I Hate My CX-5

[Unobtanium]

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.


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.

For my money, the 2.5 was a better choice. I feel that in a populated area in the mountains, the 2.5L was the way to go. Even it is barely livable, but it's not something I am complaining about, given the mileage it's capable of, but I would not accept any less power for any amount of better mileage. The 2.5L CX-5 is about the absolute floor for me, performance wise, on merging/passing power. You have to understand that I've driven vehicles that can do 0-150 and back down to a stop by the time your CX-5 crawls its way to the posted highway speed on some roads in Texas. It's been a big transition through several increasingly more mundane vehicles for me to be okay with this, lol!

Powerful engines in passenger cars are not over-rated. They typically get great mileage in my experience because of the tall gearing and lower operating rpm that they permit while maintaining driveability (I got 26mpg doing 75mph in my Z06, and around 18mpg around town. Not a passenger car, but it did have a 7 liter engine.), and allow you to effortlessly move more safety, luxury, and structure, while "loafing". Also, power is a luxury all its own.

 

[Unobtanium]

"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

One guy on the Jeep forum who dogged my choice of a CX-5 (they all did, of course. Owning a Jeep is like being a battered house wife.) was because he drove a 2.0 CX-5, and complained of how it "had to rev to go anywhere" and was "constantly downshifting on hills and wouldn't just hold a gear".

My 2.5L CX5 holds gears almost as long and well and at as low an rpm as my Jeep with its HEMI did. If the guy was being anywhere near honest, I REALLY think the 2.5L changes the attitude of the vehicle completely, and it's easy to see why! 50# more torque at "typical loafing rpm" is MASSIVE in the driveability department. I can power through my mountains without the transmission downshifting in some cases, and when it gets steep, my CX-5 readily accelerates without feeling AT ALL like I'm "thrashing" it. Does fine at 3K rpm and under.

 

[Unobtanium]

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

I agree completely, and a CX5 is an SUV, with pretty much none of the utility you get from a Corvette. So while I would not drive my Z06 in the snow, I would not try to throw my CX-5 into a corner. I was simply supplying an honest review of the CX-5's handling foibles. Not complaining, or stating that they required change. Simply observing...much like you are not trying to sell me a roof rack for a Corvette by saying it doesn't "offer the utility" of the CX-5. Yes, the Corvette can be carefully driven in the snow, and yes, the CX-5 can be hooned through a corner, but neither are being done much service like this. I simply mean that someone should buy the correct tools for the job, and if you are dropping your CX-5, installing sway bars for "at the limit" stability, etc., you are taking the REST of the platform outside of its designated lane, so to speak. To properly get a vehicle to perform at another level takes a TON of money and engineering. If you want examples, SVT, Dinan, and RUF are good starting points. We are talking large percentages of the initial purchase price to increase performance...because companies like that carrier a premium, AND they understand that it's not JUST about the skinny pedal, or JUST about the steering wheel, or JUST about the brakes, etc. Same goes for offroading or whatever.

My point is...buy a factory car and leave it alone and you will be happier in a much more well-rounded way. That has been my experience, anyway. Buy what suits my needs, not something that can be "pressed into service" or "tweaked to suffice".

The CX-5 suits my needs VERY well right now. Perhaps it is a faux pas of me to comment on foibles outside of those needs that it may exhibit.

 

[MikeM.]

You have to understand that I've driven vehicles that can do 0-150 and back down to a stop by the time your CX-5 crawls its way to the posted highway speed on some roads in Texas.

I'm calling B.S. on that. The highest posted speed in Texas is 85 mph. My 2013 CX-5 can reach 85 mph from a standing start in under 20 seconds. Just what kind of car did you drive that can do 0-150 mph and back to zero in under 20 seconds? That's why I'm calling BS.

Not that I am unfamiliar with high performance vehicles, I have two motorcycles in my current garage that can put most sports cars to shame and my sedate family Volvo sedan can cruise at 155 mph. But this kind of performance is of very questionable value on public roads. My little 2.0L CX-5 can cruise all day long at speeds high enough to have my license revoked. My CX-5 cruising speed is never limited by lack of power.

