200 miles in a 2016 XC-90

MikeM.

Member
:
2013 Mazda CX-5 Touring AWD 2.0L
Yesterday I drove a 2016 XC-90 200 miles on mostly twisty, hilly roads to the Washington coast. It had the 2.0L Turbo w/316 HP and 295 Ft/lbs. of torque with about 5,000 miles on it. It was fully loaded minus the hybrid drive. I didn't study it or read the Owner's manual, just got in and drove.

Without going into great detail, my overall impression was highly positive in terms of elegance, technology and premium materials. However, the driving experience was disappointing. It took all the fun out of the twisty roads. Even in "performance" mode the body felt ponderous, especially on bad pavement, and keeping it between the lines on the narrow lanes was a chore, not a pleasure, without more direct steering feel. Descending a steep grade at about 40 mph, one of the front brakes started sending a wobbling, pulsating feeling through the chassis/steering wheel. I guess not even $60,000 European SUV's are immune from defect/problems.

While the 8-speed automatic seemed better than most, it was no match for the Skyactiv 6-AT in the CX-5. I think I also prefer six gears to eight because, over time, I can learn what gear I am in when there are only six, eight gears is too many and they all blur into one another. This is something that makes me feel more connected to the driving experience. Maybe that's simply because I'm accustomed to a bit more drop in rpm's after each shift from driving mostly 4 and 5 speeds most of my life.

In any case, there was no smile on my face as I exited the vehicle in direct contrast to the CX-5.
 
Yesterday I drove a 2016 XC-90 200 miles on mostly twisty, hilly roads to the Washington coast. It had the 2.0L Turbo w/316 HP and 295 Ft/lbs. of torque with about 5,000 miles on it. It was fully loaded minus the hybrid drive. I didn't study it or read the Owner's manual, just got in and drove.

Without going into great detail, my overall impression was highly positive in terms of elegance, technology and premium materials. However, the driving experience was disappointing. It took all the fun out of the twisty roads. Even in "performance" mode the body felt ponderous, especially on bad pavement, and keeping it between the lines on the narrow lanes was a chore, not a pleasure, without more direct steering feel. Descending a steep grade at about 40 mph, one of the front brakes started sending a wobbling, pulsating feeling through the chassis/steering wheel. I guess not even $60,000 European SUV's are immune from defect/problems.

While the 8-speed automatic seemed better than most, it was no match for the Skyactiv 6-AT in the CX-5. I think I also prefer six gears to eight because, over time, I can learn what gear I am in when there are only six, eight gears is too many and they all blur into one another. This is something that makes me feel more connected to the driving experience. Maybe that's simply because I'm accustomed to a bit more drop in rpm's after each shift from driving mostly 4 and 5 speeds most of my life.

In any case, there was no smile on my face as I exited the vehicle in direct contrast to the CX-5.

Go drive an SRT8 Jeep. I'm curious what you think of it.
 
No surprise that it handled worse. That hog is almost a thousand more pounds heavier than the cx5! A lot more weight to pull around, not to mention a lot more weight to maneuver around turns. CX-5 is just nimble as hell with the magic Mazda does. I'm sure the interior as top notch though.
 
No surprise that it handled worse. That hog is almost a thousand more pounds heavier than the cx5! A lot more weight to pull around, not to mention a lot more weight to maneuver around turns. CX-5 is just nimble as hell with the magic Mazda does. I'm sure the interior as top notch though.

You're right, and I didn't expect it to feel nimble. But I've driven the CX-5 loaded to GVWR (or maybe a little beyond), and it did not feel so disconnected or ponderous. Fully loaded, the CX-5 just hunkered down and did it, all business and without loosing the feeling of the road. It didn't feel as nimble but it felt like I was in direct control. The XC-90 felt like I was driving a boat.

One other observation, the expensive and elegant leather seats felt supportive and comfortable from the get-go but, by the time 1 hit about 150 miles, my butt started feeling sore. I've driven the CX-5 with cloth seats twice as far without even a hint of an issue.
 
