The first CX-5s delivered have all been Touring and Grand Tourings. The Sport models will roll out at some later date, currently unknown. Post here when you see a Sport in your local dealer, especially if it has the six-speed manual transmission. I've driven the 6AT and liked it but I'm interested in the fuel economy* and price of the 6MT.
*Note: The manual FWD is rated for 26city/35hwy while the automatic FWD is rated for 25city/32hwy (31hwy with AWD). What's interesting is that the gear ratios for the manual seem like they should return worse fuel economy. For comparison, see below:
<tbody>
</tbody>
What this means is that in 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th gears the manual transmission vehicle's engine will be spinning higher and working harder than the automatic vehicle's, which means that top gear cruising should theoretically be worse in the manual than in the automatic. However, the manual transmission has been rated 3mpg better on the highway. I'm interested to see how it pans out, to see if the manual really does achieve better fuel economy. The only reason I can see why it would be better is that it is less parasitic than the automatic. I had assumed, though, that the losses on the automatic at this point, especially the brand new SkyActiv one, would be very minimal and at least on par with the manual. Perhaps it is not that good after all. It's especially interesting that Australia rates the fuel economy of the manual and the automatic as equal, both at 6.4 liters per 100 kilometers.
Source: http://www.mazda.com.au/vehicles/cx-5/specifications
MazdaUSA does not have full transmission specifications but Mazda of Australia does, hence the link to the Australian site.
*Note: The manual FWD is rated for 26city/35hwy while the automatic FWD is rated for 25city/32hwy (31hwy with AWD). What's interesting is that the gear ratios for the manual seem like they should return worse fuel economy. For comparison, see below:
SkyActiv-MT | SkyActiv-AT | |
1st | 3.700 | 3.552 |
2nd | 1.947 | 2.022 |
3rd | 1.300 | 1.452 |
4th | 1.029 | 1.00 |
5th | 0.837 | 0.708 |
6th | 0.680 | 0.599 |
Reverse | 3.724 | 3.893 |
Final Drive | 4.705 | 4.624 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
What this means is that in 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th gears the manual transmission vehicle's engine will be spinning higher and working harder than the automatic vehicle's, which means that top gear cruising should theoretically be worse in the manual than in the automatic. However, the manual transmission has been rated 3mpg better on the highway. I'm interested to see how it pans out, to see if the manual really does achieve better fuel economy. The only reason I can see why it would be better is that it is less parasitic than the automatic. I had assumed, though, that the losses on the automatic at this point, especially the brand new SkyActiv one, would be very minimal and at least on par with the manual. Perhaps it is not that good after all. It's especially interesting that Australia rates the fuel economy of the manual and the automatic as equal, both at 6.4 liters per 100 kilometers.
Source: http://www.mazda.com.au/vehicles/cx-5/specifications
MazdaUSA does not have full transmission specifications but Mazda of Australia does, hence the link to the Australian site.