Recent content by forties

Anybody running 15" wheels and winter tires on their CX-5?

Its a really good car. Congrats. Yea some finagglin' points like any car, but they are the small points, the BIG points are good on this one.

Shocks me how many cars get this so wrong. Make the damn thing drive CORRECTLY first before you even get into the other stuff like making it handle well or ride well. Duh. I have had the same experiences with other cars.. In 2019 I'm joyful just to have the car do what I tell it to do with...

I think its really dumb to write off a 300 ft lb engine "because four cylinder" but yes you could very well be correct.. consumers can be dumb. Like I said before there are kiddos out there making 500hp on 1.6 liter motors. They been doing it for decades.

The difference at 55 or 60 is going to be alot less than at 70 or 75. I would just try to drive slower when you know stuff is up there. Rackless, I did (dash indicated) 32mpg on a recent trip by tagging on the back of whatever the slowest car in the slow lane was. Actually one guy was doing...

Imagine a mazda6 with a 3.8 liter straight six turbo lump... with 375hp and 450 foot pounds.. that much power and torque you would have your case for your awd right there. Hopefully in house specc'd and designed to the vehicle in this case. And throw in the fancy boy wood interior bits and...

I don't know how this 6 cylinder thread got turned into a fwd vs awd thread.. but WEEE! I'll join the fray. FWD took over the market because packaging wise its easiest way. One lump up front means more space for passenger room, crash absorption, whatever you want to use the more space for...

I wonder about mpg. You already know the hp and tq will be good based on the n/a fours. Figure 220 to 290 depending on how they stroke/bore them. Guessing it will do really good mpg numbers with those funky partial fill combustion chambers and being even less loaded because sharing work...

None of the things in the original post bug me much. Ours gets driven by 5'5" driver and a 6' driver. No complaints as far as seats. I know I'm the one who defends the lack of upper rpm grunt due to mpg reasons. And 300 foot pound reasons. But yeah if I have to pick something to whine...

It makes sense on a smart ecm vehicle that it would get very slightly better mpg on fuel that gives more power. At any given power requirement on the road you are a few percent smaller throttle opening.. But yeah I'll stick with my 87. I don't think you can beat it dollar wise despite that...

I tend to prefer less invasive assists to the invasive ones, but what do I know. For better or worse, its coming. The car ads on tv showing negligent driving as being acceptable due to the assists.. well they are worrying. To say the least. As far as a 5 seater CX9, it makes no sense to me...

Ditto what they said, that 300 torques is nice. Coming from somebody who used to rev the pizza out of everything I drove/rode... well that can be fun also but this one doesn't respond well to that. Pretty flat up top. Back when I was shopping, it was transformer-esque Highlander styling...

Of course its got shortcomings and strong points just like any car. Seems like its strong points don't do much for you. If that is the case, there are probably better options.

I have the same suspicions as PTguy that high rpm is where the dude is "not feeling the boost" when in fact its just how the engine works. 300 foot pounds, 20mpg, high rpm punch. Pick two.

I've not had this happen yet, and I notice such things. Just another data point.