Some people think of their car as an extension of their body, to me it's just a driving machine. No matter what you drive you need to stay within it's limitations. Even my Ducati superbikes have limits and I'll often be wringing them out for all their worth on the big twisty mountain passes of the west, throttle wide open with the tach bouncing between 7,500 and 10,500rpm's (and how sweet they sound when doing this, like music to my ears). Could I use more power, sure. Would it increase my enjoyment or get me to my destination any quicker? Not really.

Yeah, the CX-5 is slow as molasses in comparison, regardless of 2.0L or 2.5L, but it's a very balanced driving machine and that's what makes it so compelling.

 

[IHeartGroceries]

Mike, are you an older guy?

It's kind of about perspective really. It's all relative.

If anything, the advancements made to the internal combustion engine over the past 60 years has been monumental.

Even the base small block, low comp. 8 cylinders of the 60's (like you'd find in a family hauler) were over twice the displacement of the Mazda 2.0l, but produced about equal horsepower. Torque, of course is a different story. But, not even touching base on efficiency...yeah.

My point is, the power even the 2.0l offers is perfectly adequate for alot of people. If your first car was out of the malaise era then you're probably going to be pretty satisfied with the performance of the 2.0l, and extra giddy about the efficiency.

If you're a younger person and your friends with an Ecoboost Escape are boasting about their 200 plus horsepower, then it may not work out for you.

It works for some and not for others. The end.

 

[Unobtanium]

I'm calling B.S. on that. The highest posted speed in Texas is 85 mph. My 2013 CX-5 can reach 85 mph from a standing start in under 20 seconds. Just what kind of car did you drive that can do 0-150 mph and back to zero in under 20 seconds? That's why I'm calling BS.
You're right, I was off. I was thinking of 0-100-0 times. The ZR1 I tracked for a few days at Spring Mountain would do 0-150-0 in a shade under 26 seconds. The Z06 that I owned, was a few ticks slower than that.

Not that I am unfamiliar with high performance vehicles, I have two motorcycles in my current garage that can put most sports cars to shame and my sedate family Volvo sedan can cruise at 155 mph. But this kind of performance is of very questionable value on public roads. My little 2.0L CX-5 can cruise all day long at speeds high enough to have my license revoked. My CX-5 cruising speed is never limited by lack of power.
I understand, but merging into rush-hour freeway traffic in places like Dallas is not something I would try in the 2.0 with a good feeling. Sure, it can be done, of course! But...I would rather press the "easy button" and just use a bigger motor.

Some people think of their car as an extension of their body, to me it's just a driving machine. No matter what you drive you need to stay within it's limitations. Even my Ducati superbikes have limits and I'll often be wringing them out for all their worth on the big twisty mountain passes of the west, throttle wide open with the tach bouncing between 7,500 and 10,500rpm's (and how sweet they sound when doing this, like music to my ears). Could I use more power, sure. Would it increase my enjoyment or get me to my destination any quicker? Not really.
I agree again. In the case of the 2.5L though, the fuel cost was worth it to me.

Yeah, the CX-5 is slow as molasses in comparison, regardless of 2.0L or 2.5L, but it's a very balanced driving machine and that's what makes it so compelling.

What made the CX-5 appealing to me was the mileage, reputation for durability, and the utility of it in snow/ice/etc as well as the cost/benefit ratio. Also, the cheap cost of ownership (service, fuel, etc.). I am looking at building a first home in a year or two (I'm 29), and would really really like to have as much D/I ratio in my favor as I can, as well as having a vehicle that will actually work in the snow in the mountains where I bought property, without worrying about it's longevity/durability.

That said, here are the last two sports cars I owned, the 370Z, for MUCH the same reason you justify your 2.0 over the 2.5, except it got worse mileage than my Z06.

 

[MikeM.]

Mike, are you an older guy?

No, I'm only 52.

