Wheels Magazine (AUS) - 11 SUV Mega Test

Just received my latest Wheels Magazine subscription and noted an 11 Compact SUV megatest.

Their early review of the CX-5 was not complementary. The review was on the basis of the petrol engine (diesel not available at release).
Wheels are a magazine I trust mainly on the basis they are very quick to point out the positives and negatives of every model in very clear detail. There is never a clear favourite with any vehicle or brand, so their reviews are always a surprise.
So their criticism of the petrol CX-5 was based on very clear facts. Bottom line: it's far too slow.

They start the article explaining that the growth of the SUV market in Australia is mirrored by the waining of the tradition large sedan market. They also left Toyota's RAV4 and Honda's CR-V out of the comparison because both models are being refreshed (we're yet to get the CR-V now available in the US). But the expectation is that these models are unlikely to battle for the lead.

The long time leader of the segment has been the VW Tiguan.

In the comparison, they decided to choose the petrol Tiguan and the diesel CX-5. Their explanation for this was that the turbo petrol Tiguan was clearly superior to its diesel counterpart whereas it was the reverse for the CX-5.

The test included some interesting figures, including a highway overtaking test (which is 80-120km/h - or approx 50-75mph test), a 0-100km/h test (roughly 0-60) and a fuel economy test (in L/100km).

The results follow with a score out of 10.


The results ended up being (some names might differ in the US, petrol unless otherwise specified):
So you can calculate:
http://www.convertunits.com/from/kilometre/hour/to/mile/hour
http://www.convertunits.com/from/kW/to/hp
http://www.convertunits.com/from/newton-metre/to/foot-pound+force


11th Suzuki Grand Vitara - 5/10
Power/Torque: 122kW @ 6000rpm, 225Nm @ 4000rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 11.4
80-120km/h (secs): 8.5
Fuel economy (L/100km): 11.4

10th Holden (GM) Capitiva - 5.5/10
Power/Torque: 123kW @ 5600rpm, 230Nm @ 4600rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 9.7
80-120km/h (secs): 7.9
Fuel economy (L/100km): 13.4

9th Mitsubishi Outlander LS - 6/10
Power/Torque: 125kW @ 6000rpm, 226Nm @ 4100rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 9.6
80-120km/h (secs): 6.1
Fuel economy (L/100km): 9.6

8th Kia Sportage - 6/10
Power/Torque: 130kW @ 6000rpm, 227Nm @ 4000rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 10.1
80-120km/h (secs): 7.2
Fuel economy (L/100km): 14.2

7th Hyundai ix35 Elite CRDi (turbo diesel) - 6.5/10
Power/Torque: 135kW @ 4000rpm, 392Nm @ 1800-2500rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 8.2
80-120km/h (secs): 6.2
Fuel economy (L/100km): 7.1

6th Subaru Forester - 6.5/10
Power/Torque: 126kW @ 5800rpm, 235Nm @ 4100rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 10.3
80-120km/h (secs): 7.3
Fuel economy (L/100km): 8.9

5th Renault Koleos - 6.5/10
Power/Torque: 226kW @ 6000rpm, 226Nm @ 4400rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 9.8
80-120km/h (secs): 6.5
Fuel economy (L/100km): 10

4th Ford Kuga/Escape (turbo diesel) - 7.5/10
Power/Torque: 147kW @ 6000rpm, 320Nm @ 1600-4000rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 8.8
80-120km/h (secs): 6.1
Fuel economy (L/100km): 10

3rd Skoda Yeti - 8/10
Power/Torque: 112kW @ 6000rpm, 250Nm @ 1500-4200rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 9.9
80-120km/h (secs): 7.1
Fuel economy (L/100km): 9.3

2nd Volkswagen Tiguan - 8.5/10
Power/Torque: 132kW @ 4300rpm, 280Nm @ 1700rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 7.9
80-120km/h (secs): 6.4
Fuel economy (L/100km): 9.6

1st Mazda CX-5 (turbo diesel) - 9/10
Power/Torque: 129kW @ 4500rpm, 420Nm @ 2000rpm
0-100km/h (secs): 8
80-120km/h (secs): 5.7
Fuel economy (L/100km): 6.9

What's truely amazing about these results is that the 0-100 and 80-120 figures are not only at the head of the field, but it's matched by a significantly better fuel economy.