Last edited:
Probably a solid call since you would be loath to part with the money for one and it would wreck your CX5 experience I'm betting.

I use to think like you until I drove the 16 MX-5. All my brain saw was horsepower. There is so much more to the story. The SRT, all it brings to the table is horsepower. It handles like crap though especially for the sportiness it's supposed to bring to the table. No, I haven't driven it but based on research. So I highly doubt the SRT would change Mikes mind about the CX-5. Because it's the same reason people buy the MX-5 over other higher HP vehicles. My dad is a good example. I think his MX-5 MRSP was 32-33k or something. He could of gotten a new mustang gt with 400+hp at that price to replace his current 06 GT. But the MX-5 offers a different type of performance. Performance that 90% of vehicles on the road can't imitate. Probably closer to 95%. Similar to how the CX-5 compares to just about all other CUV/SUVs on the road. Or I should say the way it contrasts itself to just about all other CUV/SUVs. It's the driving experience that these Mazda vehicles excel at and why we like them. A high HP vehicle is nice, but not going to change what we love most about driving. Having said that, I would love a faster CX-5. But I don't have 50-60k to be spending on something like that.
 
Last edited:
I use to think like you until I drove the 16 MX-5. All my brain saw was horsepower. There is so much more to the story. The SRT, all it brings to the table is horsepower. It handles like crap though especially for the sportiness it's supposed to bring to the table. No, I haven't driven it but based on research. So I highly doubt the SRT would change Mikes mind about the CX-5. Because it's the same reason people buy the MX-5 over other higher HP vehicles. My dad is a good example. I think his MX-5 MRSP was 32-33k or something. He could of gotten a new mustang gt with 400+hp at that price to replace his current 06 GT. But the MX-5 offers a different type of performance. Performance that 90% of vehicles on the road can't imitate. Probably closer to 95%. Similar to how the CX-5 compares to just about all other CUV/SUVs on the road. Or I should say the way it contrasts itself to just about all other CUV/SUVs. It's the driving experience that these Mazda vehicles excel at and why we like them. A high HP vehicle is nice, but not going to change what we love most about driving. Having said that, I would love a faster CX-5. But I don't have 50-60k to be spending on something like that.

Have you driven one? I personally have not. I do know that "on paper", it has great handling. As compared to the CX-5, much higher lateral adhesion, better brakes (shorter stops from 70), and of course more power.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files...ar-and-driver2014-jeep-grand-cherokee-srt.pdf
http://media.caranddriver.com/files...view-car-and-driver2013-mazda-cx-5-25-awd.pdf

Edmund's track testing shows that it also DOMINATED the CX-5 in "slalom" testing. (67.2mph through the cones vs. 62mph)
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2012-jeep-grand-cherokee-srt8-track-test.html
http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2016/road-test-specs/

However, Mike will now try to convince me how a vehicle with a 5mph advantage on a Slalom test, 0.07g more lateral adhesion, equal to better 70-0 times, "is a waste of time" in the handling department, comparatively.

I can't wait to hear what the argument is...Maybe I can convince him that contrary to all real-world data, my CX-5 gets better mileage than his...regardless of what his numbers at the pump are, lol!
 
Last edited:
Have you driven one? I personally have not. I do know that "on paper", it has great handling. As compared to the CX-5, much higher lateral adhesion, better brakes (shorter stops from 70), and of course more power.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files...ar-and-driver2014-jeep-grand-cherokee-srt.pdf
http://media.caranddriver.com/files...view-car-and-driver2013-mazda-cx-5-25-awd.pdf

Edmund's track testing shows that it also DOMINATED the CX-5 in "slalom" testing. (67.2mph through the cones vs. 62mph)
http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/track-tests/2012-jeep-grand-cherokee-srt8-track-test.html
http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2016/road-test-specs/

However, Mike will now try to convince me how a vehicle with a 5mph advantage on a Slalom test, 0.07g more lateral adhesion, equal to better 70-0 times, "is a waste of time" in the handling department, comparatively.

I can't wait to hear what the argument is...Maybe I can convince him that contrary to all real-world data, my CX-5 gets better mileage than his...regardless of what his numbers at the pump are, lol!

