New CX5 Owner impressions/questions

[bmninada]

That's why I didn't get the sunroof. THAT is a serious performance killer. I'd hate to be any of you guys/girls who have a sunroof. All that weight at the highest point in the vehicle! I bet I would destroy you at the track!

Oh...wait...you never thought of that because it doesn't matter and this is a family car and you can't tell the difference. Carry on. Or are you now worried about all the performance you gave up for your sunroof? LOL!

The derp is so strong on this topic. 30-50# on the floorboard is what all of you are whining about? And you have SUNROOFS!? Mike M is even toting around a useless AWD system in his vehicle when he should just run snow-tires because AWD doesn't do much of anything according to him.

This is so sad.

The 2016 weighs more than the 2015...same acceleration/skidpad numbers.
The Touring weighs less than the GT, and both weigh more than the base model...same acceleration and skidpad numbers.


I'm still waiting for someone to rip out their AC compressor and radio. I think you all have reached the height of absurdity on this topic, talking about a family car/SUV like 30-50# is going to make/break how it "handles". Insanity.
I really do NOT understand people who buy a slow 4-banger SUV, and then agonize over what 30-50# would have done to harm performance, while at the same time checking the "yes" box on a Sunroof. Mind...blown.

Let me try to answer you.

Yes: It's a SUV/CUV. Yes : Its for the family.

But after driving and test driving almost ALL the SUV/CUV IN THIS PRICE RANGE I challenge you to find something which is more fun to drive. Question: Define "Fun to Drive"? Well, when I am in a highway or urban area and I quickly want to cover a gap or over-take or lane change, this SUV does it with aplomb. As soon as I press the gas, I see a reaction, a surge. When I get this sudden inclination to tromp thru a ramp at +55 mph I can do it, in this SUV without the car skewing, rolling, etc.
Now, if I had a Porche Macan/Cayenne I am confident I will be able to do all of the above and MUCH MORE. But: Cost?

So, we, poor mortals who actually use this FAMILY SUV tend to treat it, respect it as a performance SUV. Maybe, we are all wrong, maybe you're right but it does have an oomph in acceleration and handling. Thus, we bring up the performance numbers.

 

[Unobtanium]

Let me try to answer you.

Yes: It's a SUV/CUV. Yes : Its for the family.

But after driving and test driving almost ALL the SUV/CUV IN THIS PRICE RANGE I challenge you to find something which is more fun to drive. Question: Define "Fun to Drive"? Well, when I am in a highway or urban area and I quickly want to cover a gap or over-take or lane change, this SUV does it with aplomb. As soon as I press the gas, I see a reaction, a surge. When I get this sudden inclination to tromp thru a ramp at +55 mph I can do it, in this SUV without the car skewing, rolling, etc.
Now, if I had a Porche Macan/Cayenne I am confident I will be able to do all of the above and MUCH MORE. But: Cost?

So, we, poor mortals who actually use this FAMILY SUV tend to treat it, respect it as a performance SUV. Maybe, we are all wrong, maybe you're right but it does have an oomph in acceleration and handling. Thus, we bring up the performance numbers.

Forester 2.0XT, starts at less than $30K.

-0-60 a second and a half faster.
-Chassis/suspension tuned on the 'Ring.

Need I say more? It's actually billed as a PERFORMANCE ITEM, and it kindof is, for what it is. The CX-5? Not so much.

 

[Dr Kev]

I bought my 2015 with 16,000 km (9760 mi) on it. The Toyo tires looked good, were worn evenly, but felt "dead". They did not wander or tramline, they just felt like driving on novocaine. I replaced them with Continental TrueContacts, which feel much more lively. Steering feels lighter but very precise, and I feel much more feedback from the tires.

The CX-5 lets in significantly more engine noise than my last car, a 2010 Mazda 3 GT. It is a little annoying when the engine is cold, when it is much noisier. But once it warms up I don't find the noise bothersome. However, anyone who wants the vault-like silence of many luxury cars probably won't like it.

