View Full Version : CX-5 performance and handling

05-09-2012, 06:57 PM
Since CX-5 is supposed to be one of the best handling small SUVs, has anyone taken it to an auto-cross course or skip-pad?

I've only read about the journalists testing it at Laguna Seca and on the autocross course.

Just wonder how it compares with VW Tiguan and Escape?

Here's a nice review from Insideline:


Test numbers themselves don't look exciting, on par with CR-V. It certainly feels better.

0-60 mph, trac ON (sec.) 9.9
0-60, trac ON with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 9.6
0-75 mph, trac ON (sec.) 15.0
1/4-mile, trac ON (sec. @ mph) 17.2 @ 79.3
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 31
60-0 mph (ft.) 121
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON 62.4
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON 0.78

Compared to CR-V:
0-60 mph, trac ON (sec.) 9.4
0-60, trac ON with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 9.0
0-75 mph, trac ON (sec.) 13.4
1/4-mile, trac ON (sec. @ mph) 16.8 @ 83.4
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 30
60-0 mph (ft.) 120
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 63.1
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON 62.1
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.76
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON 0.75

05-09-2012, 07:27 PM
Thanks for posting this road test, I remember reading it a few days ago and it was one of few with instrumented testing.

The low power of the Mazda is a consistent theme in all of the reviews but the result is best in class gas mileage.

Now that official EPA numbers are listed for new AWD automatic compact SUV's they rank as follow (city/highway/combined):

CX-5 25/31/28
Escape 1.6L 22/30/25
CRV 22/30/25

05-10-2012, 02:41 PM
Numbers don't mean anything.

For example, the Hyundai Elantra is great on paper and depending on the version of Ford Focus or Mazda 3 you compare it to, it can beat those cars in a slalom and skidpad. But no one who cares about driving is going to buy the Elantra because it's a better driver's car.

Given the physical specification of the Mazda CX-5 there's no reason to believe it will lay down amazing numbers. Particularly with the terrible stock tires. But if you put the same driver in a CR-V and a CX-5, and you set that driver down a country road, he or she will have more fun in the CX-5 and probably be faster, too.

05-10-2012, 09:42 PM
The cx-5 wouldn't be allowed at a SCCA auto-x if they are following the rules. Second, I would recommend not forgetting it's still a crossover designed for fuel economy.

05-11-2012, 12:52 AM
Was somebody here planning to autocross a CX-5?

05-11-2012, 02:21 PM
I've never been to one - just checked the rules and it seems SUVs are not allowed.

05-11-2012, 04:41 PM
I've been to a few autocrosses, and only saw a rollover at one.

05-13-2012, 08:56 PM
I forget where I read it buy in the article they got .81 g in the skid pad. Also the CX5 has a slippery for an SUV .33 coefficient of drag. Thats better than the 2013 Dodge Viper and many sedans.

05-16-2012, 08:31 PM
Numbers do mean something, because they are usable for comparison purposes, not just relying on subjective stuff. Of couse numbers alone don't tell the whole story.

Sports cars often have mediocre coefficents of drag, (huge tires, wide tracks, front air dams, the need for considerable downforce, large intakes, brake cooling ducts, etc. don't help). Some of the best drag coefficients are shown by sleek sports sedans including ISx50, C-class, Sonata.

The CX-5 is quite slippery for a SUV/crossover, contributes to best in class highway fuel economy numbers.