2013 CX 5 GT with 2.0

J

jjp735i

Member
:
CX-5
I've been doing a ton of research and from everything I read the 2.0 is under powered when getting onto freeways and passing at highway speeds. I wanted to get some real opinions from owners with this engine.

Reason I ask is I see some real good deals for 2013 Grand Touring. I'm thinking I should keep looking for a 2014 with the 2.5. Has to be the GT because that is the only way to get leather, which is a must.

Thanks, jjp
 
I have owned them both. We are talking about a 30-35 HP difference, so it is noticeable.

The 2.0 was decent, I never complained, but you have to understand that the motor revs up to 6500 rpm, so use it!
The 2.5L is just right, although the MPG suffers, I love the lower end torque that the 2.5 gives.
 
22k miles on my 2.0 and I've never felt it was underpowered. It is adequate in every respect. That said, more power is never a bad thing and if I were shopping for a used CX-5 I would probably be focused on later models.
 
For about 400 (software + hardware) you can get a tune for about 20 or slightly more whp.
 
jjp735i said:
I've been doing a ton of research and from everything I read the 2.0 is under powered when getting onto freeways and passing at highway speeds. I wanted to get some real opinions from owners with this engine.
Click to expand...

After 24,000 miles driving the 2.0L AWD, you couldn't pay me to swap a 2.5L in there. The extra weight of the bigger motor is not welcome as even the 2.0L is slightly front-heavy before the trunk is loaded. The 2.5L would be welcome if the primary usage was loaded with luggage/people and on freeways with speed limits of 70-80mph. But the CX-5 is not really a high speed, superhighway kind of car no matter which engine it's fitted with. And even the 2.0L has enough to give that I never find myself going slower because of it. It will pull a CX-5, fully loaded to it's GVWR up mountain grades at speeds up to 90 mph just fine.

Best advice is to take them for a nice long test drive and see if it suits how you will be using it. Getting on freeways and especially passing at higher speeds takes a little more driver skill and better situational awareness with the 2.0L. If you are not the kind of driver with good awareness and anticipation the 2.5L could come be welcome. On the other hand, the 2.0L is the perfect engine for a driving enthusiast. Those craving real power will not be satisfied with either.
 
Mike M. I could not find anything that mentions the weight of the 2 different sized motors. Although I have it in my head that there is only ~ 40lbs difference, I can not verify this and was hoping that you had a source?
 
mazdadude said:
Mike M. I could not find anything that mentions the weight of the 2 different sized motors. Although I have it in my head that there is only ~ 40lbs difference, I can not verify this and was hoping that you had a source?
Click to expand...

Can't look it up right now but the vehicle weight difference is ~100 lbs. Some of this is likely due to a battery with more CCA and maybe a bigger starter (but I haven't checked the part #'s on the starter).
 
Actually you should look at the Mirage. With a 1.2l 74hp you will be at the top of awareness and anticipation and display the most skill every time you successfully pass or merge onto a freeway. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with how other drivers decide to react to what the think or see you are trying to do though.
 
Chris_Top_Her said:
Actually you should look at the Mirage. With a 1.2l 74hp you will be at the top of awareness and anticipation and display the most skill every time you successfully pass or merge onto a freeway. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with how other drivers decide to react to what the think or see you are trying to do though.
Click to expand...
I laughed.
 
MikeM. said:
After 24,000 miles driving the 2.0L AWD, you couldn't pay me to swap a 2.5L in there. The extra weight of the bigger motor is not welcome as even the 2.0L is slightly front-heavy before the trunk is loaded. The 2.5L would be welcome if the primary usage was loaded with luggage/people and on freeways with speed limits of 70-80mph. But the CX-5 is not really a high speed, superhighway kind of car no matter which engine it's fitted with. And even the 2.0L has enough to give that I never find myself going slower because of it. It will pull a CX-5, fully loaded to it's GVWR up mountain grades at speeds up to 90 mph just fine.