I had a 2012 Mazda3 before moving to the '16 CX-5 GT. My conclusion is just the opposite: The 3 was FAR more noisy!

 

[bmninada]

Forester 2.0XT, starts at less than $30K.

-0-60 a second and a half faster.
-Chassis/suspension tuned on the 'Ring.

Need I say more? It's actually billed as a PERFORMANCE ITEM, and it kindof is, for what it is. The CX-5? Not so much.

Forrest XT Touring is MORE than CX-5 Touring.

I have extensively driven the Subaru Forrester. In fact, I drove up Mt. Washington with it. Then I have extensively driven CX-5. CX-5 is way, way better. I am not sure why you bill 90 seconds but my 2.5L CX-5 easily out performs in acceleration the Forrester. Forrester has SIGNIFICANTLY more roll than the CX-5. What tuning you're talking about!!? When I stop, the entire Forrester front dips forward. And yes: It was a NEW Forrester. Finally, my friend within the 1st. 3000 miles had EVAP issues and O2 sensor replacement.
Let's not forget gas mileage and PREMIUM fuel required.

Need I say more?

 

[Unobtanium]

Forrest XT Touring is MORE than CX-5 Touring.

I have extensively driven the Subaru Forrester. In fact, I drove up Mt. Washington with it. Then I have extensively driven CX-5. CX-5 is way, way better. I am not sure why you bill 90 seconds but my 2.5L CX-5 easily out performs in acceleration the Forrester. Forrester has SIGNIFICANTLY more roll than the CX-5. What tuning you're talking about!!? When I stop, the entire Forrester front dips forward. And yes: It was a NEW Forrester. Finally, my friend within the 1st. 3000 miles had EVAP issues and O2 sensor replacement.
Let's not forget gas mileage and PREMIUM fuel required.

Need I say more?

The 2.5 CX-5 is a dog compared to the 2.0XT. Forester is a reliable vehicle, and your friend is a sample of one. We can find broken transmissions here on the Mazda site, too...but it's not normal.

Yes, mileage is similar and gas is Premium instead of Regular.

So...is a 0-60 of almost 6 flat worth it? That's for the end-user. I personally find them both pathetic performers, and opted for the CX-5 because if I want to have fun, I think a second vehicle is in order, rather than trying to have my cake and eat it too.

*It seems like English is your second language. Since I don't HAVE a second language, no judgement here, from me. However, I do not understand what you meant, highlighted in red. Can you re-phrase it? It seems integral to the discussion.

 

[bmninada]

I meant 90 sec diff does not make a SUV a perf SUV. If this was a sports car, yes. Forester is reliable,yes. But after studying the factory recommended maint sch I find cx5 again trumps.

 

[Rarebit]

I had a 2012 Mazda3 before moving to the '16 CX-5 GT. My conclusion is just the opposite: The 3 was FAR more noisy!

You're probably right. I was referring to a 2010 3 and a 2015 CX-5.

 

[Unobtanium]

I meant 90 sec diff does not make a SUV a perf SUV. If this was a sports car, yes. Forester is reliable,yes. But after studying the factory recommended maint sch I find cx5 again trumps.

You said punching it to make it down an on-ramp is what "performance" means to you. I simply said the Forester 2.0XT demolishes the CX-5 2.5L. The difference is similar to that of a BMW M3 vs. Ford Explorer Sport.

So now you want to talk about how a factory maintenance schedule makes the CX-5 better than the Forester 2.0 XT? Okay. How.

CX-5: https://www.driverside.com/service-schedule/complete/mazda-cx_5-2014-318457-801246-2171270
Forester 2.0XT: https://www.driverside.com/service-schedule/complete/subaru-forester-2014-340831-861071-2334872

Maybe I'm just not seeing it...care to explain?

 

[bmninada]

Yep - I had pulled up an incorrect maint. schedule for Subaru. You're right. They are more or less the same.

