CX5 just keeps getting faster with age....

:
CX5 GT-R
0-60 in 5.8. Nice! I've sure enjoyed mine this last 54K miles!

Screenshot_20201119-214639_Chrome.jpg
 

sm1ke

Work In Progress..
Moderator
Contributor
:
Canada
:
'18 CX-9 Signature
Interesting. Wonder how they were able to improve the 0-60 time.
 
:
13' CX-5 and 16' Mazda6 both Touring w/Tech/Bose
Yeah and that's with stock tires. Getting some summer or ultra performance all-seasons would improve braking/cornering/straight line grip.
 
:
2021 CX-5T AWD CE
Looks like more than half of the long term cars C&D test are faster at 40,000 miles.

And half are slower, which probably says that random factors associated with the before and after test conditions (wind, temperature, tire wear, driver technique, measurement error, etc.) are probably overriding any actual change in engine performance.

- Mark
 
:
CX5 GT-R
And half are slower, which probably says that random factors associated with the before and after test conditions (wind, temperature, tire wear, driver technique, measurement error, etc.) are probably overriding any actual change in engine performance.

- Mark
The CX9 was faster, also, FWIW.

With DI engines, especially turbo, I think these trends matter. It points to Mazda's design working very well in preventing any kind of performance degradation from carbon.

Also, it wasn't just the 0-60, but the 0-120/130, the trap speed, the quarter mile time, the passing times. ALL of it. If it were just the 0-60 but the trap speed dropped, I'd agree, it's a big "whatever", but it wasn't. EVERYTHING improved except handling and braking by any notable margin. This indicates more than just environment, IMO. You don't get 2mph trap speed because a cloud was in the right place, unless the condition differences between the two tests are very extreme.
 
:
2018 AWD GT Premium Red/Black
Something doesn't add up. According to that, the 5-60 rolling start is longer than that at 6.4 seconds. My guess is they've inadvertently swapped the two numbers. The CX-5 is reported 0-60 at 6.4 seconds elsewhere.
 
:
2010 CX-9 GT
Rolling starts are always slower. C&D does whatever it takes (revs engine and stands on the brakes, basically) to get the best off the line start for the 0 to 60 numbers. This puts the engine in the heart of the powerband. The rolling start forces the engine to be near idle, which adds a delay until the engine revs build.

On another note, C&D's 0 to 60 numbers include "rollout" which is a nice way of saying they are overstated. You have to add 0.3 second to the numbers to get the real 0 to 60 time of 6.1....
 
:
CX5 GT-R
Rolling starts are always slower. C&D does whatever it takes (revs engine and stands on the brakes, basically) to get the best off the line start for the 0 to 60 numbers. This puts the engine in the heart of the powerband. The rolling start forces the engine to be near idle, which adds a delay until the engine revs build.

On another note, C&D's 0 to 60 numbers include "rollout" which is a nice way of saying they are overstated. You have to add 0.3 second to the numbers to get the real 0 to 60 time of 6.1....
Its standard. Every drag strip eliminates 1ft rollout.
 
:
2010 CX-9 GT
Its standard. Every drag strip eliminates 1ft rollout.

Sure, and I always shallow stage on the street.

This is the reason why Car and Driver always has quicker 0-60 times than say Edmunds or Consumer Reports because those sources don't report rollout adjusted times. Rollout is appropriate for quoting quarter mile dragstrip times but it is misleading for what happens in the real world.
 
:
2010 CX-9 GT
I am not sure anyone knows for certain how Mazda tuned the car. I've never seen ratings for octane values other than 87 and 93. I'd be curious to know what the "official" output on California 91 measures. There was a post on here somewhere where someone called Mazda and they said the output was linear with the Octane rating, so you would get 246 hp on 92 octane.
 
Top