PDA

View Full Version : Motor Trend compares SUVs



PJO
06-25-2012, 06:52 PM
Spoiler alert. The CX-5 did not win.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1209_2012_2013_compact_crossover_suv_comparison/

dsonyay62
06-25-2012, 07:25 PM
Funny how didferent folks view things. If you read "The Truth About Cars" blog, you'll get a whole different take on the 5.

2nd place ain't too bad... 1st loser ;)

CX-SV
06-25-2012, 07:40 PM
So subjective when splitting hairs at the top it really doesn't matter, I agree that either a 1st or 2nd place is appriopriate for the CX-5 or Escape. These 2 are at the top of my personal list for this class of vehicle. I don't pick vehicles by rankings, I read between the lines.

nyctravis
06-25-2012, 07:43 PM
Not a bad finish at #2. Never really saw the Escape's interior before closely. I can't stand that Microsoft logo plate-that would drive me nuts and I find it really tacky and gaudy. The vent and stereo dial placement looks like it's trying too hard to be cool.

Aviboy97
06-25-2012, 09:46 PM
I don't get how MT editors claim the CX-5 is crazy slow when it has the same trap speed as the Escape and is only .5 seconds slower to 60, and the Escape is considered to have plenty of power. Rubbish or poor writing if you ask me.

Take into account that the Escape is waaay more expensive and gets less fuel economy, the CX-5 becomes even more attractive.

CX-5 Rat
06-25-2012, 10:26 PM
Big deal, so it didn't finish first. If anyone wants a truck that can do burnouts and gets 8 miles to to the gallon, buy a Raptor.

SilverBulletES
06-26-2012, 02:03 AM
The Escape's interior (as well as almost every Hyundai) looks like it's been designed by a Klingon. Don't see the appeal of the exterior either.

plemieux
06-26-2012, 05:59 AM
The Escape's interior (as well as almost every Hyundai) looks like it's been designed by a Klingon.

I like Star Trek...

mr.fusion
06-26-2012, 07:25 AM
They basically say the like the Mazda the best and it's the best looking and best to drive.... if only it was a little faster. I didn't buy mine to race, fortunately lol. I get what they are saying because the skyactiv doesn't have a lot of torque... no turbo to add low rpm grunt, so I think it does feel slower than it really is. But seriously, it's not under powered at all for actual driving in real world traffic... the more you drive it and get used to the car, the better it feels.

1ba67
06-26-2012, 09:21 AM
I agree. I don't miss the power one bit. I also don't care about all of the gadgetry of Sync. If you are into all of that then the Escape might be a better choice. It will be interesting to see what the real world fuel mileage is when people start getting them. I read one mag. review that only averaged 19 mpg with the 2 litre eco-boost. I'm sure that included alot of heavy footed driving.

Kelme
06-26-2012, 09:39 AM
I don't get how MT editors claim the CX-5 is crazy slow when it has the same trap speed as the Escape and is only .5 seconds slower to 60, and the Escape is considered to have plenty of power. Rubbish or poor writing if you ask me.

Take into account that the Escape is waaay more expensive and gets less fuel economy, the CX-5 becomes even more attractive.

This is Motor Trend, the same magazine that in 2001 called the Chrysler PT Cruiser the Car of the Year, the same car that in 2010 made every single list of the Worst Cars of the last decade.

Plus the very last sentence of the report gives you a little bit of Motor Trend history: “Best of all, this one's from the home team”

SilverBulletES
06-26-2012, 09:58 AM
Yeah, I'm not sure if it's good or bad that the worst car magazine of all time (barring Consumer Reports) gave it 2nd place.

Vorret
06-26-2012, 10:03 AM
Yeah, I'm not sure if it's good or bad that the worst car magazine of all time (barring Consumer Reports) gave it 2nd place.

What's wrong with Consumer Reports? (curious, my stemother swears by that magazine!)

respy78
06-26-2012, 10:25 AM
What's wrong with Consumer Reports? (curious, my stemother swears by that magazine!)

CR is great for those who prioritize spending $ as carefully as possible over driving experience.