I still stand behind my earlier statement. I did drive for 3 months a new 2.0XT and now driving for 3 weeks at CX-5. Performance wise: i.e. the way the vehicle accelerates, the general feel inside the car when turning, stopping I find is better in CX-5. The steering response is also better. Of course, the OEM Toyo tires doesn't help much but I should not compare since Forrester was OEM also.

Where Forrester out-shines easily is Subaru's EyeSight system and true AWD when doing steep climbs, off-roading. Definitely better than CX-5. I think (not sure) but felt CX-5 has bigger space, inside....

 

[Unobtanium]

Yep - I had pulled up an incorrect maint. schedule for Subaru. You're right. They are more or less the same.

I still stand behind my earlier statement. I did drive for 3 months a new 2.0XT and now driving for 3 weeks at CX-5. Performance wise: i.e. the way the vehicle accelerates, the general feel inside the car when turning, stopping I find is better in CX-5. The steering response is also better. Of course, the OEM Toyo tires doesn't help much but I should not compare since Forrester was OEM also.

Where Forrester out-shines easily is Subaru's EyeSight system and true AWD when doing steep climbs, off-roading. Definitely better than CX-5. I think (not sure) but felt CX-5 has bigger space, inside....

I think the CX-5 might feel better, but that's subjective. Objectively, the 2.0XT is an all-around better performer.

That said, it's a compact SUV, and I'm with you on this one. Obviously, since I bought the Mazda. Save money and drive the more sensible of the two, and get an actual sports car for a second car, if you feel that desire.

The main thing I like about my CX-5 is the 87 octane it swills. That's nice.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

Ironically the 2.0XT doesn't seem be the oil burner.... seeing more '15 model Subaru posts that oil consumptions issues are still there on many of the models. I also heard Subaru lowered their oil change intervals but haven't confirmed this. Do they really have a "Low Oil" light on the dash?

I was looking through a Subaru manual and caught my oil of an easy to reach oil filter but vertical. That has to be a mess changing it. Anyone have experience with personal oil changes on a Subaru?

Looks like 6/6000 is long interval on '15 and later.

http://www.cars101.com/subaru/maintenance-2016.html

 

[Unobtanium]

Ironically the 2.0XT doesn't seem be the oil burner.... seeing more '15 model Subaru posts that oil consumptions issues are still there on many of the models. I also heard Subaru lowered their oil change intervals but haven't confirmed this. Do they really have a "Low Oil" light on the dash?

I was looking through a Subaru manual and caught my oil of an easy to reach oil filter but vertical. That has to be a mess changing it. Anyone have experience with personal oil changes on a Subaru?

Looks like 6/6000 is long interval on '15 and later.

http://www.cars101.com/subaru/maintenance-2016.html

A friend of mine has a BRZ. He has never complained of oil usage, and goes well past 6K on intervals. I think the oil-usage on Subaru's is far blown out of proportion.

 

[ocinsomniac]

I was looking through a Subaru manual and caught my oil of an easy to reach oil filter but vertical. That has to be a mess changing it. Anyone have experience with personal oil changes on a Subaru?
http://www.cars101.com/subaru/maintenance-2016.html

Yeah, I do my own oil changes on my '13 Impreza Sport Wagon all the time. Changing the oil filter is soooo easy since it's up on top under the hood and right up front on the driver's side. Has a recess that catches whatever oil leaks out after you loosen it........no muss no fuss. After installing a Fumoto drain valve to replace the drain plug, I don't have to jack it up to drain the oil from the pan, just reach under and open the valve. Very friendly and easy for DIY oil changers.

 

[Tccox]

Car and Drivers comments about the 2016 Forrester XT. They also pointed out the CVT trans sucked. Skid pad numbers ? .75 for the Forester, .81 for the CX-5. Seems the CX-5 is the all round better performer.