Even the base small block, low comp. 8 cylinders of the 60's (like you'd find in a family hauler) were over twice the displacement of the Mazda 2.0l, but produced about equal horsepower. Torque, of course is a different story. But, not even touching base on efficiency...yeah.

This is very true and a point I've made before relative to the acceleration of the CX-5. Even the 2.0L accelerates faster than many V-8 equipped cars of the 60's. And lets not even talk about the straight sixes that were typically the standard engine. Not only does the 2.0L make more power but it makes better use of it with a transmission that robs less power and has more gears.

Plus it's actually fun and engaging to drive.

 

[Unobtanium]

No, I'm only 52.





This is very true and a point I've made before relative to the acceleration of the CX-5. Even the 2.0L accelerates faster than many V-8 equipped cars of the 60's. And lets not even talk about the straight sixes that were typically the standard engine. Not only does the 2.0L make more power but it makes better use of it with a transmission that robs less power and has more gears.

Plus it's actually fun and engaging to drive.

While your point is valid, the speed limit was 55mph back then and now it's 85. That is a pretty substantial difference.

I agree 100% on driving fun though. It is absurdly engaging for an suv.

I'm nearly 30. I consider 40 middle aged. 30 is early middle age. People live until late 70s on average. Not 104...

 

[MikeM.]

What made the CX-5 appealing to me was the mileage, reputation for durability, and the utility of it in snow/ice/etc as well as the cost/benefit ratio. Also, the cheap cost of ownership (service, fuel, etc.). I am looking at building a first home in a year or two (I'm 29), and would really really like to have as much D/I ratio in my favor as I can, as well as having a vehicle that will actually work in the snow in the mountains where I bought property, without worrying about it's longevity/durability.

Absolutely! Those are considerations that I think plenty of people would be better off for taking into consideration.

I understand, but merging into rush-hour freeway traffic in places like Dallas is not something I would try in the 2.0 with a good feeling. Sure, it can be done, of course! But...I would rather press the "easy button" and just use a bigger motor.

I get that, different strokes for different folks. Personally, I take perverse pleasure in merging into 80 mph traffic off a tight on ramp with a power challenged vehicle. Sure, if you screw up or are not paying attention you can get yourself in trouble. But I can do a seamless merge at those speeds with a lot less power than the 2.0L has. Most importantly, hang back a little from the car in front of you so if they balk or hesitate it doesn't screw you. More power is definitely a plus for inexperienced drivers but I think a new driver builds good driving skills more quickly if they learn using a vehicle that is somewhat challenged in the power department.

Still, anyone who bought a CX-5, even with a 2.5L engine, thinking they were buying a powerful and fast vehicle has another think coming.

 

[Unobtanium]

Absolutely! Those are considerations that I think plenty of people would be better off for taking into consideration.



I get that, different strokes for different folks. Personally, I take perverse pleasure in merging into 80 mph traffic off a tight on ramp with a power challenged vehicle. Sure, if you screw up or are not paying attention you can get yourself in trouble. But I can do a seamless merge at those speeds with a lot less power than the 2.0L has. Most importantly, hang back a little from the car in front of you so if they balk or hesitate it doesn't screw you. More power is definitely a plus for inexperienced drivers but I think a new driver builds good driving skills more quickly if they learn using a vehicle that is somewhat challenged in the power department.

Still, anyone who bought a CX-5, even with a 2.5L engine, thinking they were buying a powerful and fast vehicle has another think coming.

I've owned slower vehicles than my cx5 as well and I made it work. However...I was taught to hit the easy button in the real world. Training is a different matter, but off the range or out of the gym, I'm reaching for the easy button. Ymmv.

 

[MikeM.]

While your point is valid, the speed limit was 55mph back then and now it's 85.

I'm calling BS on that too.

The speed limit in the 1960's and well into the 1970's was 65-75 mph, much as it is now. One highway in Texas is about as significant as, well, one highway in Texas. It wasn't until the oil embargo that speeds were limited to 55 mph in 1974. Yes, people actually drove 70 mph in those gutless 6 cylinders of the day.

 

[Unobtanium]

I'm calling BS on that too.