Best advice is to take them for a nice long test drive and see if it suits how you will be using it. Getting on freeways and especially passing at higher speeds takes a little more driver skill and better situational awareness with the 2.0L. If you are not the kind of driver with good awareness and anticipation the 2.5L could come be welcome. On the other hand, the 2.0L is the perfect engine for a driving enthusiast. Those craving real power will not be satisfied with either.
Click to expand...

I agree. I am finding out that the CX-5 isn't great for actual road trips. Above about 65mph, gas mileage takes a MASSIVE hit (you start getting 3-5mpg less than what the EPA hwy rating is), and wind/road noise becomes annoying (this from a guy who used to drive a Z06, 370Z, and modded mustang with no cats, an X-pipe, and flows). Above 65mph primary usage, I would honestly look at a GLK350 or something.
 
Chris_Top_Her said:
Actually you should look at the Mirage. With a 1.2l 74hp you will be at the top of awareness and anticipation and display the most skill every time you successfully pass or merge onto a freeway. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with how other drivers decide to react to what the think or see you are trying to do though.
Click to expand...

...and when he unsuccessfullies?
 
Unobtanium said:
I agree. I am finding out that the CX-5 isn't great for actual road trips. Above about 65mph, gas mileage takes a MASSIVE hit (you start getting 3-5mpg less than what the EPA hwy rating is)
Click to expand...

This complaint of yours is actually highlights one of the best qualities of the 2.0L over the 2.5L that I forgot to mention, considerably better real world fuel economy by about 2-3 mpg. I know you don't have any actual experience with the 2.0L but I find it easy to achieve the EPA HWY ratings on 70mph road trips, the 2.5L, not so much.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Top_Her said:
Actually you should look at the Mirage. With a 1.2l 74hp you will be at the top of awareness and anticipation and display the most skill every time you successfully pass or merge onto a freeway.
Click to expand...

Well, the Mirage has less than half the HP compared to the 2.0L CX-5. But if you think that's under-powered you should take a look at the most successful car of all time designed by renowned engineer Ferdinand Porsche. This VW Beetle was the longest running and most manufactured car of a single platform in automotive history. A little history lesson from Wikipedia:

In April 1934, Adolf Hitler gave the order to Ferdinand Porsche to develop a Volkswagen (literally, "people's car"). There followed, in May 1934, a meeting at Berlin’s Kaiserhof Hotel at which Chancellor Hitler provided Porsche with more details, insisting on a basic vehicle, capable of transporting two adults and three children at 100 km/h (62 mph) while not using more than 7 litres of fuel per 100 km (32 mpg US/39 mpg UK).[SUP][10][/SUP] The engine had to be powerful enough for rapid sustained cruising on Germany’s new Autobahnen. Everything had to be designed to ensure worn out parts could be quickly and inexpensively exchanged.
Click to expand...


Initially released with 30 HP, after years of manufacture, power was increased to 36 hp. By the time the last Beetle rolled off the production lines in 2003 the power had been increased to 50 HP utilizing Bosch Digifant FI. Production of the most successful car of all time had come to an end.
 
MikeM. said:
This complaint of yours is actually highlights one of the best qualities of the 2.0L over the 2.5L that I forgot to mention, considerably better real world fuel economy by about 2 mpg. I know you don't have any actual experience with the 2.0L but I find it easy to achieve the EPA HWY ratings on 70mph road trips, the 2.5L, not so much.
Click to expand...

I'll trade the 2mpg for the added performance. However, I doubt the 2.0 does much for wind/tire noise on the thinly insulated CX-5. I have not driven a '16 though, and I understand they addressed some of that.
 