Jcanracer
06-26-2012, 10:39 AM
I get what they are saying because the skyactiv doesn't have a lot of torque... no turbo to add low rpm grunt, so I think it does feel slower than it really is. But seriously, it's not under powered at all for actual driving in real world traffic... the more you drive it and get used to the car, the better it feels.

I agree with you. I think this is subjective. For example, my previous car dyno'd at 155hp @7400rpm (142lbft) and weighed 300lbs less than the CX5. Yet the CX5 feels more torquey and suitable for daily driving. But this is my take on it, based on previously driving a torque-less car which had to be kept above 4000rpm to make any usable power. So if the reviewers are used to driving nice BMWs and such, then of course the CX5 will feel low on torque.

erhayes
06-26-2012, 10:58 AM
CU gave the CX5 a fairly good write up. The magzine pointed out the good handling, cornering and braking. Also mention the excellent fuel mileage, if I remember correctly. They also agreed with just about every other magazine that more power would be appreciated or needed. I have found that CU, in most cases gives an unbiased opinion and good data when they test items. Just because, I or others happen to be bull headed doesn't alter that fact. JMO. Ed

CX-SV
06-26-2012, 01:43 PM
I subscribe to Consumer Reports, but use them mostly for reliability data/reports since they are useful given fairly large sample sizes.

Their instrumented testing is ok (for comparison purposes mainly). Their safety discussions have limited value, better to go straight to source such as IIHS for actual results/photos/videos of actual crash testing and related data. Their subjective automotive opinions have limited value but they are great for washing machines and fridges though.

ta240
06-26-2012, 01:52 PM
Funny how didferent folks view things.

yep, just like all things subjective. I'd see so many car reviews where one place hated it and another thought it was the best. But that is good, otherwise it would be really hard to find my car in a parking lot if everyone drove the same thing.

I was amazed back when Motorweek did their comparison test (before the CX5) and they referred to a couple of the ones they tested as being so harsh on the road that they almost didn't recommend them. And yet those models ended up in the top half of the pack. How can it be so close to not being recommended at all yet still rate better than others?

Kelme
06-26-2012, 02:53 PM
I just read the whole review and I find it funny that on the first paragraph they made the following comment: “The CX-5 is really slow, especially in passing situations.” And the ford review says: “More important, unlike with the Mazda, nobody felt the Ford was low on power or struggled to accelerate.”

But in their final numbers they have the following:

Passing 45-65 mph:
Ford Escape – 5.2 secs.
Mazda CX-5 – 5.2 secs.

(uhm)(uhm)(uhm)(uhm)

Vorret
06-26-2012, 03:00 PM
I just read the whole review and I find it funny that on the first paragraph they made the following comment: “The CX-5 is really slow, especially in passing situations.” And the ford review says: “More important, unlike with the Mazda, nobody felt the Ford was low on power or struggled to accelerate.”

But in their final numbers they have the following:

Passing 45-65 mph:
Ford Escape – 5.2 secs.
Mazda CX-5 – 5.2 secs.

(uhm)(uhm)(uhm)(uhm)

lol... good find I didn't catch that.

Jcanracer
06-26-2012, 03:30 PM
Good catch, I feel like our car is only "slow" getting up to speed, but once it gets going, its just as good as the others.
Short of Corksport coming up with a supercharger kit, I just don't think any reviewer is going to be satisfied with the torque that the Skyactiv-G offers.

CX-SV
06-26-2012, 04:04 PM
Look at the very fast exotics the average MT, C&D, R&T road tester gets to enjoy, fun.


CX-5 modest power is always pointed out. And frequently (but not always) they mention that CX-5 gas mileage is better than it's competition, best in class, including CRV, Escape, Rouge, Sportage, Tuscon, Tiguan, Outlander. The CX-5 is engineered for efficiency, no surprise.

ta240
06-26-2012, 04:10 PM
Look at the very fast exotics the average MT, C&D, R&T road tester gets to enjoy, fun.

True, that has to put a weird perspective on 'normal' cars for them.