Worst Performance Results:
0-100: Suzuki Grand Vitara
80-120: Suzuki Grand Vitara
Fuel: Kia Sportage

Best Performance Results:
0-100: VW Tiguan
80-120: Mazda CX-5
Fuel: Mazda CX-5


See article:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennstewart/7225984806/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/glennstewart/7225983654/in/photostream/

Needless to say, their original review of the petrol (which was less than complementary on part of the engine), the review of the diesel was extremely positive. Many of the positive remarks carry over to both engines.

"Most Mazda are steering and handling leaders, but they're often too noisy, too cheaply finished and ride too firmly. None of these issues are a problem with the CX-5. It still quite can't match the Tiguan for ride, refinement and cabin quality, but, finally, this is one Mazda that feels sophisticated in its ride and NVH suppression."

"..the CX-5 shifts dynamic goalposts in the class. Mazda's new electric-assist steering is fantastic, both crisp and accurate. Although the system feeds-in weight as lock is wound on - it's light on-centre, meaty on rotation - the change feels natural, unlike other lumpy electric systems".

"The Mazda diesel is almost vibration free at idle, and its distant note could be mistaken for that of a petrol"

"Here's a Mazda that rides well and remains quiet, is quick and frugal, and steers and handles brilliantly. It pushes boundaries and is deservedly our new compact SUV class leader. Just make sure that your CX-5 is the oiler [diesel]..."

Really good results. Thanks for collating.

Whatever the marginally higher price of diesel here in North America (while it has been a few cents lower than regular gas here for the last few weeks), it seems they have a winner… Can't wait to see that released here and the more I see about it, the more I think it would be extremely stupid to not release a diesel CX-5 here… time to wake up Mazda.

Edit: …And I just saw a tv ad for the new Kia Rio, with stop/start feature. If even the low end Kia gets it, why Mazda thinks the CX-5 shouldn't over here ?

VK Sefirosu said:

Edit: …And I just saw a tv ad for the new Kia Rio, with stop/start feature. If even the low end Kia gets it, why Mazda thinks the CX-5 shouldn't over here ?

Click to expand...

It became clear the other day when I saw a new M Class Mercedes parked on the street with a Blue Efficiency badge. Diesel powered with ECO stop-start.
http://www2.mercedes-benz.com.au/co...-class/w166/facts_/engines/dieselengines.html

Manufactured in Alabama, USA.

Looked everywhere on the US Mercedes site. The same US manufactured vehicle (obviously), but not a diesel or stop-start in sight.

Please explain....

inodes said:

Please explain....

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I get the logic either. Kia sells this as an add on package on newer Rio's it seems, and I believe BMW also has it on some models over here. But if this is a ~500$ feature, I would suppose that it isn't that complex to add or implement on a set vehicle (a simple computer reprogram or flash would be my guess).

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1066570_2012-kia-rio-stop-start-for-one-of-americas-cheapest-cars

VK Sefirosu said:

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1066570_2012-kia-rio-stop-start-for-one-of-americas-cheapest-cars

Click to expand...

Great article. But it begs the question....
How does the EPA calculate urban consumption if it does not emulate the persistant start-stop of the daily commute?

Furthermore, the saving is higher than the 3-5% quoted:
However, its use is contentious for many carmakers as the U.S. EPA official fuel economy figures are completely unaffected, even if there are gains to be had in the real world - from 3-5 percent.

Mazda claims their i-Stop system tests save 10%.
http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/env/engine/siss2.html

Especially in urban areas, drivers often let their car's engine idle at traffic lights or when stopped in traffic jams. Switching off the engine to stop it idling in these situations enhances fuel economy by about 10% under Japan's 10-15 mode tests*1.