MikeM. said:
Well, the Mirage has less than half the HP compared to the 2.0L CX-5. But if you think that's under-powered you should take a look at the most successful car of all time designed by renowned engineer Ferdinand Porsche. This VW Beetle was the longest running and most manufactured car of a single platform in automotive history. A little history lesson from Wikipedia:




Initially released with 30 HP, after years of manufacture, power was increased to 36 hp. By the time the last Beetle rolled off the production lines in 2003 the power had been increased to 50 HP utilizing Bosch Digifant FI. Production of the most successful car of all time had come to an end.
Click to expand...
I believe that would be the Suburban, since we are talking about SUV's here, technically. But Suburban could also be a "car" to some people, too. Regardless, I believe by your measure the Suburban is more successful. It began production in 1933, and has been continuously produced up until now, 2016 year-model, and should continue on with the 13th generation platform introduced in 2019. Its continued success undoubtedly because it has a rumbling V8 instead of a tiny wee motor. 'Murica!
 
Unobtanium said:
I believe that would be the Suburban, since we are talking about SUV's here, technically. But Suburban could also be a "car" to some people, too. Regardless, I believe by your measure the Suburban is more successful.
Click to expand...

Not even close. VW produced 22 million Beetles, GM has produced a little over 2 million Suburbans. The Suburban will never reach the success of the original Beetle!

Its continued success undoubtedly because it has a rumbling V8 instead of a tiny wee motor. 'Murica!
Click to expand...

1935 Suburban Carryall had a seating capacity of 8 adults and a huge, cast iron engine producing a whopping 60 HP to drive it's bulky 3,300 lb. chassis. A heater and rear bumper were optional.

1955-1959 it was available with the standard in-line 6 cyl. "Thriftmaster" engine producing a maximum of 123 hp.
Also available was an optional 4.3L V-8 producing a maximum 145 hp.
Or, go whole hog and get the monstrously powerful 4.6L V8 making a whopping 155 hp.

All this in a vehicle with an incredibly inefficient transmission, aerodynamics of a brick and a much heavier curb weight than a CX-5.

 
Chris_Top_Her said:
Actually you should look at the Mirage. With a 1.2l 74hp you will be at the top of awareness and anticipation and display the most skill every time you successfully pass or merge onto a freeway. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with how other drivers decide to react to what the think or see you are trying to do though.
Click to expand...

(cryhard)
 
I like my 2.0 in GT trim. It has a better power to weight ratio than many of my previous cars including the first Ford Taurus v6, which was the most sold car at the time, they also sold a 4 which was a real dog. The few times I need max speed I just floor it and it responds. Part of the extra weight of the 2.5 is in the balance shaft and drive chain which also adds inertia mass which is not needed in the 2.0 At 70-75 my mileage does not seem to drop much as I get over 33 mpg overall average.
 
Don't get the CX5 if you plan to do a lot of highway driving. I had a 2 liter sport model and now have a 2.5 liter touring model. With either engine the engine noise and wind noise are high and get tiresome on long highway trips. I think my sport with the 2 liter engine made more engine noise on the highway because it had to work harder to keep momentum up, especially up long grades compared to the 2.5. Still again engine noise with either one is loud so it's not a big difference.

When I upgraded to the 2.5 liter engine I did notice the added weight over the front wheels. By about the second day, I didn't notice it anymore because it's very slight. The bigger engine is noticeably more powerful at lower RPM's and is a more relaxed engine, which for an SUV is in my opinion better. If we were talking about a real sports car like the Mazda Miata than I would agree the smaller engine would be a better fit.

If most of the driving you do is not highway driving, then you should definitely consider the CX5 with the 2 liter engine as an option. For me driving around town with the smaller engine was perfectly adequate and it does average about 1.5 mpg better than the 2.5.

Last for reference I measured 0-60 times with my G-tech ranging from 8.3 seconds to 8.6 seconds with the 2 liter engine and a consistent traction limited 7.5 seconds with the 2.5 liter engine.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
CX-5 2.2L Diesel 2013 speed restriction?
Replies
1
Views
511
HyFlyer
HyFlyer
L
    • Like
New CX-5 Owner!
Replies
2
Views
1K
Pitter
Pitter
D
Keyless system inspection required 2014 CX-5 GT?
Replies
2
Views
2K
CHARLIN
C

Latest posts

Back