I haven't but I would drive one in a heartbeat if I could. I'll drive anything with a V-8.
 
I haven't but I would drive one in a heartbeat if I could. I'll drive anything with a V-8.

I see. Well, until one of us drives it, it's all conjecture based on far superior performance parameters as tested by multiple reviewers...
 
I see. Well, until one of us drives it, it's all conjecture based on far superior performance parameters as tested by multiple reviewers...

Very true. But unless money is no issue at all to you, there is no way the Jeep SRT8 is $30k+ better than a CX5. It's more of a testament to vehicles like the CX5 that can put a similar smile on your face as other SUV/CUVs in the $50-60k range.
 
Very true. But unless money is no issue at all to you, there is no way the Jeep SRT8 is $30k+ better than a CX5. It's more of a testament to vehicles like the CX5 that can put a similar smile on your face as other SUV/CUVs in the $50-60k range.

Can they? You haven't driven one. How do you know? I have not driven one, either, but I liked driving my 2010 Grand Jeep Cherokee AT LEAST as much as I like my CX-5. It just wasn't reliable was the only issue. I did have Bilstein shocks/struts though, although the SRT8 now comes with even better than my Jeep had, now.
 
Descending a steep grade at about 40 mph, one of the front brakes started sending a wobbling, pulsating feeling through the chassis/steering wheel. I guess not even $60,000 European SUV's are immune from defect/problems. /QUOTE]

Before owning a Volvo, I'd never gotten a ride in a tow truck. In my 13.5 years of ownership (bought new) I was able to snag four tow truck tours. Replaced with a CX-5 and haven't been in one since. Comments on the MX-5 above are also true. On my second, and it remains a different driving experience. Sure they're under powered...but not for me.

Brian
 
Descending a steep grade at about 40 mph, one of the front brakes started sending a wobbling, pulsating feeling through the chassis/steering wheel. I guess not even $60,000 European SUV's are immune from defect/problems. /QUOTE]

Before owning a Volvo, I'd never gotten a ride in a tow truck. In my 13.5 years of ownership (bought new) I was able to snag four tow truck tours. Replaced with a CX-5 and haven't been in one since. Comments on the MX-5 above are also true. On my second, and it remains a different driving experience. Sure they're under powered...but not for me.

Brian

That sucks. Dated a girl who got an S40T5 back in 2007, I think it was. I am unaware of any issues it has had up until around 2014 or so, which is the last I saw her driving it. She drove. A LOT. Seemed reliable. Shame the missed the boat on yours.
 
However, Mike will now try to convince me how a vehicle with a 5mph advantage on a Slalom test, 0.07g more lateral adhesion, equal to better 70-0 times, "is a waste of time" in the handling department, comparatively.

I can't wait to hear what the argument is...

You can't wait to hear what my argument is? Is that because you love to be put in your place?

Yes, the Jeep Cherokee SRT posted shorter braking distances and higher skid-pad g-force numbers than the CX-5 and the reason is as obvious as your lack of critical thinking skills and your love of distortion. With real estate the mantra is location, location, location! With automotive braking and skid-pad performance, the equivalent mantra is "tires, tires, tires"!

It surprises not a single knowledgeable auto enthusiast that an SUV equipped with Pirelli P-Zero's (max performance summer tire), the same tire that is OEM rubber on such exotics as Lamborghini Aventador and the Ferrari 458 Italia, has more corner and braking grip than an SUV equipped with Yokohama Geolandar's (all-season radials).

With equivalent rubber, the CX-5 will run circles around the Jeep Cherokee SRT in terms of road-holding. This is what made the Mazda Ice Challenge such a compelling comparison - they took the time to replace the tires with all equivalent rubber. It's bad enough comparing skid-pad numbers of vehicles equipped with different kinds of all season radials, everyone but you knows how ridiculous it is to compare all-season radials to max performance summer tires!
 
You can't wait to hear what my argument is? Is that because you love to be put in your place?