CX-SV
06-26-2012, 04:13 PM
True, that has to put a weird perspective on 'normal' cars for them.

Kinda like the vid of a CX-5 drag racing a CRV, like watching paint dry.

dsonyay62
06-26-2012, 09:25 PM
When I read two very positive and interesting reviews in TTAC blog, I figured this must be a car worth looking into. I nearly forgot about it until my wife saw it at the dealer while preparing to buy a 3gt.

The CX5 is ranked near the top in this article.. that says a lot. AND it bests the "CRVex."

EricF
06-26-2012, 09:49 PM
Short of Corksport coming up with a supercharger kit, I just don't think any reviewer is going to be satisfied with the torque that the Skyactiv-G offers.

Supercharging a 13:1 CR engine? That should be fun to watch. LOL

CX-5 Rat
06-26-2012, 09:51 PM
Supercharging a 13:1 CR engine? That should be fun to watch. LOL

Indeed. Can you say kaboom?

Jcanracer
06-27-2012, 11:34 AM
I know, I'm crazy.
Buuuut since our car is already tuned for 87 octane, that means the timing is already retarded enough that 6psi or less (centrifugal supercharger perhaps) shouldn't be a problem on 93 octane provided you could tune the fuel delivery. I'm over simplifying, obviously, but its fun to dream while I sit in an office with no windows :-(

Aviboy97
06-27-2012, 09:50 PM
Since we are on the topic of the Escape, I just read in an Escape forum that an owner of a 2.0L EcoBoost is averaging slightly over 21mpg. Ouch!! Dude shoulda bought a CX-7. Would get the same fuel economy, and would have been more fun to drive and cost less! That kind of economy won't sit well with buyers forking over nearly $37G's. For better hope the 1.6L fairs much better.

BTW, my Ford dealer has not sold one yet. According to the sales manager, people are turned off by the price.

http://www.escape-city.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15624

MadMan2k
06-27-2012, 10:58 PM
Figured I'd chime in even though I don't even own a Mazda, matter of fact I own 2 Fords...

I test drove the Escape with the 1.6 turbo last weekend, and although I did like the engine, I had the instant fuel economy gauge up and whenever the turbo kicked in the MPG dropped waaaaay down. I think the average mpg counter on that dealer test-drive vehicle was around 12 when I got in it. Shows what to expect if you drive it hard.

I have also driven the CX-5 with the automatic, and the escape does feel faster than the CX-5 to me, might be the fact that the transmission isn't as eager to grab the next gear up which makes it easier to accelerate when you hit the pedal. But overall, I didn't care for it. I'm planning to buy a CX-5 if they release the diesel model here; I'll probably be one of the first on the pre-order list if there is one.

ta240
06-28-2012, 11:06 AM
I just read the whole review and I find it funny that on the first paragraph they made the following comment: “The CX-5 is really slow, especially in passing situations.” And the ford review says: “More important, unlike with the Mazda, nobody felt the Ford was low on power or struggled to accelerate.”
But in their final numbers they have the following:

Passing 45-65 mph:
Ford Escape – 5.2 secs.
Mazda CX-5 – 5.2 secs.

If I had to guess I'd say the Escape probably doesn't run out of breath above that range as much as the CX5. I like the CX5 but my wifes 3 with the 2.5 pulls strong right up past 80 and the CX5 gets winded up there. Just about everything in cars is a trade off. The best car for you is the one that has the most things you like. The CX5 is roomier, quieter and gets better mpg than her 3 so I'll keep it.

Typically passing means going a bit faster than 65. Either zipping past cars to get over to the freeway exit or on the back country highways when you are stuck behind the guy doing 50 in the 55 zone that then speeds up to 60 when the road straightens out or he sees you go out to pass.

ta240
06-28-2012, 11:12 AM
I just read in an Escape forum that an owner of a 2.0L EcoBoost is averaging slightly over 21mpg.

Someone on fuely is getting 23 with a CX5. It is all about driving style.

CX-SV
06-28-2012, 12:12 PM
I had one tank at 25 mpg in lots of commute traffic, which is the EPA city rating.