Alas, acceleration tests were the only bragging point for Subaru at the track, where the numbers showed the Forester on the trailing edge of the segment in both braking and roadholding. Stopping from 70 mph took 180 feet, and the skidpad result of only 0.75 g exposed moderate understeer and notable body roll, despite the “sport-tuned” suspension that comes on the 2.0XT. Both results fell short of even the Forester 2.5i’s test figures. This car wore Bridgestone Duelers on its 18-inch rims, while the lesser model had Yokohama Geolandars on 17s. Both tire choices are known more for off-road prowess than are the grippier, street-oriented tires fitted to the nimbler CX-5 and Escape, although we should also note that both Foresters exhibited better suppression of road noise than in previous generations.

 

[MikeM.]

Car and Drivers comments about the 2016 Forrester XT. They also pointed out the CVT trans sucked. Skid pad numbers ? .75 for the Forester, .81 for the CX-5. Seems the CX-5 is the all round better performer.

Alas, acceleration tests were the only bragging point for Subaru at the track, where the numbers showed the Forester on the trailing edge of the segment in both braking and roadholding. Stopping from 70 mph took 180 feet, and the skidpad result of only 0.75 g exposed moderate understeer and notable body roll, despite the “sport-tuned” suspension that comes on the 2.0XT.

Looks like the CX-5 is both objectively and subjectively the winner in terms of overall performance.

I've never understood people who put pure acceleration on a pedestal, even at the expense of more important metrics like road-holding, braking and balanced handling. I've driven enough crappy cars in my youth that wallowed like a drunken whale, had body roll that would turn even a seasoned sailor pale and plowed ahead when standing hard on the brakes to know that pure acceleration is vastly over rated when it comes to choosing satisfying transportation.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

A friend of mine has a BRZ. He has never complained of oil usage, and goes well past 6K on intervals. I think the oil-usage on Subaru's is far blown out of proportion.

Maybe the Toyota/Scion infusion on the BRZ?

 

[bmninada]

Looks like the CX-5 is both objectively and subjectively the winner in terms of overall performance.

I've never understood people who put pure acceleration on a pedestal, even at the expense of more important metrics like road-holding, braking and balanced handling. I've driven enough crappy cars in my youth that wallowed like a drunken whale, had body roll that would turn even a seasoned sailor pale and plowed ahead when standing hard on the brakes to know that pure acceleration is vastly over rated when it comes to choosing satisfying transportation.

I drove the exact model for 3 months, climbed Mt. Washington and did considerable off-roading in Maine. No doubt it's a great, great car when offroading. I also found it's EyeSight really good, solid performer. Then, had the pleasure of driving CX-5. Much contained, taunt vehicle. Overall impression I got is superb in acceleration, road handling, griping road - better. Also 1 more thing: even if I am at 65 mph and I need to overtake someone CX-5 is much quicker to respond and react in comparison to Forrester. Forrester from 0 mph - may be better in acceleration but can't confirm since never did any head-to-head but going by published values here. I believe it may be due to CVT? Dunno. But I felt CX-5 reacting to acceleration when already in top gear much quicker than Forrester.

 

[Unobtanium]

That is very odd. I question that test. It differs significantly from others.
Maybe subaru sent out a few ringers back in '14...

 

[bmninada]

That is very odd. I question that test. It differs significantly from others.
Maybe subaru sent out a few ringers back in '14...

Which test? I said I never tested it. Just my opinion regarding acceleration at high speed.

 

[Unobtanium]

Which test? I said I never tested it. Just my opinion regarding acceleration at high speed.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2014-subaru-forester-limited-xt-first-test/
http://www.motortrend.com/news/2014-subaru-forester-20xt-arrival/
http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/forester/2014/road-test-2/


The worst lateral acceleration I could find was 0.77g's from Edmunds, who is typically the most conservative of road-tests. They rated the CX-5 at 0.77, as well, and also noted worse braking and much slower acceleration.
http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2016/road-test-specs.html

I think you somehow managed to find the worst possible review of the Forester 2.0XT in existence. NO other review is so bad.