Yes, the Jeep Cherokee SRT posted shorter braking distances and higher skid-pad g-force numbers than the CX-5 and the reason is as obvious as your lack of critical thinking skills and your love of distortion. With real estate the mantra is location, location, location! With automotive braking and skid-pad performance, the equivalent mantra is "tires, tires, tires"!

It surprises not a single knowledgeable auto enthusiast that an SUV equipped with Pirelli P-Zero's (max performance summer tire), the same tire that is OEM rubber on such exotics as Lamborghini Aventador and the Ferrari 458 Italia, has more corner and braking grip than an SUV equipped with Yokohama Geolandar's (all-season radials).

With equivalent rubber, the CX-5 will run circles around the Jeep Cherokee SRT in terms of road-holding. This is what made the Mazda Ice Challenge such a compelling comparison - they took the time to replace the tires with all equivalent rubber. It's bad enough comparing skid-pad numbers of vehicles equipped with different kinds of all season radials, everyone but you knows how ridiculous it is to compare all-season radials to max performance summer tires!

Which test are you referencing, or have you put summer max performance tires on your own CX-5 to test your statement? Link? Or are you just presuming that it would pan out like that? The skidpad, I can see that equaling up, but the better suspension under the Jeep allowed a whopping 5mph advantage over the CX-5 on the slalom. Replacing tires ain't gonna fix that.
 
However, Mike will now try to convince me how a vehicle with a 5mph advantage on a Slalom test, 0.07g more lateral adhesion, equal to better 70-0 times, "is a waste of time" in the handling department, comparatively.

I can't wait to hear what the argument is...Maybe I can convince him that contrary to all real-world data, my CX-5 gets better mileage than his...regardless of what his numbers at the pump are, lol!

I don't normally post about stuff like this, but I must say your "Mike baiting" posts are getting rather tedious. How about just sticking to the subject of the post and leave your personal vendetta out of it please. This forum is great for civil discourse and information about the CX-5; it should not be abused by anyone posting personal attacks. Leave the "acting like a 5 year old" personal attacks to the presidential candidates!
 
Yesterday I drove a 2016 XC-90 200 miles on mostly twisty, hilly roads to the Washington coast. It had the 2.0L Turbo w/316 HP and 295 Ft/lbs. of torque with about 5,000 miles on it. It was fully loaded minus the hybrid drive. I didn't study it or read the Owner's manual, just got in and drove.

Without going into great detail, my overall impression was highly positive in terms of elegance, technology and premium materials. However, the driving experience was disappointing. It took all the fun out of the twisty roads. Even in "performance" mode the body felt ponderous, especially on bad pavement, and keeping it between the lines on the narrow lanes was a chore, not a pleasure, without more direct steering feel. Descending a steep grade at about 40 mph, one of the front brakes started sending a wobbling, pulsating feeling through the chassis/steering wheel. I guess not even $60,000 European SUV's are immune from defect/problems.

While the 8-speed automatic seemed better than most, it was no match for the Skyactiv 6-AT in the CX-5. I think I also prefer six gears to eight because, over time, I can learn what gear I am in when there are only six, eight gears is too many and they all blur into one another. This is something that makes me feel more connected to the driving experience. Maybe that's simply because I'm accustomed to a bit more drop in rpm's after each shift from driving mostly 4 and 5 speeds most of my life.

In any case, there was no smile on my face as I exited the vehicle in direct contrast to the CX-5.

I'm pretty sure you will like the 2nd gen HONDA FIT. That little car has me smiling everytime I drive her. Same driving dynamics IMO.

The Volvo has different buyer demographic though. and I'm pretty sure owners of VOLVO's will not be satisfied with CX5 either.

One more thing, I highlighted about the 'gearing' that you don't like. If you owned a dual clutch transmission before, you will appreciate it. The quick gear changes will satisfy almost all driver enthusiast, including me.
 
Last edited:
If take the xc90 in a heartbeat over the cx5. It's a beautiful looking suv.

Beautiful, I agree, but have you driven one yet? I also question the long term ownership costs with that little 2.0L turbo cranking out over 300 HP in such a big, ponderous vehicle.
 
Back