I would not expect more than 21 city from a 2.0L Escape that's not bad considering the power.

Aviboy97
06-28-2012, 01:05 PM
Someone on fuely is getting 23 with a CX5. It is all about driving style.

That was my car on the first tank of gas at 100% city driving, in fact as of my 3rd fill up, I am averaging just under city economy with it going up with each fill up. My wife and I do virtually no highway what so ever. The Escape owner said he was mostly highway. That's the difference.

ta240
06-28-2012, 01:25 PM
I do about 85% highway and I could drop my mpg by 5 easily by just driving slightly more aggressively. And could probably completely kill the mpg if I drove like some people I see on the freeway.

personally I don't care what the Escape gets. I don't need it to do poorly to make me feel good about my decision. I'm sure for plenty of people the Escape will be a better choice.
In all reality the better it gets the better the next CX5 will have to be. As more companies make excellent cars everyone has to make their next car that much better. For years the new cars didn't interest me because they just weren't that much better than what I was currently driving. When the gas prices skyrocketed and everyone started hating their car and then the economy died car makers were left wondering why people weren't buying their latest, slightly better than 5 years ago, offering. Now they've woken up and realized they have to make better cars. Also I give a big thanks to the South Koreans for kicking all the other car companies in the nuts.
No longer can they run an ad campaign that says "it's a Honda" and have that be enough for it to sell hundreds of thousands of cars. No longer can American car companies turn out crap and sell it cheap after a pile of discounts to people that feel patriotic for buying it. Remember back when you could choose from maybe 2 or 3 small cars that weren't junk? Now I can't even list all the small cars that would be decent ones to own. So I say, go Ford, make a great new Escape that will make Mazda work even harder on the next CX5. And fill parking lots with the Escape, just as long as Mazda gets profitable with their new offerings so they continue to offer them I'm happy to be able to spot my car in the crowded lot.

Aviboy97
06-28-2012, 04:00 PM
Simply stating an Escape owners observed economy. Not Ford bashing or wishes of ill will. I think you took my post out of context. I have always been a supporter of competition because it only improves the breed.

CX-SV
06-28-2012, 04:25 PM
Simply stated, the only place I go for apples to apples comparisons of fuel economy is US EPA website (post 2008 ratings are the meaningful ones). I don't care about user-posted/suspect data on a some fuelly website.

EricF
06-28-2012, 09:27 PM
Simply stated, the only place I go for apples to apples comparisons of fuel economy is US EPA website (post 2008 ratings are the meaningful ones). I don't care about user-posted/suspect data on a some fuelly website.

"While the public mistakenly presumes that this federal agency is hard at work conducting complicated tests on every new model of truck, van, car, and SUV, in reality, just 18 of the EPA’s 17,000 employees work in the automobile-testing department in Ann Arbor, Michigan, examining 200 to 250 vehicles a year, or roughly 15 percent of new models. As to that other 85 percent, the EPA takes automakers at their word—without any testing—accepting submitted results as accurate."

If you want a apples to apples comparison, I wouldn't put too much stock in what the EPA posts.

CX-SV
06-29-2012, 01:06 AM
"While the public mistakenly presumes that this federal agency is hard at work conducting complicated tests on every new model of truck, van, car, and SUV, in reality, just 18 of the EPA’s 17,000 employees work in the automobile-testing department in Ann Arbor, Michigan, examining 200 to 250 vehicles a year, or roughly 15 percent of new models. As to that other 85 percent, the EPA takes automakers at their word—without any testing—accepting submitted results as accurate."

If you want a apples to apples comparison, I wouldn't put too much stock in what the EPA posts.

I would for several reasons, until a better source is established.

That's old news and typical hyperbole.

Guess who does testing for your HP and torque ratings btw... Maybe we can hype that up too.

Again for comparison purposes EPA website (post 2007 ONLY) has some value. Certainly more apples to apples than some website with random postings under completely random driving conditions by who knows who.

