- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
My CX5's throttle response is probably my last complaint.
2016 CX5 better "driving machine" over 2017
- Thread starter jhu8
- Start date
Your cx5 is trained to go and therefore probably has a very sensitive response when used. You like to do 85mpg on the highway, and I bet you probably like to accelerate quickly as well. All probably why you get the gas mileage you do. My cx5 is probably most likely less sensitive than yours but I do 70mph highway, accelerate lightly and get 29mpg average. Kinda cool though how the car learns your habits.
I agree that you cannot trust data from just one test. We also should not compare test data from different publications as their test methods could be different. Since the OP started this thread presenting test data from MotorTrend, that is where I based my initial comparisons. When someone added a link to Car and Driver's test, I also tried to compare data between the 2016 and 2017 from C&D only.
It is impressive how C&D got an observed 32 mpg for the 2017 models. Looks like the 2017 has been tweaked to get better mileage on the highway. This can be confirmed by looking at fuel mileage data from both MT and C&D. However I don't trust C&D's fuel mileage data on the 2016 (23 mpg) and 2014 (21 mpg) because I know people get better mpg than that. Our 2016 CX-5, which mainly does 60-70% city driving, idles from time to time in the parking lot (because baby is sleeping), can still get 25-26 mpg. How are they getting only 23 mpg on the 2016 and even worse, 21 mpg on the 2014 models? I don't think even Unobtanium gets 21 mpg on his CX-5, maybe 22
I agree, if looking at C&D test data, the numbers are so close that most of the population will probably never notice the difference. If looking at MT test data, the differences are a little more pronounced, maybe still not noticeable to the general population. The question being asked though is which is the better "driving car". In my case and with my criteria, between the 2016 and 2017 models, the 2016 is the better driving car, but the 2017 is the better overall car.
Digging up a little more, looking at C&D test data one more time, I found that both 2016 and 2017 models are outperformed by the 2014 model when it comes to performance metrics. Damn it LOL.
You're not crazy. I have the same impression of our 17 CX-5 vs my 17 Mazda3.
The 3 is lighter and quicker overall, but in terms of actual responsiveness to throttle input they have done something different in the CX-5. It really is a joy to drive.
It feels like the CX-5 is willing to instantly get up and go or drop a gear if it needs to where the 3 will try to hold a gear and then drop one if you push it harder (obviously I'm auto).
Difficult to explain - just takes a little more of a deliberate input into my 3 to get it to scoot than it does in the 3. It's fine, it's not a complaint. You learn how the car drives and what it takes to make it do what you want it to do, but I would go so far as to say I prefer the CX-5 in that respect over my 3. I noticed it immediately when driving it and am still impressed by it.
Just wait until you're going in for an oil change, and instead of waiting in the showroom take a car out for a boot around.
Sounds like they increased throttle sensitivity on the 2017 CX-5 models. If so, that is good and is an improvement over the 2016. It almost sounds like the 2017 model throttle sensitivity is similar to when Sport Mode is on, but without the accompanying gear changes that put you right at 3-4k RPM.
If anyone here drove a 2010 Mazda3, that car had a pretty sensitive throttle, however it made it feel very responsive as well. When Mazda moved to the SkyActiv platform, they scaled back the throttle sensitivity and it made the cars feel heavier. It is great if they go back to a little more sensitive throttle.
(woowoo)
IMO this is a good thing they have done to the throttle.
If memory serves, the Mazda USA dude called Coleman explains it in detail in a few clips I saw on the reasons why they have done this.
Last edited:
NYTimes is clocking it at under 8 sec from 0-60
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/automobiles/autoreviews/video-review-mazda-cx-5.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/automobiles/autoreviews/video-review-mazda-cx-5.html
Have you contacted HQ and asked them why (scratch)
And it's the AWD version too
If you were buying the Cx5 for all of those factors you are buying the wrong suv. CX5 is a budget SUV that has a 4 banger that has a lot of options for the price you get. No one is buying this for performance. My wife chose this car to drive until our kids get out of college. You get a lot for little money.
Yes and when I was watching the Unicorns race on the Rainbow the Zombie who rented my couch from AirBnb pulled me inside and said Jon Snow is on the line, he needs new winter shoes.
All we want is for the CX-5 to have decent performance. We are not expecting it to be like a quad-cam all-aluminum 32 valve V8 with twin turbos.
From what I have seen and driven one personally, the CX-5 has decent performance.
- :
- 2005 Mazda3
Wait until these 2017 CX-5s start showing up on Turo in a few months. A 2017 CX-5 would probably cost $50-$75 a day with a 200 mile limit each day. I recently rented a 2017 WRX premium for $49 a day for 2 days and drove the crap out of it. Fun little car for sure...