CX-5 Touring AWD w/ Bose ★
Have you decided yet? Or are you going to keep the CX-5 + Miata?
Ha! I'm the last person to worry about whether something is "macho". Until a few years ago I had a pair of Honda Trail 110's! Full tuck would get me to 55 mph indicated. A couple of days I racked up over 200 miles. Fun and nimble but too scary to take in fast traffic.
If it weren't for lack of garage space, I would still have them.
- :
- San Antonio, Texas
- :
- '15 CX-5 Miata AWD
But a corvette is a coupe with pretty much none of the utility you get from the cx-5. A <$200 sway bar that can reduce or eliminate a handling characteristic you don't like is more practical than buying a new car in a different category
NinjaNoises
Member
- :
- CX-5 Sport MT
Lesson learned. I ended up paying off the CX-5 and sold it already.
Mike, relax. I'm not targeting your manhood. lol.
Mike, relax. I'm not targeting your manhood. lol.
CX5T Lover
Member
- :
- 2015 Mazda CX-5 Touring
"Ninja Noises" said:
Not only as a automatic, but I (thought) the other factor that might have changed your mind would have been having a 2.5 under the hood (cool) instead of the lower power 2.0! (sad2)
CX5T Lover
Not only as a automatic, but I (thought) the other factor that might have changed your mind would have been having a 2.5 under the hood (cool) instead of the lower power 2.0! (sad2)
CX5T Lover