For example the 3 late model vehicles I currently own easily achieve mileage reasonably close to post 2007 EPA city/highway ratings (post 2007 ratings are very different than prevous ratings of earlier years, it's important to make that distinction if you want useful data.).

EricF
06-29-2012, 01:40 AM
I would for several reasons, until a better source is established.

That's old news and typical hyperbole.

That was taken out of a publication from a month ago LOL.


Guess who does testing for your HP and torque ratings btw... Maybe we can hype that up too.

Exactly.


for comparison purposes EPA website (post 2007 ONLY) has some value. Certainly more apples to apples than some website with random postings under completely random driving conditions by who knows who.

If the EPA tested every car on the same course at the same speed, then yeah, it would be a good gauge to compare one car to another. But they don't do that. Sure some are close, but some are way off.

CX-SV
06-29-2012, 11:04 AM
If the EPA tested every car on the same course at the same speed, then yeah, it would be a good gauge to compare one car to another. But they don't do that. Sure some are close, but some are way off.


It is not necessary to have EPA test every car, too expensive.

Most are close and certainly better than random websites with random postings by unnamed sources.

snorlax
06-30-2012, 03:13 PM
Spoiler alert. The CX-5 did not win.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1209_2012_2013_compact_crossover_suv_comparison/

It did from my perspective.

In almost 30 years I've never bought a car without three pedals, so for me the choice is between the base CX-5 and the base Tiguan. I'm replacing a '99 Passat that has never had a single problem (which may be a surprise to many) in 80k miles (I had a company car for the first 6 years we had it) with something that can carry a lot of stuff and can tow a reasonable amount.

I've driven both cars several times and was blown away how much better the CX-5 handled and rode - and that was compared to the Tiguan's standard 16" wheels. Also, the sight lines on in the CX-5 are far superior, and it has a lot more cargo room. In the Tiguan's favor it's much quicker with a stick and FWD than the version MT tested, and gets much better gas mileage than the EPA numbers with a manual. A friend has seen 32 mpg on the highway routinely with his MT6 Tiguan, and since getting the APR ecu flash does a bit better - and the car will break 6 seconds to 60. Another advantage for the Tiguan (seeing that the gas mileage isn't that much worse than the Mazda) is that with the Westfalia hitch system that VW doesn't sell here, the Tiguan will tow 2200 kilograms -that's the rating outside of the US. Also, there's a rebate on them; a dealer in RI had one on their website for $4000 off msrp. That's less than $20k...

Since I won't be towing that much or that often, the CX-5 will probably get the nod. It's not that quick, but the drivetrain is very smooth and elastic and the gearbox is awesome. The interior was a happier place to be and the worst thing I can think of is that I'll have to send the wheel out since the MSRP on a leather wrapped wheel at the parts dept. is about $450 (I'll use http://dallassteeringwheel.com/ for a nicer wheel at a fraction of the price).

I see both cars being equal with a mediocre 3 year warranty and lame dealer networks and customer service. Although this will be my first Mazda, I've thought about a 5 door Mazda3 for a long time and have lurked here for about 4 years, as well as on the 3revolution, where I made a few posts. I've read that 3 owners seem to have a lot of complaints about rattles, which I haven't had with my VWs (my first being an '83 GTI I bought new and am preparing to sell) but are common to new VWs as well. The fact that Mazda N/A ECUs aren't tunable has been a disappointment, but I think the CX-5 should respond okay (better throttle response, a few more hp, and better mpg) to an intake and replacement of that big heavy muffler under the cargo floor.

I'm a bit disappointed (along with others) that the manual CX-5 is color-limited and has no options, but I've investigated a Katzkin interior and a Signature Auto Products (the old ASC/Inalfa people) sunroof, and if I get tired of silver I'll wrap it red or white with some 3M 1080 film.

Sorry for the rambling first post.

EricF
06-30-2012, 04:21 PM
After having the car for a week now, I've noticed that the auto trans likes to up-shift a little early, probably to get better fuel economy, but it kind of makes the car fall on its face in light foot driving. By using the manual mode, it helps the feel quite a bit because you can hold the gear longer. Our old car had this feature and I never used it, but the mazda feels a lot better and makes for (little) better driving experience.