The speed limit in the 1960's and well into the 1970's was 65-75 mph, much as it is now. One highway in Texas is about as significant as, well, one highway in Texas. It wasn't until the oil embargo that speeds were limited to 55 mph in 1974. Yes, people actually drove 70 mph in those gutless 6 cylinders of the day.

Well. You were there.

People drive 90 today though. 85 limit or not. Also, you're talking to someone who drives on highways with 85mph limits often enough. And 8 have mountains to contend with as well, even if they are just the Ozarks. 2.5 for me. Ymmv.

 

[MikeM.]

And 8 have mountains to contend with as well, even if they are just the Ozarks. 2.5 for me. Ymmv.

I think the Ozark mountain range is a myth. I looked for them once but couldn't find them. ;-)

 

[Unobtanium]

I think the Ozark mountain range is a myth. I looked for them once but couldn't find them. ;-)

Just drive north on I-49 and wait until your little 2.0 starts making noises of protest.

 

[MikeM.]

Just drive north on I-49 and wait until your little 2.0 starts making noises of protest.

Noises of protest? What's that supposed to mean?

My AWD 2.0L purrs over the North Cascades like a cat lapping up warm milk. Sweet and smooth.

So why do you think it would have trouble with the Ozarks? Do you always make stuff up because this will give a completely inaccurate impression to someone who has never driven the 2.0L in real mountains. Wait... I think that describes you?

 

[CX-SV]

Wtf - Poor Ninja will hate his CX-5 and this thread too. Lol.

And the 2.0L is not a sweet 4 banger engine, at elevated revs (4500+). An example of a truly smooth 4 banger engine that comes to mind is a 1.8L turbo by Mercedes, I'm sure other examples can be found.

 

[yrwei52]

Wtf - Poor Ninja will hate his CX-5 and this thread too. Lol.
And the 2.0L is not a sweet 4 banger engine, at elevated revs (4500+). An example of a truly smooth 4 banger engine that comes to mind is a 1.8L turbo by Mercedes, I'm sure other examples can be found.

Yeah this thread is really getting more interesting! But no. any engine with turbo charger is not sweet with turbo whining, turbo lag, and problematic...

 

[CX-SV]

Yeah this thread is really getting more interesting! But no. any engine with turbo charger is not sweet with turbo whining, turbo lag, and problematic...

Welcome to 2015, these are not your problematic turbo engines of the 80's and 90's btw. And I was noting 4 banger NVH.

 

[MikeM.]

And the 2.0L is not a sweet 4 banger engine, at elevated revs (4500+). An example of a truly smooth 4 banger engine that comes to mind is a 1.8L turbo by Mercedes, I'm sure other examples can be found.

I agree, at elevated revs the engine can feel buzzy. But it's not necessary to rev the 2.0L to 4500 rpm's just to sail over a mountain pass, let alone the Ozarks. It climbs just fine at 3000-3500 rpm's where it's smooth as glass.

 

[awmawm]

We just got a 2016 CX-5 with the 2.5 engine for our teen drivers and compared it to some of its closest competitors: Honda CR-V, Nissan Rogue and Toyota RAV4. The CX-5 felt more dynamic and fun to drive than the others. In the price range of the CX-5 models with the 2.5 engine, I believe it is the best option in terms of acceleration, highway merging and handling. As for CUVs, the BMW X1 has more power but I did not feel that it has better handling. As equipped as our CX-5 with all the comfort and convenience features, the X1 would cost at least $40,000 and the rear view camera is about the only safety feature you can get. Besides, the interior is cramped. You would have to step up to the X3 for similar space which still has less space on the rear bench than the CX-5 and brings you easily to $45,000+. If money were no issue, we would have gone for the X3 xDrive35i but that would have landed us close to $60,000 if fully equipped as our CX-5 with the technology and ActivSense packages, not exactly what we want a teenager to drive...

So, for the money, I think the CX-5 with the 2.5 engine is an excellent choice if you need/want a CUV around $30,000 even though it is not exactly a rocket ship.