SapphireHearts
Member
- :
- 2013 Mazda Cx5 Touring - Moonroof/Bose/Tech
Good spot to post pictures of your lowered CX-5. Can this be stickied???
Show your lowered CX-5
- Thread starter SapphireHearts
- Start date
- :
- 23 CX-5 Premium
Answer: 1) CX-5 has better interior space utilization and rear seat legroom than 3.
2) 3 is a dated chassis, scheduled for replacement with a full SkyActiv design later this year
3) CX-5 design (especialy 2WD version) literally begs for less air space above wheels.
That said, after thorough deliberation, I have decided to forego use of H&R springs because of potential tire wear issues and ride quality degradation.
PS: Not everyone needs or wants 8+" of ground clearance!
Last edited:
brainbasher
Member
- :
- 2014 CX5 GT
Cars just look better with less wheel gap.
Thanks guys. I just happened to park my CX5 next to a M3 and it's like they're twins, only the clearance is different. so it's hard to see why anybody would get a CX5 just to lower it. Also forgot there's a 2wd version of my car.
If I might add to the OP, maybe post mpg along with pix. does lowering improve airflow enough to notice.
If I might add to the OP, maybe post mpg along with pix. does lowering improve airflow enough to notice.
yes once we have a kid, the Speed3 wont cut it. Neither will the gf's mazda2 lol
hey at least the cx-5 has even gaps fron and rear from tire to fender...
my previous car(a 2004 Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart) from the factory the front tire had about double the gap as the rear from tire to fender...it's very popular to lower them because the lowering springs actually raise the rear end about 1/2" and mainly stiffen the front, so it actually looks level instead of looking like it's taking off when parked...
also the rear suspension had lots of issues on the lancers and it ends up sagging very badly and makes it look slammed in the rear(almost flush with the tire, soemtimes actually the tire tucks into the fender a bit) and lifted in the front because it doesn't sag) if you don't replace it...so it looked very bad...
if i could afford it i'd lower mine...(im sure my wife won't be happy tho...lol), but i can't....i can bet it'd look better and handle better too
i'm very happy with all the interior room of the cx-5 i just got, but i think 8+" of ground clearance in a compact suv w/ a 2.0L is a bit overkill...it's not like we're going rock crawling or offroading...the cx-5 is a city slicker or suburban parent car...
why it's so high is beyond me...
but overall it does look very very nice, i must admit(hence i bought, one for the space and mpg)..
not to mention the fuel mileage is amazing...can't beat it unless you have a hybrid...
anythign else can't even shake a stick at it...barely even in it's general direction
my previous car(a 2004 Mitsubishi Lancer Ralliart) from the factory the front tire had about double the gap as the rear from tire to fender...it's very popular to lower them because the lowering springs actually raise the rear end about 1/2" and mainly stiffen the front, so it actually looks level instead of looking like it's taking off when parked...
also the rear suspension had lots of issues on the lancers and it ends up sagging very badly and makes it look slammed in the rear(almost flush with the tire, soemtimes actually the tire tucks into the fender a bit) and lifted in the front because it doesn't sag) if you don't replace it...so it looked very bad...
if i could afford it i'd lower mine...(im sure my wife won't be happy tho...lol), but i can't....i can bet it'd look better and handle better too
i'm very happy with all the interior room of the cx-5 i just got, but i think 8+" of ground clearance in a compact suv w/ a 2.0L is a bit overkill...it's not like we're going rock crawling or offroading...the cx-5 is a city slicker or suburban parent car...
why it's so high is beyond me...
but overall it does look very very nice, i must admit(hence i bought, one for the space and mpg)..
not to mention the fuel mileage is amazing...can't beat it unless you have a hybrid...
anythign else can't even shake a stick at it...barely even in it's general direction
Last edited:
Why CX5? Because the rear legroom and other cargo capacity of the 3 is not enough, yet Mazda USA refuses to give us the sexy new Mazda6 wagon. Therefore: CX5.
Why Lower it? Because wheelgap looks bad, lower = slightly better aerodynamics, and also I don't need all that ground clearance.
Getting my lowering springs next month!
and likely better handling, since the lowering srpings also are stiffer than OE so you get less body roll(wich is also inherent in a vehicle that's not riding so high
)- :
- Banned For Being A Troll
kk
Lol, I just priced out a new car plan and I can get a Mazda 3 GT Tech/Leather for $1K more than a GS CX5.
Buy a car, ditch the truck... save money