CX-SV
06-30-2012, 04:40 PM
After having the car for a week now, I've noticed that the auto trans likes to up-shift a little early, probably to get better fuel economy, but it kind of makes the car fall on its face in light foot driving. By using the manual mode, it helps the feel quite a bit because you can hold the gear longer. Our old car had this feature and I never used it, but the mazda feels a lot better and makes for (little) better driving experience.

Yes, I've noticed that too, and some of this is related to Atkinson cycle effect for fuel efficiency (the feeling of larger throttle opening needed in light foot driving). Of course the end result is best in class fuel economy so far.

JohnT
06-30-2012, 05:28 PM
The CX-5 is a great CUV, but its biggest weakness imo is lack of powertrain options here in the US and Canada. After test driving a CX-5 AWD GT and a 2013 Escape AWD Titanium, I liked both but preferred the 2.0L Escape, mainly due to the more powerful 2.0L option. As someone who values acceleration a bit more than handling, and given the Escape's handling was for me close to the CX-5, I found the Escape more fun to drive. Yes, the Escape's interior is too busy, but did have some nice touches like both SD card USB audio system inputs, non-driver-blinding map light placement on the sides and for me better driver seat with more lateral support. I'm not thrilled with the Escape's exterior (looks a bit like a shrunken minivan to me) and don't like its higher price, but I suspect Ford will have big discounts especially around end of year, especially for higher trim models. I loved the CX-5's handling, looks, and much cleaner interior, but around town it felt slow. My V6 Tribute feels quicker (at least in straight line:) . If only the CX-5 had the SkyActive-D option here - superior torque and fuel efficiency in one package...

EricF
06-30-2012, 05:54 PM
Yeah, I have no idea why mazda didn't give us the diesel option. Seems like that combo would be a win-win-win (handling, torque, MPG) combo. If it comes here next year, I'd strongly consider trading ours in for one.

Ive driven the diesel jetta, and loved the low torque! But the idea of owning a VW scares the crap out of me. LOL

NoSuchSol
06-30-2012, 06:13 PM
Diesel has been slow to catch on in the states. Pretty sure it's still more expensive.

CX-SV
06-30-2012, 06:17 PM
Diesel has been slow to catch on in the states. Pretty sure it's still more expensive.

I did the math and it's $5K (US dollars) more expensive in the UK for the popular TT version of diesel engine.

I'm reading early 2013 for US to get diesel. I'm not estimating that it will be the highest volume or predominate selling version in US market, but it's still a important addition to product line that needs to happen. Certainly VW has done well in US market selling diesels in volume.

inodes
07-01-2012, 11:23 PM
The main car magazine here in Australia did a far more comprehensive 15 car review. The gave first place to the CX-5 mainly on the basis of comparing only the best available engine in each car selection. They stated that the gasoline/petrol CX-5 is so underpowered that it would have pushed the CX-5 into 3rd place if it has been considered.

As per Motor Trend:
"SkyActively slow!" I shouted during my loop in the newest soft-roader from Mazda. Admittedly, not only is my phrase not very funny, but this comparison test isn't the first time I've uttered it. The CX-5 is really slow, especially in passing situations."
"Two, if Mazda could add a little extra power to the CX-5, well, winner, winner, Mazda chicken dinner."

I've said it time and time again..... I really can't wait for the Mazda US to realise they made a mistake and import the diesel.

It does 0-60 in 8.0 seconds instead of 9.4.
Furthermore in passing, it's far quicker than anything in this comparison.

Motor Trend lists passing as PASSING, 45-65 MPH. In Australia we have higher highway speeds, so need even more oomph. We list 80-120km/h instead - which is 50-75mph.

Taking the times I have in km/h and bringing them down to 45-65mph, I would estimate the CX-5 diesel as being about 3.8 seconds compared to the petrol's 5.2.

There is a world of difference.

In terms of getting off the line and highway acceleration, the diesel performs roughly like a small V8 or a large V6.

inodes
07-01-2012, 11:31 PM
I did the math and it's $5K (US dollars) more expensive in the UK for the popular TT version of diesel engine.

I'm reading early 2013 for US to get diesel. I'm not estimating that it will be the highest volume or predominate selling version in US market, but it's still a important addition to product line that needs to happen. Certainly VW has done well in US market selling diesels in volume.

Regarding the US cost of diesel, it's NOT going to be $5,000.
If I look at the price difference in Australia of all components and add-ons, we're paying about 50% extra on top of US prices.

To get a diesel costs us $3000 extra.
I would estimate the additional cost would be $2000.
For the performance increase though, it's a complete bargain.

Google any comparison between the two in news articles in Australia and you'll see the same thing repeated.....

The gasoline is an "slow elephant" where as the diesel is a "sports performance car like SUV".

The diesels' sales are so high everywhere mainly due to how bad the petrol is.
The CX-5 is now the 7th biggest seller in Australia, with nearly 70% of all sales being the diesel.

Unfortunately the diesel is NOT available on the base vehicle - which was expected to be the main seller. So in effect, instead of paying $3000 to get a diesel, many are having to spend the extra $10,000 to go up a model wrung and then option the diesel.

But go into any Mazda showroom after people do a side by side comparison and their response is the same. The petrol is "slow"!.
Heck.... Motor Trend said it themselves and they don't have a diesel to compare with.

Regarding the Tiguan....

The same Australian car magazine that trashed the petrol CX-5 and praised the CX-5 diesel, also went to say the reverse of the Tiguan. They reckon the turbo petrol is far better than the Tiguan diesel.

I think the main reason for the CX-5's diesel success is two factors:
1. Use of twin turbo (one for 1000rpm and one for high rpm)
2. Radical change to compression ratio to allow higher rpm - the Tiguan engine is old school and lardy in comparison

The torque and power of the CX-5 diesel are much higher than the Tiguan, and the performance puts it well ahead of even the turbo petrol Tiguan (which is considered to be a good performer).

The Turbo-petrol Tiguan has a slightly fast 0-60 speed. But on the highway overtake, the diesel CX-5 smashes the Tiguan.

Motor Trend compares:

Tiguan Turbo Gasoline:
0-60: 7.8 seconds
PASSING: 4.2 seconds

Mazda CX-5 Gasoline:
0-60: 9.4 seconds
PASSING: 5.2 seconds

Using Australian figures:

Mazda CX-5 Twin-turbo Diesel
0-60: 8.0 seconds
PASSING: 3.8 seconds

EricF
07-01-2012, 11:41 PM
Inodes- Are both mazda diesels twin turbo? What is the mpg of the larger engine? I've read that the smaller engine is the better buy, because it gets like 10+ mpg over the larger engine.

have you had a chance to drive both diesels?

CX-SV
07-02-2012, 01:58 AM
$2K price for tt diesel in US would be great and would boost sales, if the price actually comes in like that.

zsawyer
07-02-2012, 03:49 AM
The lack of a diesel this year is why I am choosing to buy a used forester (2009 - 2010).
I didn't want to pony up the money for a brand new car I wouldn't be completely happy with. So Ill drive the forester for a couple years and hopefully the diesel is out by then.

smithsm1984
07-03-2012, 04:00 PM
I can't stand Ford's interiors right now.

Oh, sure, they LOOK amazing. And they feel good, too. But that big center console cuts room out of the driver's space and the controls seem confusing just because someone fashionable on the design team decided more buttons = BETTER! And My Ford Touch is only the best iteration of a terrible idea (putting a touch screen in a car).

I was looking at a new Focus originally but I could not stand the interior. Which is why I ended up looking in the CX-5's direction.

NoSuchSol
07-03-2012, 06:28 PM
Went down to the dealership to grab my free 20.00 target gift card and a "chance to win a new escape!" and looked a little closer at the escape. They had a SEL that seems to be equipped pretty darn close to the Touring model, but it also costs 28,6XX w/ the 1.6 eco boost. It's a nice vehicle.